From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Aug 1 02:12:54 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:12:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Sharing the APrIGF 2012: Southeast Asian Civil Society Joint Statement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wot, no complaints about the DNS root zone? There are other issues? On Jul 31, 2012, at 10:26 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Shared elsewhere by a colleague, kindly find attached documents or simply the statement below as well as the endorser and issuer info. --Fouad > > APrIGF 2012: Southeast Asian Civil Society Joint Statement > From: john liu - forum-asia.org > Date: 31 July 2012 > > Please find attached a joint statement released today by Southeast Asian > civil society delegates to the recently-concluded APrIGF in Tokyo. The > statement includes our positions on issues of concern relating to the > Internet that we have highlighted during the APrIGF, as well as > recommendations to the MSG on improvements to the APrIGF process. > > We hope that this statement will help in your work, and that some of the > points will be reflected in the report to the Global IGF in Baku, as well > as in discussions for the next APrIGF. > > Please feel free to get back to us should you have any questions. All > signatories of this statement are copied on this email. > > Thank you. > > Best wishes, > John Liu > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) > > ----- > > Statement of Civil Society Delegates from Southeast Asia to > > 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) > > > 31 July 2012 > > * * > > *Southeast Asian Civil Society Groups Highlight Increasing Rights > Violations Online, Call for Improvements to Internet Governance Processes > in the Region* > > * * > > We, the undersigned civil society delegates from Southeast Asia who > attended and participated in the 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet > Governance Forum (APrIGF) on 18-20 July 2012 in > Tokyo, Japan, make this statement upon the conclusion of the meeting to > highlight the concerns that we raised throughout the forum. > > > We engaged in this meeting with the objective of raising human rights > concerns in relation to the Internet, particularly on issues of freedom of > expression and access to information online, as well as the role of civil > society in Internet governance and policymaking. We organised two panel > discussions, namely “Internet in Asia: Space for Free Expression and > Information” > and “Civil Society in Internet > Governance/Policymaking” > during > the 2012 APrIGF. Through these panel discussions, as well as in other > sessions that we participated in, we raised the following human rights > concerns in relation to the Internet: > > > *Increasing censorship and attacks to online expression* > > > The space for free expression on the Internet is shrinking. Many > governments are extending censorship and control of traditional media to > the Internet. In most cases, censorship measures are implemented in a > non-transparent manner, which makes it difficult to determine whether the > measures taken are in accordance with international laws and standards. > > > In some countries, citizens who make use of the free space on the internet > as bloggers, citizen journalists or social media users become targets of > attacks, arrest, and/or threats by state security agents. These actions by > state authorities produce a chilling effect on internet users resulting in > widespread self-censorship of social and political expression for fear of > reprisals from the government or its agents. > > > We thus call upon all governments to ensure that any measure to limit > freedom of expression and the right to information are in accordance with > international human rights laws and standards, particularly Article 19(3) > of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which > allows for limitations only on narrow and clearly-defined grounds, by > passing the “three-part, cumulative > test” > following > the principles of necessity, proportionality (ensuring that it is the least > restrictive measure) and transparency. Furthermore, any limitation to > freedom of expression, including censorship measures, must be determined by > an independent judicial body, and not left to the arbitrary powers of > governments or intermediaries. These parameters must apply in all > circumstances including during state of emergency and in name of national > security or public order. > > > *New laws and legislative amendments that curb freedom of speech online* > > > We are further alarmed by the growing number of laws and policies in > Southeast Asia that negatively impact freedom of expression on the > Internet. While we recognise the need to address cybercrime and legitimate > national security concerns, we are concerned that such laws seek to extend > media censorship and criminal defamation to the internet, and are also > being used to criminalize individuals or organizations expressing or > sharing legitimate social or political critique. > > > We reiterate that any restriction to freedom of expression on the Internet > must not risk citizens’ rights to hold opinions without interference and to > freedom of thought, conscience and religion as stipulated in Article 18 of > the ICCPR, and it must not be subject to lawful derogation as outlined in UN > General Comment No. 34. > We stress that any introduction of new laws or legislative amendments, > particularly those that could potentially impact human rights, must involve > extensive, inclusive and meaningful public consultations. We further urge > all governments in Southeast Asia to decriminalise defamation both online > and offline. > > > Additionally, we emphasize that the rule of law and the independence of the > judiciary remain among the key challenges to democracy in Southeast Asia. > Law-enforcement agencies and justice systems must presume innocence until > defendants are proven guilty, regardless of whether or not defamation is > criminal. Certain legislation, including those laws that criminalize > online speech and expression, are worth noting here as examples of > legislation in Southeast Asia that warrant close monitoring of their > enactment or enforcement: > > > · Burma – The 2004 Electronic Transactions Act > > · Cambodia – The 2012 Draft Cyber-Law, the 1995 Press Law, and the > 2010 Penal Code > > · Malaysia – The 2012 Amendment to the Evidence Act and the 2011 > Computing Professionals Bill > > · Indonesia – The 2008 Law on Information and Electronic > Transaction and the 2008 Law on Pornography > > · The Philippines – The 2012 Data Privacy Act > > · Thailand – The 2007 Computer Crimes Act, the Article 112 of the > Penal Code, and the 2004 Special Case Investigation Act > > · Vietnam – The 1999 Penal Code, the 2004 Publishing Law, the 2000 > State Secrets Protection Ordinance, and the 2012 Draft Decree on Internet > Management > > > *Intermediary liability* > > > We express our deep concern over the increasing pressures by governments on > internet service providers and content hosts to monitor, regulate and > censor online content. Consequently, such intermediaries are increasingly > being held legally and criminally liable for online content, including > content posted by other users. > > > We reiterate that the regulation of content on the Internet should be > determined by an independent judicial body, and not be left to > intermediaries. We further echo the call by the UN Special Rapporteur on > the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and > expression that intermediaries should not be held liable for online content. > > > *Violations by non-State actors, including those employed by governments* > > > Finally, we are alarmed at the rise of internet vigilante groups acting on > behalf of governments or powerful institutions to help monitor sensitive > information posted over the Internet through personal websites and social > media. Such groups often target persons expressing unpopular opinions and > subject them to abusive behaviour and threats. In some cases, such threats > have been carried out off-line in the form of discriminatory treatment, > physical attacks and even state prosecution of these targets. In addition, > critical and independent websites are frequently being targeted for hacking > and DDoS attacks. > > > We strongly remind all governments that it is their primary obligation to > promote and protect human rights, and this includes protecting its > citizens’ exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression from > violations by non-state actors online. > > > *Improving the APrIGF Process* > > > While we support and uphold the multi-stakeholder process of the IGF, and > value the opportunity to contribute to the global dialogue around these > crucial issues, several aspects of the APrIGF are in need of improvement: > > - Participation by governments across Asia was minimal despite the > multi-stakeholder framework that this forum purports to promote. This has > inevitably limited the dialogues between the different stakeholders on > Internet governance in the Asia-Pacific region. > > - Similarly, there was also inadequate civil society participation at > the APrIGF 2012. One of the reasons to this is that there is a perception > that the APrIGF is a largely ineffective forum in making needed efforts to > advance human rights in cyberspace. > - Multi-stakeholder discussions on and approaches to emerging human > rights issues concerning the Internet were largely limited at the APrIGF > 2012. > - Finally, there was a marked absence or lack of critical assessment of > the progress with regard to the implementation of recommendations made at > the previous APrIGF. This has contributed to the perception of the APrIGF’s > ineffectiveness. > > > *Recommendations to the APrIGF Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group* > > > In view of these shortcomings and with the hope of improving upon the 2012 > APrIGF, we offer the following recommendations to the APrIGF > Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group for future iterations of this event: > > ● To facilitate more robust dialogue and more engagement of those > participants who are not speaking on panels, we recommend *a more > participatory process for sessions*, with fewer time spent on panel > presentations, and more time dedicated to questions and comments from those > in the audience. > > ● In the interest of more a diverse dialogue, we recommend that > efforts be made to enlarge and broaden the spectrum of attendees at the > event. Special effort should be made to *encourage government and civil > society participation*, especially in view of the rare opportunity to > discuss such issues within the host country. Additionally, *the > affordability of the host city and the need for financial assistance *should > be taken into account as a factor that may make civil society participation > more or less likely. > > ● To encourage broader participation in session dialogues and bolster > engagement of civil society, we recommend that strong efforts be made > to*facilitate > inbound remote participation via video conferencing*. In addition to the > valuable service of live web-casting, remote participants should be > empowered to ask questions and make comments within a panel. This could be > facilitated with greater integration of social media, within the APrIGF > website. > > ● To ensure that all issues are well-represented within the > conversations at the APrIGF, we recommend that *at least one plenary > session be dedicated to social issues in internet governance*, such as > online freedom of expression, access to information and digital divide. > > ● To ensure that progress is made on issues discussed at the APrIGF > from one year to another, we recommend that *one plenary session be > dedicated to looking back at the issues raised and recommendations made at > the previous APrIGF*, and critically assessing progress made on those > issues. > > > *Recommendations to Southeast Asian governments* > > * * > > In addition, we make the following specific recommendations to our > respective governments in Southeast Asia: > > - ASEAN governments must ensure that *the ASEAN Human Rights > Declaration* explicitly > and unequivocally protects the right to freedom of expression and freedom > of information in accordance with international human rights laws and > standards. > - ASEAN governments should issue a joint statement to *pronounce their > commitment to uphold Internet freedom*. > > > - All regional governments should *involve civil society meaningfully > and inclusively in Internet policymaking*, especially in drafting laws > and policies that potentially impact human rights, including in > regional-policy arena that involve the issues related to ICT and internet > governance, such as: > - Regional economic integration by 2015 under the ASEAN Economic > Community (AEC). The AEC’s areas > of cooperation include a focus on internet governance, such as: “enhanced > infrastructure and communications connectivity”; and “development of > electronic transactions through e-ASEAN”. Currently, the AEC encourages > only business sector participation and not civil society. > - The ASEAN CIO Forum under the > ASEAN ICT Master Plan > 2015 > also > opens participation only to business sectors. The forum focuses on > CIO16 and its > objective is to “Taking leadership in collaboration and > transformation for > a competitive, highly productive and envisage a > concrete/positive ASEAN ICT > community.” The master plan aims to minimize digital divide and > make ICT in > the region be empowering, transformational, inclusive, vibrant, and > integrated for the people by 2015. > - All regional governments should attend and engage in regional IGFs to > dialogue with other stakeholders, including civil society, on regional > issues concerning the Internet. > > > > > Signed by: > > > Arthit SURIYAWONGKUL > > Coordinator > > Thai Netizen Network > > Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: arthit at gmail.com > > Tel: +66 87 504 2221 > > Pirongrong RAMASOOTA > > Thai Media Policy Center Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: pirongrong.r at gmail.com > > Tel: +66 89 770 8911 > > Triana DYAH > > Head, Information & Documentation Division > > The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy > (ELSAM) > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > E-mail: office at elsam.or.id > > Tel: +62 21 7972662 , 79192564 > > Fax: +62 21 79192519 > > > > > > > Edgardo LEGASPI > > Alerts & Communication officer > > Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) > > Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: epl at seapa.org > > Tel: +66 8 1116 5137 > > Fax: +66 2 2448749 > > Sean ANG > > Executive Director > > Southeast Asian Centre for e-Media (SEACeM) > > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > > E-mail: sean at seacem.com > > Tel: +60 3 2284 3367 > > Fax: +60 3 2289 2579 > > Victorius (Ndaru) EPS > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > > > > > > > > NGETH Moses > > Communication Coordinator > > Community Legal Education Center (CLEC) > > Phnom Penh, Cambodia > > E-mail: Moses at clec.org.kh > > Tel: (855) 66 777 010 > Fax: (855) 23 211 723 > > Sovathana (Nana) NEANG > > Phnom Penh, Cambodia > > > YAP Swee Seng > > Executive Director > > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development > (FORUM-ASIA) > > E-mail: yap at forum-asia.org > > Tel: +66 81 868 9178 > Fax: +66 2 6379128 > > > > > > > Endorsed by: > > > > > > ICT Watch (Indonesian ICT Partnership Association) > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > Email: info at ictwatch.com > > Tel: (021) 98495770 > > Fax: (021) 8280691 > -- > John Liu > East Asia (Southeast and Northeast Asia) Programme Officer > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development > (FORUM-ASIA) > 66/2 Pan Road, Silom, Bang Rak, Bangkok, 10500 Thailand > Tel: +66 2 637 9126 | Fax: +66 2 637 9128 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 03:36:42 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:36:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN Continues to Prove It Can't - Computerworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The same old debate of ICANN's blunders, conflicts of interest, registries and registrars running the ICANN show, the possible ITU takeover, and the negative impact of this takeover. Fahd On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 12:18 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/07/icann-continues-to-prove-it-cant/index.htm > > Fouad Bajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 1 05:33:50 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 10:33:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN Continues to Prove It Can't - Computerworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 10:36:42 on Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Fahd A. Batayneh writes >The same old debate of ICANN's blunders, conflicts of interest, >registries and registrars running the ICANN show, the possible ITU >takeover, and the negative impact of this takeover Not to mention re-running the old debate "why do we need more gTLDs anyway"? Presumably people will still be asking that in mid-2013 when the first new ones appear in the root. It's not an inappropriate question to ask, but it's a bit late now. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 05:38:48 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:38:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] Sharing the APrIGF 2012: Southeast Asian Civil Society Joint Statement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: While the joint statement mentions issues related to Privacy, Openness, and Access, they have neglected other important aspects such as Security and CIR. Fahd On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Shared elsewhere by a colleague, kindly find attached documents or simply > the statement below as well as the endorser and issuer info. --Fouad > > APrIGF 2012: Southeast Asian Civil Society Joint Statement > From: john liu - forum-asia.org > Date: 31 July 2012 > > Please find attached a joint statement released today by Southeast Asian > civil society delegates to the recently-concluded APrIGF in Tokyo. The > statement includes our positions on issues of concern relating to the > Internet that we have highlighted during the APrIGF, as well as > recommendations to the MSG on improvements to the APrIGF process. > > We hope that this statement will help in your work, and that some of the > points will be reflected in the report to the Global IGF in Baku, as well > as in discussions for the next APrIGF. > > Please feel free to get back to us should you have any questions. All > signatories of this statement are copied on this email. > > Thank you. > > Best wishes, > John Liu > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) > > ----- > > Statement of Civil Society Delegates from Southeast Asia to > > 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) > > 31 July 2012 > > * * > > *Southeast Asian Civil Society Groups Highlight Increasing Rights > Violations Online, Call for Improvements to Internet Governance Processes > in the Region* > > * * > > We, the undersigned civil society delegates from Southeast Asia who > attended and participated in the 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet > Governance Forum (APrIGF) on 18-20 July 2012 in > Tokyo, Japan, make this statement upon the conclusion of the meeting to > highlight the concerns that we raised throughout the forum. > > We engaged in this meeting with the objective of raising human rights > concerns in relation to the Internet, particularly on issues of freedom of > expression and access to information online, as well as the role of civil > society in Internet governance and policymaking. We organised two panel > discussions, namely “Internet in Asia: Space for Free Expression and > Information”< > http://2012.rigf.asia/session-c4-internet-for-asia-space-for-free-expression-information/ > > > and “Civil Society in Internet > Governance/Policymaking”< > http://2012.rigf.asia/session-b5-civil-society-in-internet-governance-policy-making/ > > > during > the 2012 APrIGF. Through these panel discussions, as well as in other > sessions that we participated in, we raised the following human rights > concerns in relation to the Internet: > > *Increasing censorship and attacks to online expression* > > The space for free expression on the Internet is shrinking. Many > governments are extending censorship and control of traditional media to > the Internet. In most cases, censorship measures are implemented in a > non-transparent manner, which makes it difficult to determine whether the > measures taken are in accordance with international laws and standards. > > In some countries, citizens who make use of the free space on the internet > as bloggers, citizen journalists or social media users become targets of > attacks, arrest, and/or threats by state security agents. These actions by > state authorities produce a chilling effect on internet users resulting in > widespread self-censorship of social and political expression for fear of > reprisals from the government or its agents. > > We thus call upon all governments to ensure that any measure to limit > freedom of expression and the right to information are in accordance with > international human rights laws and standards, particularly Article 19(3) > of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which > allows for limitations only on narrow and clearly-defined grounds, by > passing the “three-part, cumulative > test”< > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf > > > following > the principles of necessity, proportionality (ensuring that it is the least > restrictive measure) and transparency. Furthermore, any limitation to > freedom of expression, including censorship measures, must be determined by > an independent judicial body, and not left to the arbitrary powers of > governments or intermediaries. These parameters must apply in all > circumstances including during state of emergency and in name of national > security or public order. > > *New laws and legislative amendments that curb freedom of speech online* > > We are further alarmed by the growing number of laws and policies in > Southeast Asia that negatively impact freedom of expression on the > Internet. While we recognise the need to address cybercrime and legitimate > national security concerns, we are concerned that such laws seek to extend > media censorship and criminal defamation to the internet, and are also > being used to criminalize individuals or organizations expressing or > sharing legitimate social or political critique. > > We reiterate that any restriction to freedom of expression on the Internet > must not risk citizens’ rights to hold opinions without interference and to > freedom of thought, conscience and religion as stipulated in Article 18 of > the ICCPR, and it must not be subject to lawful derogation as outlined in > UN > General Comment No. 34< > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/gc34.pdf>. > We stress that any introduction of new laws or legislative amendments, > particularly those that could potentially impact human rights, must involve > extensive, inclusive and meaningful public consultations. We further urge > all governments in Southeast Asia to decriminalise defamation both online > and offline. > > Additionally, we emphasize that the rule of law and the independence of the > judiciary remain among the key challenges to democracy in Southeast Asia. > Law-enforcement agencies and justice systems must presume innocence until > defendants are proven guilty, regardless of whether or not defamation is > criminal. Certain legislation, including those laws that criminalize > online speech and expression, are worth noting here as examples of > legislation in Southeast Asia that warrant close monitoring of their > enactment or enforcement: > > · Burma – The 2004 Electronic Transactions Act > > · Cambodia – The 2012 Draft Cyber-Law, the 1995 Press Law, and the > 2010 Penal Code > > · Malaysia – The 2012 Amendment to the Evidence Act and the 2011 > Computing Professionals Bill > > · Indonesia – The 2008 Law on Information and Electronic > Transaction and the 2008 Law on Pornography > > · The Philippines – The 2012 Data Privacy Act > > · Thailand – The 2007 Computer Crimes Act, the Article 112 of the > Penal Code, and the 2004 Special Case Investigation Act > > · Vietnam – The 1999 Penal Code, the 2004 Publishing Law, the 2000 > State Secrets Protection Ordinance, and the 2012 Draft Decree on Internet > Management > > *Intermediary liability* > > We express our deep concern over the increasing pressures by governments on > internet service providers and content hosts to monitor, regulate and > censor online content. Consequently, such intermediaries are increasingly > being held legally and criminally liable for online content, including > content posted by other users. > > We reiterate that the regulation of content on the Internet should be > determined by an independent judicial body, and not be left to > intermediaries. We further echo the call by the UN Special Rapporteur on > the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and > expression that intermediaries should not be held liable for online > content. > > *Violations by non-State actors, including those employed by governments* > > Finally, we are alarmed at the rise of internet vigilante groups acting on > behalf of governments or powerful institutions to help monitor sensitive > information posted over the Internet through personal websites and social > media. Such groups often target persons expressing unpopular opinions and > subject them to abusive behaviour and threats. In some cases, such threats > have been carried out off-line in the form of discriminatory treatment, > physical attacks and even state prosecution of these targets. In addition, > critical and independent websites are frequently being targeted for hacking > and DDoS attacks. > > We strongly remind all governments that it is their primary obligation to > promote and protect human rights, and this includes protecting its > citizens’ exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression from > violations by non-state actors online. > > *Improving the APrIGF Process* > > While we support and uphold the multi-stakeholder process of the IGF, and > value the opportunity to contribute to the global dialogue around these > crucial issues, several aspects of the APrIGF are in need of improvement: > > - Participation by governments across Asia was minimal despite the > multi-stakeholder framework that this forum purports to promote. This > has > inevitably limited the dialogues between the different stakeholders on > Internet governance in the Asia-Pacific region. > > - Similarly, there was also inadequate civil society participation at > the APrIGF 2012. One of the reasons to this is that there is a > perception > that the APrIGF is a largely ineffective forum in making needed efforts > to > advance human rights in cyberspace. > - Multi-stakeholder discussions on and approaches to emerging human > rights issues concerning the Internet were largely limited at the APrIGF > 2012. > - Finally, there was a marked absence or lack of critical assessment of > the progress with regard to the implementation of recommendations made > at > the previous APrIGF. This has contributed to the perception of the > APrIGF’s > ineffectiveness. > > *Recommendations to the APrIGF Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group* > > In view of these shortcomings and with the hope of improving upon the 2012 > APrIGF, we offer the following recommendations to the APrIGF > Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group for future iterations of this event: > > ● To facilitate more robust dialogue and more engagement of those > participants who are not speaking on panels, we recommend *a more > participatory process for sessions*, with fewer time spent on panel > presentations, and more time dedicated to questions and comments from those > in the audience. > > ● In the interest of more a diverse dialogue, we recommend that > efforts be made to enlarge and broaden the spectrum of attendees at the > event. Special effort should be made to *encourage government and civil > society participation*, especially in view of the rare opportunity to > discuss such issues within the host country. Additionally, *the > affordability of the host city and the need for financial assistance > *should > be taken into account as a factor that may make civil society participation > more or less likely. > > ● To encourage broader participation in session dialogues and bolster > engagement of civil society, we recommend that strong efforts be made > to*facilitate > inbound remote participation via video conferencing*. In addition to the > valuable service of live web-casting, remote participants should be > empowered to ask questions and make comments within a panel. This could be > facilitated with greater integration of social media, within the APrIGF > website. > > ● To ensure that all issues are well-represented within the > conversations at the APrIGF, we recommend that *at least one plenary > session be dedicated to social issues in internet governance*, such as > online freedom of expression, access to information and digital divide. > > ● To ensure that progress is made on issues discussed at the APrIGF > from one year to another, we recommend that *one plenary session be > dedicated to looking back at the issues raised and recommendations made at > the previous APrIGF*, and critically assessing progress made on those > issues. > > *Recommendations to Southeast Asian governments* > > * * > > In addition, we make the following specific recommendations to our > respective governments in Southeast Asia: > > - ASEAN governments must ensure that *the ASEAN Human Rights > Declaration* explicitly > and unequivocally protects the right to freedom of expression and > freedom > of information in accordance with international human rights laws and > standards. > - ASEAN governments should issue a joint statement to *pronounce their > commitment to uphold Internet freedom*. > > - All regional governments should *involve civil society meaningfully > and inclusively in Internet policymaking*, especially in drafting laws > and policies that potentially impact human rights, including in > regional-policy arena that involve the issues related to ICT and > internet > governance, such as: > - Regional economic integration by 2015 under the ASEAN Economic > Community (AEC). The AEC’s areas > of cooperation include a focus on internet governance, such as: > “enhanced > infrastructure and communications connectivity”; and “development of > electronic transactions through e-ASEAN”. Currently, the AEC > encourages > only business sector participation and not civil society. > - The ASEAN CIO Forum > under the > ASEAN ICT Master Plan > 2015 > > also > opens participation only to business sectors. The forum focuses on > CIO16 and its > objective is to “Taking leadership in collaboration and > transformation for > a competitive, highly productive and envisage a > concrete/positive ASEAN ICT > community.” The master plan aims to minimize digital divide and > make ICT in > the region be empowering, transformational, inclusive, vibrant, and > integrated for the people by 2015. > - All regional governments should attend and engage in regional IGFs to > dialogue with other stakeholders, including civil society, on regional > issues concerning the Internet. > > > > Signed by: > > Arthit SURIYAWONGKUL > > Coordinator > > Thai Netizen Network > > Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: arthit at gmail.com > > Tel: +66 87 504 2221 > > Pirongrong RAMASOOTA > > Thai Media Policy Center Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: pirongrong.r at gmail.com > > Tel: +66 89 770 8911 > > Triana DYAH > > Head, Information & Documentation Division > > The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy > (ELSAM) > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > E-mail: office at elsam.or.id > > Tel: +62 21 7972662 , 79192564 > > Fax: +62 21 79192519 > > > > > > Edgardo LEGASPI > > Alerts & Communication officer > > Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) > > Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: epl at seapa.org > > Tel: +66 8 1116 5137 > > Fax: +66 2 2448749 > > Sean ANG > > Executive Director > > Southeast Asian Centre for e-Media (SEACeM) > > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > > E-mail: sean at seacem.com > > Tel: +60 3 2284 3367 > > Fax: +60 3 2289 2579 > > Victorius (Ndaru) EPS > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > > > > > > > NGETH Moses > > Communication Coordinator > > Community Legal Education Center (CLEC) > > Phnom Penh, Cambodia > > E-mail: Moses at clec.org.kh > > Tel: (855) 66 777 010 > Fax: (855) 23 211 723 > > Sovathana (Nana) NEANG > > Phnom Penh, Cambodia > > YAP Swee Seng > > Executive Director > > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development > (FORUM-ASIA) > > E-mail: yap at forum-asia.org > > Tel: +66 81 868 9178 > Fax: +66 2 6379128 > > > > > > Endorsed by: > > > > > ICT Watch (Indonesian ICT Partnership Association) > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > Email: info at ictwatch.com > > Tel: (021) 98495770 > > Fax: (021) 8280691 > -- > John Liu > East Asia (Southeast and Northeast Asia) Programme Officer > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development > (FORUM-ASIA) > 66/2 Pan Road, Silom, Bang Rak, Bangkok, 10500 Thailand > Tel: +66 2 637 9126 | Fax: +66 2 637 9128 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 05:48:03 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:48:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Arab IGF] Call for workshops at the Arab IGF In-Reply-To: <8edd6384046786ceda24fdc9c7ef1a74.squirrel@mail.igfarab.org> References: <8edd6384046786ceda24fdc9c7ef1a74.squirrel@mail.igfarab.org> Message-ID: For those interested in being part of the Arab IGF debate in Kuwait City this coming October. Fahd ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Arab IGF Secretariat Date: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 11:37 AM Subject: [Arab IGF] Call for workshops at the Arab IGF To: list at igfarab.org Dear all, The call for workshops at the first meeting of the Arab IGF (Kuwait, 9-11 October 2012) is now published at: http://igfarab.org/index.php/latest-news/item/84-organize-a-workshop-within-the-activities-of-the-first-meeting-of-the-forum Please spread the word within your communities. You are encouraged to put forward workshop proposals using the template published within the "call for workshops" document, and send it to workshops at igfarab.org by *31 August 2012*. Proposals will be reviewed by a dedicated working group within the Arab Multistakeholder Advisory Group (AMAG) according to the criteria described in the published document. Best Regards, -- Arab IGF Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 1 05:58:14 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 12:58:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [AMAG] Call for workshops published In-Reply-To: <42374AD0B05558458E006DC2AAAB95E501B699D9@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <42374AD0B05558458E006DC2AAAB95E501B699D9@NTRA-EXCH-02.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: Find Attached the call for workshops for the first Arab IGF meeting in Kuwait. The announcement is posted In the swcretariate website. We look forward to receive workshop proposals from all interested stakeholders. Best Regards, Qusai AlShatti ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: *Hisham Aboulyazed* Date: Wednesday, August 1, 2012 Subject: [AMAG] Call for workshops published To: Arab Multistakeholder Advisory Group of the Arab IGF Dear all AMAG members,**** The call for workshops is now published on the website at:**** http://igfarab.org/index.php/latest-news/item/84-organize-a-workshop-within-the-activities-of-the-first-meeting-of-the-forum **** ** ** Please spread the word within your communities. As indicated in the call document, proposals should be sent to workshops at igfarab.orgno later than 31 August 2012. **** ** ** As AMAG members, we are also counting on your effort putting forward workshop proposals through entities you are affiliated with. **** ** ** Thanks and best,**** --**** Hisham Aboulyazed**** Senior Manager, WSIS Affairs **** Telecom Services Planning, NTRA**** hyazed at tra.gov.eg **** T: +20 2 35344113**** M: +20 10 5281571**** F: +20 2 35344155/6**** ** ** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 1 06:52:45 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 06:52:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN Continues to Prove It Can't - Computerworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > The same old debate of ICANN's blunders, but one with an anti-ICANN bias: Very few would call a decade a "headlong rush". Usual clueless wankerage masquerading as tech journalism. -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Wed Aug 1 07:52:04 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 07:52:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Sharing the APrIGF 2012: Southeast Asian Civil Society Joint Statement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <391361A4-F1FC-4687-9D6E-47C259A3A6D4@privaterra.org> I would suggest sending comments to the signatories of the statement as not sure they are subscribed to this list. Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-08-01, at 5:38 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > While the joint statement mentions issues related to Privacy, Openness, and Access, they have neglected other important aspects such as Security and CIR. > > Fahd > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Shared elsewhere by a colleague, kindly find attached documents or simply the statement below as well as the endorser and issuer info. --Fouad > > APrIGF 2012: Southeast Asian Civil Society Joint Statement > From: john liu - forum-asia.org > Date: 31 July 2012 > > Please find attached a joint statement released today by Southeast Asian > civil society delegates to the recently-concluded APrIGF in Tokyo. The > statement includes our positions on issues of concern relating to the > Internet that we have highlighted during the APrIGF, as well as > recommendations to the MSG on improvements to the APrIGF process. > > We hope that this statement will help in your work, and that some of the > points will be reflected in the report to the Global IGF in Baku, as well > as in discussions for the next APrIGF. > > Please feel free to get back to us should you have any questions. All > signatories of this statement are copied on this email. > > Thank you. > > Best wishes, > John Liu > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) > > ----- > > Statement of Civil Society Delegates from Southeast Asia to > > 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) > > > 31 July 2012 > > * * > > *Southeast Asian Civil Society Groups Highlight Increasing Rights > Violations Online, Call for Improvements to Internet Governance Processes > in the Region* > > * * > > We, the undersigned civil society delegates from Southeast Asia who > attended and participated in the 2012 Asia-Pacific Regional Internet > Governance Forum (APrIGF) on 18-20 July 2012 in > Tokyo, Japan, make this statement upon the conclusion of the meeting to > highlight the concerns that we raised throughout the forum. > > > We engaged in this meeting with the objective of raising human rights > concerns in relation to the Internet, particularly on issues of freedom of > expression and access to information online, as well as the role of civil > society in Internet governance and policymaking. We organised two panel > discussions, namely “Internet in Asia: Space for Free Expression and > Information” > and “Civil Society in Internet > Governance/Policymaking” > during > the 2012 APrIGF. Through these panel discussions, as well as in other > sessions that we participated in, we raised the following human rights > concerns in relation to the Internet: > > > *Increasing censorship and attacks to online expression* > > > The space for free expression on the Internet is shrinking. Many > governments are extending censorship and control of traditional media to > the Internet. In most cases, censorship measures are implemented in a > non-transparent manner, which makes it difficult to determine whether the > measures taken are in accordance with international laws and standards. > > > In some countries, citizens who make use of the free space on the internet > as bloggers, citizen journalists or social media users become targets of > attacks, arrest, and/or threats by state security agents. These actions by > state authorities produce a chilling effect on internet users resulting in > widespread self-censorship of social and political expression for fear of > reprisals from the government or its agents. > > > We thus call upon all governments to ensure that any measure to limit > freedom of expression and the right to information are in accordance with > international human rights laws and standards, particularly Article 19(3) > of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which > allows for limitations only on narrow and clearly-defined grounds, by > passing the “three-part, cumulative > test” > following > the principles of necessity, proportionality (ensuring that it is the least > restrictive measure) and transparency. Furthermore, any limitation to > freedom of expression, including censorship measures, must be determined by > an independent judicial body, and not left to the arbitrary powers of > governments or intermediaries. These parameters must apply in all > circumstances including during state of emergency and in name of national > security or public order. > > > *New laws and legislative amendments that curb freedom of speech online* > > > We are further alarmed by the growing number of laws and policies in > Southeast Asia that negatively impact freedom of expression on the > Internet. While we recognise the need to address cybercrime and legitimate > national security concerns, we are concerned that such laws seek to extend > media censorship and criminal defamation to the internet, and are also > being used to criminalize individuals or organizations expressing or > sharing legitimate social or political critique. > > > We reiterate that any restriction to freedom of expression on the Internet > must not risk citizens’ rights to hold opinions without interference and to > freedom of thought, conscience and religion as stipulated in Article 18 of > the ICCPR, and it must not be subject to lawful derogation as outlined in UN > General Comment No. 34. > We stress that any introduction of new laws or legislative amendments, > particularly those that could potentially impact human rights, must involve > extensive, inclusive and meaningful public consultations. We further urge > all governments in Southeast Asia to decriminalise defamation both online > and offline. > > > Additionally, we emphasize that the rule of law and the independence of the > judiciary remain among the key challenges to democracy in Southeast Asia. > Law-enforcement agencies and justice systems must presume innocence until > defendants are proven guilty, regardless of whether or not defamation is > criminal. Certain legislation, including those laws that criminalize > online speech and expression, are worth noting here as examples of > legislation in Southeast Asia that warrant close monitoring of their > enactment or enforcement: > > > · Burma – The 2004 Electronic Transactions Act > > · Cambodia – The 2012 Draft Cyber-Law, the 1995 Press Law, and the > 2010 Penal Code > > · Malaysia – The 2012 Amendment to the Evidence Act and the 2011 > Computing Professionals Bill > > · Indonesia – The 2008 Law on Information and Electronic > Transaction and the 2008 Law on Pornography > > · The Philippines – The 2012 Data Privacy Act > > · Thailand – The 2007 Computer Crimes Act, the Article 112 of the > Penal Code, and the 2004 Special Case Investigation Act > > · Vietnam – The 1999 Penal Code, the 2004 Publishing Law, the 2000 > State Secrets Protection Ordinance, and the 2012 Draft Decree on Internet > Management > > > *Intermediary liability* > > > We express our deep concern over the increasing pressures by governments on > internet service providers and content hosts to monitor, regulate and > censor online content. Consequently, such intermediaries are increasingly > being held legally and criminally liable for online content, including > content posted by other users. > > > We reiterate that the regulation of content on the Internet should be > determined by an independent judicial body, and not be left to > intermediaries. We further echo the call by the UN Special Rapporteur on > the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and > expression that intermediaries should not be held liable for online content. > > > *Violations by non-State actors, including those employed by governments* > > > Finally, we are alarmed at the rise of internet vigilante groups acting on > behalf of governments or powerful institutions to help monitor sensitive > information posted over the Internet through personal websites and social > media. Such groups often target persons expressing unpopular opinions and > subject them to abusive behaviour and threats. In some cases, such threats > have been carried out off-line in the form of discriminatory treatment, > physical attacks and even state prosecution of these targets. In addition, > critical and independent websites are frequently being targeted for hacking > and DDoS attacks. > > > We strongly remind all governments that it is their primary obligation to > promote and protect human rights, and this includes protecting its > citizens’ exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression from > violations by non-state actors online. > > > *Improving the APrIGF Process* > > > While we support and uphold the multi-stakeholder process of the IGF, and > value the opportunity to contribute to the global dialogue around these > crucial issues, several aspects of the APrIGF are in need of improvement: > > - Participation by governments across Asia was minimal despite the > multi-stakeholder framework that this forum purports to promote. This has > inevitably limited the dialogues between the different stakeholders on > Internet governance in the Asia-Pacific region. > > - Similarly, there was also inadequate civil society participation at > the APrIGF 2012. One of the reasons to this is that there is a perception > that the APrIGF is a largely ineffective forum in making needed efforts to > advance human rights in cyberspace. > - Multi-stakeholder discussions on and approaches to emerging human > rights issues concerning the Internet were largely limited at the APrIGF > 2012. > - Finally, there was a marked absence or lack of critical assessment of > the progress with regard to the implementation of recommendations made at > the previous APrIGF. This has contributed to the perception of the APrIGF’s > ineffectiveness. > > > *Recommendations to the APrIGF Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group* > > > In view of these shortcomings and with the hope of improving upon the 2012 > APrIGF, we offer the following recommendations to the APrIGF > Multi-stakeholder Strategy Group for future iterations of this event: > > ● To facilitate more robust dialogue and more engagement of those > participants who are not speaking on panels, we recommend *a more > participatory process for sessions*, with fewer time spent on panel > presentations, and more time dedicated to questions and comments from those > in the audience. > > ● In the interest of more a diverse dialogue, we recommend that > efforts be made to enlarge and broaden the spectrum of attendees at the > event. Special effort should be made to *encourage government and civil > society participation*, especially in view of the rare opportunity to > discuss such issues within the host country. Additionally, *the > affordability of the host city and the need for financial assistance *should > be taken into account as a factor that may make civil society participation > more or less likely. > > ● To encourage broader participation in session dialogues and bolster > engagement of civil society, we recommend that strong efforts be made > to*facilitate > inbound remote participation via video conferencing*. In addition to the > valuable service of live web-casting, remote participants should be > empowered to ask questions and make comments within a panel. This could be > facilitated with greater integration of social media, within the APrIGF > website. > > ● To ensure that all issues are well-represented within the > conversations at the APrIGF, we recommend that *at least one plenary > session be dedicated to social issues in internet governance*, such as > online freedom of expression, access to information and digital divide. > > ● To ensure that progress is made on issues discussed at the APrIGF > from one year to another, we recommend that *one plenary session be > dedicated to looking back at the issues raised and recommendations made at > the previous APrIGF*, and critically assessing progress made on those > issues. > > > *Recommendations to Southeast Asian governments* > > * * > > In addition, we make the following specific recommendations to our > respective governments in Southeast Asia: > > - ASEAN governments must ensure that *the ASEAN Human Rights > Declaration* explicitly > and unequivocally protects the right to freedom of expression and freedom > of information in accordance with international human rights laws and > standards. > - ASEAN governments should issue a joint statement to *pronounce their > commitment to uphold Internet freedom*. > > > - All regional governments should *involve civil society meaningfully > and inclusively in Internet policymaking*, especially in drafting laws > and policies that potentially impact human rights, including in > regional-policy arena that involve the issues related to ICT and internet > governance, such as: > - Regional economic integration by 2015 under the ASEAN Economic > Community (AEC). The AEC’s areas > of cooperation include a focus on internet governance, such as: “enhanced > infrastructure and communications connectivity”; and “development of > electronic transactions through e-ASEAN”. Currently, the AEC encourages > only business sector participation and not civil society. > - The ASEAN CIO Forum under the > ASEAN ICT Master Plan > 2015 > also > opens participation only to business sectors. The forum focuses on > CIO16 and its > objective is to “Taking leadership in collaboration and > transformation for > a competitive, highly productive and envisage a > concrete/positive ASEAN ICT > community.” The master plan aims to minimize digital divide and > make ICT in > the region be empowering, transformational, inclusive, vibrant, and > integrated for the people by 2015. > - All regional governments should attend and engage in regional IGFs to > dialogue with other stakeholders, including civil society, on regional > issues concerning the Internet. > > > > > Signed by: > > > Arthit SURIYAWONGKUL > > Coordinator > > Thai Netizen Network > > Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: arthit at gmail.com > > Tel: +66 87 504 2221 > > Pirongrong RAMASOOTA > > Thai Media Policy Center Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: pirongrong.r at gmail.com > > Tel: +66 89 770 8911 > > Triana DYAH > > Head, Information & Documentation Division > > The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy > (ELSAM) > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > E-mail: office at elsam.or.id > > Tel: +62 21 7972662 , 79192564 > > Fax: +62 21 79192519 > > > > > > > Edgardo LEGASPI > > Alerts & Communication officer > > Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) > > Bangkok, Thailand > > E-mail: epl at seapa.org > > Tel: +66 8 1116 5137 > > Fax: +66 2 2448749 > > Sean ANG > > Executive Director > > Southeast Asian Centre for e-Media (SEACeM) > > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > > E-mail: sean at seacem.com > > Tel: +60 3 2284 3367 > > Fax: +60 3 2289 2579 > > Victorius (Ndaru) EPS > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > > > > > > > > NGETH Moses > > Communication Coordinator > > Community Legal Education Center (CLEC) > > Phnom Penh, Cambodia > > E-mail: Moses at clec.org.kh > > Tel: (855) 66 777 010 > Fax: (855) 23 211 723 > > Sovathana (Nana) NEANG > > Phnom Penh, Cambodia > > > YAP Swee Seng > > Executive Director > > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development > (FORUM-ASIA) > > E-mail: yap at forum-asia.org > > Tel: +66 81 868 9178 > Fax: +66 2 6379128 > > > > > > > Endorsed by: > > > > > > ICT Watch (Indonesian ICT Partnership Association) > > Jakarta, Indonesia > > Email: info at ictwatch.com > > Tel: (021) 98495770 > > Fax: (021) 8280691 > -- > John Liu > East Asia (Southeast and Northeast Asia) Programme Officer > Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development > (FORUM-ASIA) > 66/2 Pan Road, Silom, Bang Rak, Bangkok, 10500 Thailand > Tel: +66 2 637 9126 | Fax: +66 2 637 9128 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 1 10:41:02 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 14:41:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] ICANN Continues to Prove It Can't - Computerworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DABD4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> An amazingly uninformed article. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:18 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] ICANN Continues to Prove It Can't - Computerworld http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/07/icann-continues-to-prove-it-cant/index.htm Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Aug 1 10:53:38 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 19:53:38 +0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN Continues to Prove It Can't - Computerworld In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DABD4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DABD4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Milton, That was exactly the reason for sharing this article. These uninformed and outside the community observers tend to write such matter and misguide the readers at large. This is one area that should be countered from with the ICANN and IGF related communities and stakeholders that well informed content should be spread across the Internet though that is wishful thinking but still is a pragmatic perception. Best Fouad On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > An amazingly uninformed article. > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Fouad Bajwa > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 5:18 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] ICANN Continues to Prove It Can't - Computerworld > > > > http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/07/icann-continues-to-prove-it-cant/index.htm > > Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Aug 2 01:19:35 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:19:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) Message-ID: "Globally, Internet Traffic Passes Through 13 Root Servers" (!) Question: Who governs the internet at present? Sachin Pilot, minister of state for communications and information technology: "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of them are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These servers move the information. I believe India and other countries ought to play a much more relevant role in managing traffic flows. The internet is a global resource whose governance can't be limited to a particular geography." (Times of India, interview ) Excellent, we're back in 2002/3. Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Thu Aug 2 01:36:22 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 05:36:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Adam, what was the phrase? a painfully misinformed... reason to keep these people's hands off the Internet? What surprises me most, again and again, is supposedly knowledgeable civil society organizations who bow to them. Please someone tell us if there has been any protest in India by Internet-governance related experts. It may have been discreet, polite, subdued, away from our line of sight... How much can something like this be averted, at least looking to the long term, with capacity building at the IGF? Have the potential allies in the original IBSA and successors at least clenched their teeth given the reputation damage their proposals suffer at the hands of statements like this? Should we decry this now and save this person and associated institutions of the public shame his predecessor at last year's IGF put herself in the unenviable position to suffer? What does enlightened civil-society etiquette recommend? Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] en nombre de Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Enviado el: jueves, 02 de agosto de 2012 00:19 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) "Globally, Internet Traffic Passes Through 13 Root Servers" (!) Question: Who governs the internet at present? Sachin Pilot, minister of state for communications and information technology: "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of them are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These servers move the information. I believe India and other countries ought to play a much more relevant role in managing traffic flows. The internet is a global resource whose governance can't be limited to a particular geography." (Times of India, interview ) Excellent, we're back in 2002/3. Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Aug 2 01:50:40 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 22:50:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> On Aug 1, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > (Times of India, interview > ) I will admit I find the level of knowledge demonstrated in the responses from a "minister of state for communications and information technology" in that interview quite distressing. For those more attuned to political realities than I, how should the 'technical community' go about improving the level of understanding of the basic systems used by the Internet? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 2 03:20:00 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:20:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <501A2A20.5000002@gmail.com> On a scale of 1 to 10, how does this rate with "you cannot have more than 1 root" of the politics of WSIS? On 2012/08/02 07:19 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > "Globally, Internet Traffic Passes Through 13 Root Servers" (!) > > > Question: Who governs the internet at present? > > Sachin Pilot, minister of state for communications and information technology: > > "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of > them are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These > servers move the information. I believe India and other countries > ought to play a much more relevant role in managing traffic flows. The > internet is a global resource whose governance can't be limited to a > particular geography." > > (Times of India, interview > ) > > Excellent, we're back in 2002/3. > > Adam > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 03:26:52 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:26:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well, it is not very much surprising to me. After all, that is what politicians do, they lack understanding, they mess things up, and claim that the west is behind such a conspiracy. With India hosting the third IGF meeting (in Hyderabad) and the 31st ICANN meeting (in New Delhi), he should have done much better. Fahd On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > < > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120729_globally_internet_traffic_passes_through_13_root_servers/#.UBoL2jEe7hU > > > "Globally, Internet Traffic Passes Through 13 Root Servers" (!) > > > Question: Who governs the internet at present? > > Sachin Pilot, minister of state for communications and information > technology: > > "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of > them are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These > servers move the information. I believe India and other countries > ought to play a much more relevant role in managing traffic flows. The > internet is a global resource whose governance can't be limited to a > particular geography." > > (Times of India, interview > < > http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-30/edit-page/32924041_1_internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers > >) > > Excellent, we're back in 2002/3. > > Adam > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 2 03:33:46 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 08:33:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> References: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> Message-ID: In message <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20 at virtualized.org>, at 22:50:40 on Wed, 1 Aug 2012, David Conrad writes >> (Times of India, interview >> ) > >I will admit I find the level of knowledge demonstrated in the >responses from a "minister of state for communications and >information technology" in that interview quite distressing. >For those more attuned to political realities than I, how should >the 'technical community' go about improving the level of >understanding of the basic systems used by the Internet? It's relative straightforward, and is done by numerous interest groups[1] in other fields much more extensively than by the ITC. Critics call it "lobbying" but the more enlightened call it "outreach". There are numerous outlets for this, one of which is the preparations and delivery of the IGF, but there are many other opportunities, for example within relevant ITU groups, at the OECD, at ECOSOC and others too numerous to mention. As far as I'm concerned, one of the tricks is to try to fit in, rather than stick out. And as one seasoned Brussels lobbyist advises "always be there, and never be late". And I don't mean just standing up and trying to influence the outcome of meetings (always tempting in a multistakeholder environment, but doesn't work so well as an outsider at membership meetings), although that is occasionally a useful tactic if it's seen as constructive by the other participants. I mean briefing and informing the participants particularly rival lobbyists (some people find that odd, but it works) the government representatives and where possible their ministers. Right on topic, in 2001 I recall taking a newly appointed UK ministry official on a tour of Telehouse in London, showing him the K root server box, and explaining what it did (and more importantly what it didn't do, and why no-one would notice if I were to unplug it for a few seconds). In the rack next door were some Nominet [.uk] servers and down the corridor the main LINX suite, so we talked about those too. Around the same time I had some formal and informal meetings with the UK's "Internet Minister" which had a direct effect on the implementation of some privacy regulations, and across the road I went and explained to a Home Office minister what a url was (at 8am in the morning!), so he could be happy about some traffic data definitions being worked into a new lawful intercept law. Between 2005 and 2010 I performed a similar role for RIPE NCC, and took my roadshow worldwide. More recently I've been educating the authorities in the UK about the harm that comes from Internet trolls and Facebook stalkers, but would be happy to advise any relevant interest groups on how to raise their profiles and reduce the level of misinformation in circulation. And if you want someone to attend a meeting and put your point of view forward in a constructive manner, so people say "now that you've taken the trouble to explain this to us, in terms we can understand, obviously we entirely agree) I can do that too. [1] That's the most neutral generic word I can think of that also fits the Internet Technical Community. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 2 04:17:02 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:47:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - day 2, discussion of ITRs] In-Reply-To: References: <500E24CF.5050805@itforchange.net> <500E5A94.3020706@itforchange.net> <4$vH9q+dspDQFAHs@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <501A377E.4090009@itforchange.net> Hi Sala On Wednesday 25 July 2012 01:04 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Parminder and Peng Hwa, > > I hope you can find common ground. There may be differences in what we > perceive to be "methodology" no, this is not a 'methodology' issue, it is very substantive. > but that should not stop continued engagement and interaction. We > would encourage you to try and sort this is a > logistical/administrative conflict offline. I am most surprised by your continued undermining of the very important issues of participation, accountability and transparency of events describing themselves as regional IGFs, calling them all kinds of names - methodological, logistical, administrative etc.... It is quite funny too, since this list has seldom done much more that stood up for multi-stakeholderism in IG. Why wouldn't you consider MSism a methodology/ admin/ logistical issue. One is further disappointed, especially since you are a co-coordinator of the IGC, that you want this important discussion to be taken offline. > (snip) > As has been mentioned the Secretariat has developed guidelines. I am sure you would have read them, so can I ask you if you consider them good and sufficient guidelines. In my view, it is these IGF secretariat guidelines that you can safely call as methodological/ administrative/ logistical, rather than the substantive discussions on representativity, participation, transparency etc that I am seeking. regards, Parminder > > Kind Regards, > Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 2 04:18:18 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:48:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - day 2, discussion of ITRs] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <501A37CA.9010907@itforchange.net> Peng Hwa (and Izumi) On Tuesday 24 July 2012 05:17 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > Parminder, > > Back from a meeting between the emails. > > First things first. Thank you for your email. I cannot imagine > ignoring your email. (In fact, the 2011 email shows that neither you > nor the issue was ever "completely ignored.") It is not about ignoring me. It is about the issues that not only were ignored, they are still being ignored. You still havent answered, any of the questions that I raised in my 2010 conversations, 2011 email or even in the present exchange. You havent told me why UNESCAP was not approached when most other regional IGF involve the regional UN commissions, you havent told me why efforts were not made to connect to non-technical community NGOs before preparation begun, including those persons/ groups who were involved with WSIS Asia Pacific caucus for instance, why almost no government seems to be involved, i have no clear information on who were on the organising committee (simple information, isnt it, why not share it), who set up the organising committee, who all funded the event, how many and which all participants to the event were funded and on what criteria etc...... Now, before you hasten to think that I am being especially non understanding and harsh on you, pl know that I ask the same questions from the global IGF (in fact IGC has been doing it consistently) and I/ we also did our best to get much of this into the report of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. So, if I dont ask these question vis a vis an event calling itself the regional AP IGF, I will be being very inconsistent (which unfortunately, some people on this list are being) > I like to think that I would have answered at least some of your > suggestions but I honestly cannot recall it now. No, you did not. The proof of it is, you still havent even when I ask again. > > Be that as it may, I may have felt that you were "mollified" (aka > agree to disagree) because at that time, you had questioned the > legitimacy of the APrIGF. I had said that the legitimacy argument > would in fact play into the hands of those who question the legitimacy > of civil society, an argument that I thought you accepted. Hence the > friendly invite for 2011. > > I'm wondering if the debate is now moot because: > > 1. The IGF Secretariat has now come up with the guidelines for what a > regional or national IGF should contain. (The Secretariat itself > clearly has no problems with others using the IGF to indicate > their national or regional IGF is part of the UN-level IGF.) This > is a rather low bar and the APrIGF meets it. > It is not enough if they set the bar low , it is not that civil society is just sitting to receive with fulsome gratitude whatever the IGF secretariat does or communicates (no, that is not how we have worked traditionally) .We make and let know our positions. The question is, are you fine with the low bar set for regional IGFs? If so, why did we fight so much for raising the bar for the global IGF through our engagements with the WG on IGF improvements, Will be very grateful for an answer, especially from Izumi who was on the WG. > 1. The APrIGF is now under AP*. Some processes have been put in > place for approval of the venue, chair of the PC, etc. > I dont think many people here know what AP* is, and therefore you will have to elaborate. I see it as a group largelyoforganisations that tend to see themselves as the technical community, right! So, perhaps, the equivalent of what you are declaring as the grounds of legitimacy for the so call AP IGF will be someone saying global IGF is now very fine and immune from criticism because' it is now under ISOC'..... I dont know whether you are aware of it or not, but some such proposal, to put IGF under the ISOCs, were mooted during the IGF, but most civil society strongly opposed it. In this background, your claim that your AP rIGF is legitimate because 'now' it is under a loose unclear technical community umbrella group sounds to me rather revisionist from a civil society point of view. > 1. This year, there was a call for panels and some of the panelists > were funded. The next APrIGF will have a similar CFP. > No, that is not enough. There has to be a representative, participative, transparent process from the very start. I am most surprised that you are still not committing to one. You are just saying there was a call for proposals, and next year too there will be one. Also, I want information of which panels were funded and on what creteria. thanks for your engagement, parminder > You can expect the APrIGF to be more transparent in the future. And of > course your suggestions to improve its governance and processes are > always welcome. > > Regards, > Peng Hwa > > > > From: Parminder Singh > > Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:30 PM > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org > " >, AngPH > > Subject: Re: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - > day 2, discussion of ITRs] > > Peng Hwa, > > You have mentioned in your email how I had raised a number of issues when you had first organised the so-called APrIGF in Hongkong in 2010. Indeed, after a few exchanges IT for Change agreed to be present at the meeting on the condition that we would basically say the same things at the meeting about its legitimacy etc as we had been arguing. You kindly consented and we did attend the meeting and made our point. > > However, what surprises me is your conclusion that we were somehow mollified by our conversations with you at Hongkong and then at Vilnius. There is no question of such mollification without the issues we raised being addressed, and as is evident, they never were. > > What is even more surprising are your comments, quote below from your email of the last week, about the second so called APrIGF in Singapore. > > > "When I organized the meeting in Singapore, you did not raise any objection." and, again later in the email " In Singapore, you did not raise any objections. And I thought that's where the issue stood." (Peng Hwa) > > It has obviously entirely skipped your memory, but when you wrote to me inviting me for the Singapore meeting, I wrote a detailed email to you which not only raised the same issues that I had raised earlier, but also suggested, in considerable detail, what in our opinion is the right way to go about organising the APrIGF (so much so for all this talk from various parties that I should be constructive etc, which I must say is a more than a bit patronising). I reproduce below my email to you before Singapore. I would not make your response public which is up to you to decide whatever to do about. I however must say that I had even at that time asked for your permission to make my email public but was persuaded not to, pending further f2f discussions etc which never happened. > parminder > > *My email in response to an invitation to attend the Singapore so called APrIGF is below.*On 5/3/11 12:36 AM, "Parminder Singh" wrote: > > Dear Peng Hwa, > > It is always nice to hear from you, and hope you are doing well! > > Thank you for inviting me to chair a session during the > proposed meeting. I do quite appreciate the utmost sincerely > and serious application that you bring to your efforts to keep > a dialogue on Internet Governance alive in the Asia Pacific > region. However, for the reason mentioned below in some detail > , I am constrained to decline your kind invitation. > > As mentioned in our conversations before the similar meeting > last year, I do not think it legitimate to call any meeting as > a regional IGF without a minimum standard of broad > participation and 'ownership', especially of public interest > actors. Last year I was told that it was the first time and > the meeting has been planned in haste, and that things should > improve for subsequent meetings. However, in this invite for > the 2011 meeting I see no indication about who all are on the > organizing committee, how was the agenda and speaker selection > arrived at, etc. > > Apart from the basic legitimacy question, holding of such > meetings under the banner of national/regional IGFs has a > negative reverse impact on the global IGF to make it look like > it too was just another annual conference on IG, which I do > not think it is (though some people do) . I think that the > global IGF is, or at least is supposed to be, an innovative > experiment in deliberative and participatory democracy for > global governance of the Internet. At least some basic > features of the global IGF suggests the possibility that the > global IGF can, if we have the political will for it, > hopefully evolve to be something close to this ideal. These > features are; strong mooring in a public institution - or a > set of them, a good amount of public funding (though not at > all of the kind, and extent, that can be considered > satisfactory), a multistakeholder group deciding the agenda of > the meeting and the speakers through an intensively > consultative process, and such. > > While some of us are struggling to ensure that the annual IGF > has an even greater public and democratic character, > organization of completely private meetings opaquely planned > and executed, with unknown sponsors and key drivers, like the > proposed meeting being called the Asia Pacific Regional IGF, > is to us a retrograde step. It is for this reason that we > cannot associate with it, and in fact oppose it to be held > under its proposed name. > > I do understand how difficult it is to be innovative and > entrepreneurial in such matters and actually pull an event > like this together; and in relation how facile it may be > considered to criticize such almost valiant efforts. I must > therefore engage constructively and suggest what could > alternatively have been done and would, in my opinion, have > been the better option. Though I cannot suggest funding > options right away, it is possible that the Asia Pacific UN > regional commission (ESCAP) could have shown some interest in > this event. Was it even approached at all? Funding from > governments of some countries could also been explored apart > from sourcing 'monopoly funds' (akin to Internet tax) that are > collected by registrars and such registries that use the > commons resources of geo-political expressions like ctlds. In > any case, wider participation of public interest actors is > always possible to seek. There was this Asia Pacific Civil > Society Caucus at WSIS, which is now defunct but one can > recollect some key names of those - individuals and > organizations - who participated actively. Then there are > Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus members from Asia > Pacific quite active in the Internet Governance Caucus. There > are also MAG members from this region. I have no indication > that these actors had any role at all in shaping an activity > which is being called the Asia Pacific Regional IGF. > > I must once again mention that I hold you and your sincere > efforts towards a continued dialogue on Internet governance in > our region in great esteem. And this statement is made most > sincerely because I have known you and your work closely. The > proposed meeting should simply have been named something like > 'an regional dialogue on IG' or some such thing rather than a > regional IGF. In this regard we have the example of EURODIG. I > do hope that such a change can still be made so that it leaves > no room for confusion regarding the nature of the proposed > meeting. > > We should do nothing to contribute to promoting privatized > realms of governance for such an important social, economic, > political and cultural phenomenon as the Internet. We fear > that through privatized governance models for the Internet, > what is really being done is to challenge the very essentials > of democratic thought and ideals for all aspects of our social > life. > > I look forward to hear your response to the issues that I > have raised, and discuss them at as much length as may be > required. However, meanwhile, I may have to take the contents > of this letter to the public domain, since it really is not a > response to you individually but a much larger engagement with > issues concerning democracy and public interest, specifically > about the nature of institutions that can serve these ideals. > > With respect, and the very best regards > > Parminder > > On Thursday 28 April 2011 06:38 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > > APrIGF > Dear Parminder, > > Greetings from Singapore! > > I append below the draft programme for the coming APrIGF > in Singapore. This will be jus before the ICANN meeting. > > > 1. Can you make it? > 2. Can you participate in a panel or chair one? We have > the plenaries as well as the workshops. > 3. > > > Regards, > Peng Hwa > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 2 04:22:06 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 04:22:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] "US aims to block bid to give UN control of Internet" Message-ID: <0a1601cd7087$f77e0720$e67a1560$@gmail.com> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-aims-block-bid-un-control-internet-164821847.htm l -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 2 04:42:15 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 10:42:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits Message-ID: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> [After Global Pharma got WHO to do some work on this, then poor countries realised that that this was an industry driven process, they protested at WHO, and WHO only relented after getting a number of thwacks... I guess ICANN will more amenable given its lack of legitimacy and "can do" spirit...after all it was ICANN et al that contributed to make domain names equivalent to trademarks... for that there is no problem going to WIPO... an UN body... perhaps cos there is money there... not to be crass of course... ] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits Published on 28 July 2012 @ 2:06 pm Print This Post Print This Post Intellectual Property Watch The international pharmaceutical industry this week released a policy statement targeting counterfeit medicines on the internet. Among the recommendations was for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to join the fight. At the same time, the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies was launched in the United States, aimed at taking down illegal internet pharmacies. More information about the CSIP is available here . Four research-based industry associations joined together to issue a joint policy statement on counterfeits online. The groups are the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), and Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (JPMA). The groups showed support for governments, law enforcement, the private sector and any others, working to stop counterfeit medicines. And they said, "We call upon [ICANN], which oversees the assignment of generic top level domains and accredits domain registrars, to take appropriate actions and ensure accountability measures in order to protect Internet users from illegitimate online sites that are engaged in the illicit sale of prescription medicines." Up till now, ICANN has been explicitly considered to be a technical oversight body with no policy authority. But the stakes are high, industry says. "Everybody is at risk of counterfeiting," said Eduardo Pisani, IFPMA director general. "Counterfeiting is a crime against patients and poses a public health risk that can lead to treatment resistance, extended illness, disability and even death." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 2 05:27:45 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:27:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Call for workshops at the Arab IGF Message-ID: Dear all, The call for workshops at the first meeting of the Arab IGF (Kuwait, 9-11October 2012) is now published at: http://igfarab.org/index.php/latest-news/item/84-organize-a-workshop-within-the-activities-of-the-first-meeting-of-the-forum Please spread the word within your communities. You are encouraged to put forward workshop proposals using the template published within the "call for workshops" document, and send it to workshops at igfarab.org by *31August 2012*. Proposals will be reviewed by a dedicated working group within the ArabMultistakeholder Advisory Group (AMAG) according to the criteria described in the published document. Best Regards, -- Arab IGF Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 2 06:35:42 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:35:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <501A57FE.7030601@digsys.bg> Roland, Excellent summary of useful activities that have helped the Internet exist for so many years, despite it's "disruptive" effect on so many things of life and empires-to-be. By the way, I have also noticed an phenomenon that many political people try very hard to not talk to us, as to not hear/see any of this and thus not change their set course... but, the world is small. Daniel On 02.08.12 10:33, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20 at virtualized.org>, at > 22:50:40 on Wed, 1 Aug 2012, David Conrad writes >>> (Times of India, interview >>> ) >>> >> >> I will admit I find the level of knowledge demonstrated in the >> responses from a "minister of state for communications and >> information technology" in that interview quite distressing. >> For those more attuned to political realities than I, how should >> the 'technical community' go about improving the level of >> understanding of the basic systems used by the Internet? > > It's relative straightforward, and is done by numerous interest > groups[1] in other fields much more extensively than by the ITC. > > Critics call it "lobbying" but the more enlightened call it "outreach". > > There are numerous outlets for this, one of which is the preparations > and delivery of the IGF, but there are many other opportunities, for > example within relevant ITU groups, at the OECD, at ECOSOC and others > too numerous to mention. > > As far as I'm concerned, one of the tricks is to try to fit in, rather > than stick out. And as one seasoned Brussels lobbyist advises "always > be there, and never be late". > > And I don't mean just standing up and trying to influence the outcome > of meetings (always tempting in a multistakeholder environment, but > doesn't work so well as an outsider at membership meetings), although > that is occasionally a useful tactic if it's seen as constructive by > the other participants. > > I mean briefing and informing the participants particularly rival > lobbyists (some people find that odd, but it works) the government > representatives and where possible their ministers. > > Right on topic, in 2001 I recall taking a newly appointed UK ministry > official on a tour of Telehouse in London, showing him the K root > server box, and explaining what it did (and more importantly what it > didn't do, and why no-one would notice if I were to unplug it for a > few seconds). In the rack next door were some Nominet [.uk] servers > and down the corridor the main LINX suite, so we talked about those too. > > Around the same time I had some formal and informal meetings with the > UK's "Internet Minister" which had a direct effect on the > implementation of some privacy regulations, and across the road I went > and explained to a Home Office minister what a url was (at 8am in the > morning!), so he could be happy about some traffic data definitions > being worked into a new lawful intercept law. > > Between 2005 and 2010 I performed a similar role for RIPE NCC, and > took my roadshow worldwide. > > More recently I've been educating the authorities in the UK about the > harm that comes from Internet trolls and Facebook stalkers, but would > be happy to advise any relevant interest groups on how to raise their > profiles and reduce the level of misinformation in circulation. > > And if you want someone to attend a meeting and put your point of view > forward in a constructive manner, so people say "now that you've taken > the trouble to explain this to us, in terms we can understand, > obviously we entirely agree) I can do that too. > > [1] That's the most neutral generic word I can think of that also fits > the Internet Technical Community. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 2 07:24:28 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 08:24:28 -0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> Well, I read this a bit differently (although I would have to read the entire declaration to be sure). For one, ministers in most democracies are not occupying their posts because they have doctoral degrees on the issues of their ministries -- they are basically proeminent politicians of the governing coalition with some knowledge of the issues (in rare cases, qualified professionals on the issues), and ministries are basically run by their high level staff. Secondly, my impression is that he wished to stress the fact that most traffic depends in one way of another on backbones which interconnect via developed countries (particularly the USA) and he is not wrong in this case in defending alternative ways to interconnect Southern countries -- the fact he mixed oranges with bananas does not invalidate this fact. And this is 2012, not 2002/2003... frt rgds --c.a. On 08/02/2012 02:19 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > "Globally, Internet Traffic Passes Through 13 Root Servers" (!) > > > Question: Who governs the internet at present? > > Sachin Pilot, minister of state for communications and information technology: > > "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of > them are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These > servers move the information. I believe India and other countries > ought to play a much more relevant role in managing traffic flows. The > internet is a global resource whose governance can't be limited to a > particular geography." > > (Times of India, interview > ) > > Excellent, we're back in 2002/3. > > Adam > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 2 07:31:13 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:31:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Well, I read this a bit differently (although I would have to read the > entire declaration to be sure). For one, ministers in most democracies > are not occupying their posts because they have doctoral degrees on the > issues of their ministries -- they are basically proeminent politicians > of the governing coalition with some knowledge of the issues (in rare > cases, qualified professionals on the issues), and ministries are > basically run by their high level staff. > > Secondly, my impression is that he wished to stress the fact that most > traffic depends in one way of another on backbones which interconnect > via developed countries (particularly the USA) and he is not wrong in > this case in defending alternative ways to interconnect Southern > countries but he didn't do that: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-30/edit-page/32924041_1_internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 07:35:40 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:35:40 +0500 Subject: [governance] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits In-Reply-To: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> References: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> Message-ID: ICANN lacks the legitimacy to do anything in this regard. Its contracted parties can possibly do something such as verisign that has taken down a number of .com domains in collaboration with the US authorities on various occasions. The pharma guys are just trying to get some limelight by calling out to ICANN and trying to attempt a bit of harassing the domain community by going to WIPO that most of the times appears bewildered on IG or open access issues. The WIPO itself is yet to face the surges to emerge from the newGTLD process. On the other hand counterfeit drugs of any sort should be countered but its the payment, postal, freight and delivery systems that require moderation and not just Internet. Somebody must tell the pharma people that ICANN is not the Viagara of the Internet or the means to stop counterfeit trade of drugs, its just a .0000001% of the pharma industry's incapacity to keep its business clean and no business by far is clean! Fouad Bajwa On Aug 2, 2012 1:53 PM, "Riaz K Tayob" wrote: > [After Global Pharma got WHO to do some work on this, then poor countries > realised that that this was an industry driven process, they protested at > WHO, and WHO only relented after getting a number of thwacks... I guess > ICANN will more amenable given its lack of legitimacy and "can do" > spirit...after all it was ICANN et al that contributed to make domain names > equivalent to trademarks... for that there is no problem going to WIPO... > an UN body... perhaps cos there is money there... not to be crass of > course... ] > Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits Published > on 28 July 2012 @ 2:06 pm > > [image: Print This Post] > Print This Post > > Intellectual Property Watch > > The international pharmaceutical industry this week released a policy > statement targeting counterfeit medicines on the internet. Among the > recommendations was for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers (ICANN) to join the fight. > > At the same time, the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies was launched in > the United States, aimed at taking down illegal internet pharmacies. More > information about the CSIP is available here. > > > Four research-based industry associations joined together to issue a joint > policy statementon counterfeits online. > > The groups are the International Federation of Pharmaceutical > Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), Pharmaceutical Research and > Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), European Federation of Pharmaceutical > Industries and Associations (EFPIA), and Japanese Pharmaceutical > Manufacturers Association (JPMA). > > The groups showed support for governments, law enforcement, the private > sector and any others, working to stop counterfeit medicines. > > And they said, “We call upon [ICANN], which oversees the assignment of > generic top level domains and accredits domain registrars, to take > appropriate actions and ensure accountability measures in order to protect > Internet users from illegitimate online sites that are engaged in the > illicit sale of prescription medicines.” > > Up till now, ICANN has been explicitly considered to be a technical > oversight body with no policy authority. > > But the stakes are high, industry says. “Everybody is at risk of > counterfeiting,” said Eduardo Pisani, IFPMA director general. > “Counterfeiting is a crime against patients and poses a public health risk > that can lead to treatment resistance, extended illness, disability and > even death.” > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 07:41:24 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:41:24 +0500 Subject: [governance] Online registration for IGF Baku is now open Message-ID: Dear All, The IGF Secretariat has started the online registration process for IGF 2012 and the first draft of the Baku schedule has also been posted on the IGF website. Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 07:53:16 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:53:16 +0500 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Alright, so the Indian ICT Minister made a misinformed information blunder on the root servers and Internet connectivity issue to ascertain his country's standpoint but how do you help him out? Maybe our CS and technical community members from India can get in touch with him or do OpEds in the same newspapers that published the story? I see we waste a lot of time ranting instead of countering issues or finding implementable solutions. Why don't our knowledgeable members like Roland, John and your kindself write a brief that clarifies how the root server network works and where are they located and we transmit that through IT4Change and CIS Center for Internet and society to the Ministry. Be part of a solution! Fouad Bajwa On Aug 2, 2012 4:32 PM, "McTim" wrote: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Well, I read this a bit differently (although I would have to read the > > entire declaration to be sure). For one, ministers in most democracies > > are not occupying their posts because they have doctoral degrees on the > > issues of their ministries -- they are basically proeminent politicians > > of the governing coalition with some knowledge of the issues (in rare > > cases, qualified professionals on the issues), and ministries are > > basically run by their high level staff. > > > > Secondly, my impression is that he wished to stress the fact that most > > traffic depends in one way of another on backbones which interconnect > > via developed countries (particularly the USA) and he is not wrong in > > this case in defending alternative ways to interconnect Southern > > countries > > but he didn't do that: > > > http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-30/edit-page/32924041_1_internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers > > > > -- > 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 08:03:54 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:03:54 +0500 Subject: [governance] "US aims to block bid to give UN control of Internet" In-Reply-To: <0a1601cd7087$f77e0720$e67a1560$@gmail.com> References: <0a1601cd7087$f77e0720$e67a1560$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sheer overstated paranoia and coordinated online diplomacy propaganda to ascertain one country only position on unilateral control of the Internet, btw we will continue to read a lot of this all over until WCIT happens. I would have been amused if this was published in Pakistani newspapers, but yahoo....... here where i live..because the country still doesn't believe that there have been positive social, economic and political developments due to the Internet, read the OIC statement read by Pakistan in last year's HRC meeting. Fouad Bajwa On Aug 2, 2012 1:23 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-aims-block-bid-un-control-internet-164821847.htm > l > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 2 08:06:13 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:06:13 -0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <501A6D35.2060908@cafonso.ca> Yes, just read the full interview, the focus is basically ICANN and multilateral governance of the Net. Thx, McTim. --c.a. On 08/02/2012 08:31 AM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Well, I read this a bit differently (although I would have to read the >> entire declaration to be sure). For one, ministers in most democracies >> are not occupying their posts because they have doctoral degrees on the >> issues of their ministries -- they are basically proeminent politicians >> of the governing coalition with some knowledge of the issues (in rare >> cases, qualified professionals on the issues), and ministries are >> basically run by their high level staff. >> >> Secondly, my impression is that he wished to stress the fact that most >> traffic depends in one way of another on backbones which interconnect >> via developed countries (particularly the USA) and he is not wrong in >> this case in defending alternative ways to interconnect Southern >> countries > > but he didn't do that: > > http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-30/edit-page/32924041_1_internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 2 08:09:56 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:09:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits In-Reply-To: References: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> Message-ID: <501A6E14.4070508@gmail.com> Well WHO did not have a mandate to work on counterfeits. It established a task team, hired the head of BigPharma (industry body) to draw up the Legislative Guidelines, funded "official" WHO meetings with WHO member states, held side meetings at the WHO Annual Meetings, and only stopped after its pants were pulled down on a lack of mandate by those poor countries... see Third World Network if you want a preview of forthcoming attractions. Shameless is the word that springs to mind... Time for techies to get "political", eh? On 2012/08/02 01:35 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > ICANN lacks the legitimacy to do anything in this regard. Its > contracted parties can possibly do something such as verisign that has > taken down a number of .com domains in collaboration with the US > authorities on various occasions. The pharma guys are just trying to > get some limelight by calling out to ICANN and trying to attempt a bit > of harassing the domain community by going to WIPO that most of the > times appears bewildered on IG or open access issues. The WIPO itself > is yet to face the surges to emerge from the newGTLD process. > > On the other hand counterfeit drugs of any sort should be countered > but its the payment, postal, freight and delivery systems that require > moderation and not just Internet. > > Somebody must tell the pharma people that ICANN is not the Viagara of > the Internet or the means to stop counterfeit trade of drugs, its just > a .0000001% of the pharma industry's incapacity to keep its business > clean and no business by far is clean! > > Fouad Bajwa > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 08:19:08 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:19:08 +0500 Subject: [governance] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits In-Reply-To: <501A6E14.4070508@gmail.com> References: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> <501A6E14.4070508@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry for the Type there and replacing WHO with WIPO but I do see your point. If you look at the trends in other UN venues this year like even the UNCTAD, the northern developed country pressure remains dominant and the Third World remains touchy........but again, ICANN helping pharma associations has to be the last moot! -- Fooodafied! On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Well WHO did not have a mandate to work on counterfeits. It established a > task team, hired the head of BigPharma (industry body) to draw up the > Legislative Guidelines, funded "official" WHO meetings with WHO member > states, held side meetings at the WHO Annual Meetings, and only stopped > after its pants were pulled down on a lack of mandate by those poor > countries... see Third World Network if you want a preview of forthcoming > attractions. Shameless is the word that springs to mind... > > Time for techies to get "political", eh? > > > On 2012/08/02 01:35 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> >> ICANN lacks the legitimacy to do anything in this regard. Its contracted >> parties can possibly do something such as verisign that has taken down a >> number of .com domains in collaboration with the US authorities on various >> occasions. The pharma guys are just trying to get some limelight by calling >> out to ICANN and trying to attempt a bit of harassing the domain community >> by going to WIPO that most of the times appears bewildered on IG or open >> access issues. The WIPO itself is yet to face the surges to emerge from the >> newGTLD process. >> >> On the other hand counterfeit drugs of any sort should be countered but >> its the payment, postal, freight and delivery systems that require >> moderation and not just Internet. >> >> Somebody must tell the pharma people that ICANN is not the Viagara of the >> Internet or the means to stop counterfeit trade of drugs, its just a >> .0000001% of the pharma industry's incapacity to keep its business clean and >> no business by far is clean! >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 08:22:34 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:22:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits In-Reply-To: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> References: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> Message-ID: One of the most heated debates within ICANN is related to WhoIS accuracy. The debate has been gaining momentum for quite sometime, and many community members are pointing fingers at ICANN for not enforcing the terms of the Registry-Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RRA) in providing accurate and up-to-date WhoIS entries. Those who violate the agreement terms must be warned and then punished if not responding, but ICANN is doing nothing about that. Recent statistics show that 22% of WhoIS data is updated. Thus, I can see the article from a perspective where the Pharmaceutical industry can rely - partially - on accurate WhoIS information to track down domain names in violation to this industry. IMO, it will remain a pending debate for a long time. Fahd On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > [After Global Pharma got WHO to do some work on this, then poor countries > realised that that this was an industry driven process, they protested at > WHO, and WHO only relented after getting a number of thwacks... I guess > ICANN will more amenable given its lack of legitimacy and "can do" > spirit...after all it was ICANN et al that contributed to make domain names > equivalent to trademarks... for that there is no problem going to WIPO... > an UN body... perhaps cos there is money there... not to be crass of > course... ] > Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits Published > on 28 July 2012 @ 2:06 pm > > [image: Print This Post] > Print This Post > > Intellectual Property Watch > > The international pharmaceutical industry this week released a policy > statement targeting counterfeit medicines on the internet. Among the > recommendations was for the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and > Numbers (ICANN) to join the fight. > > At the same time, the Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies was launched in > the United States, aimed at taking down illegal internet pharmacies. More > information about the CSIP is available here. > > > Four research-based industry associations joined together to issue a joint > policy statementon counterfeits online. > > The groups are the International Federation of Pharmaceutical > Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA), Pharmaceutical Research and > Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), European Federation of Pharmaceutical > Industries and Associations (EFPIA), and Japanese Pharmaceutical > Manufacturers Association (JPMA). > > The groups showed support for governments, law enforcement, the private > sector and any others, working to stop counterfeit medicines. > > And they said, “We call upon [ICANN], which oversees the assignment of > generic top level domains and accredits domain registrars, to take > appropriate actions and ensure accountability measures in order to protect > Internet users from illegitimate online sites that are engaged in the > illicit sale of prescription medicines.” > > Up till now, ICANN has been explicitly considered to be a technical > oversight body with no policy authority. > > But the stakes are high, industry says. “Everybody is at risk of > counterfeiting,” said Eduardo Pisani, IFPMA director general. > “Counterfeiting is a crime against patients and poses a public health risk > that can lead to treatment resistance, extended illness, disability and > even death.” > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 08:28:47 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:28:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] "US aims to block bid to give UN control of Internet" In-Reply-To: <0a1601cd7087$f77e0720$e67a1560$@gmail.com> References: <0a1601cd7087$f77e0720$e67a1560$@gmail.com> Message-ID: The article reads "*The conference set for December 3-4 is aimed at updating a 1998 global telecom treaty. But some countries are using the event to press for a broadening of the scope of the UN agency.*" A slight correction is required where "The conference set for *December 3-14 * is aimed at updating a *1988*...". Fahd On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:22 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-aims-block-bid-un-control-internet-164821847.htm > l > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 08:29:08 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:29:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] "US aims to block bid to give UN control of Internet" In-Reply-To: References: <0a1601cd7087$f77e0720$e67a1560$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Would never agree less. Fahd On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Sheer overstated paranoia and coordinated online diplomacy propaganda to > ascertain one country only position on unilateral control of the Internet, > btw we will continue to read a lot of this all over until WCIT happens. > > I would have been amused if this was published in Pakistani newspapers, > but yahoo....... here where i live..because the country still doesn't > believe that there have been positive social, economic and political > developments due to the Internet, read the OIC statement read by Pakistan > in last year's HRC meeting. > > Fouad Bajwa > On Aug 2, 2012 1:23 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> >> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-aims-block-bid-un-control-internet-164821847.htm >> l >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 2 08:34:00 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 14:34:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits In-Reply-To: References: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> <501A6E14.4070508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <501A73B8.7000301@gmail.com> And let us be clear. There was enough deception about a single root! How many people stood up to nitpick on those points... this is not to say people should not be more accurate, but technical niceties (as with the single root) are sacrificed at the altar of politics. If it is good for the goose then it is good for the gander. And all this talk about taking us back to 2003 etc... that is only a concern if you are under the illusion that there has been forward movement on CIR... so watch the Chinese space on Enhanced Cooperation... The simple point about UN bodies is that even if poor countries fight and loose, they at least have a fair shot... with fair procedures... and reasonable representation... unlike the GAC peonage... On 2012/08/02 02:19 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Sorry for the Type there and replacing WHO with WIPO but I do see your > point. If you look at the trends in other UN venues this year like > even the UNCTAD, the northern developed country pressure remains > dominant and the Third World remains touchy........but again, ICANN > helping pharma associations has to be the last moot! > > -- Fooodafied! > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:09 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> Well WHO did not have a mandate to work on counterfeits. It established a >> task team, hired the head of BigPharma (industry body) to draw up the >> Legislative Guidelines, funded "official" WHO meetings with WHO member >> states, held side meetings at the WHO Annual Meetings, and only stopped >> after its pants were pulled down on a lack of mandate by those poor >> countries... see Third World Network if you want a preview of forthcoming >> attractions. Shameless is the word that springs to mind... >> >> Time for techies to get "political", eh? >> >> >> On 2012/08/02 01:35 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >>> >>> ICANN lacks the legitimacy to do anything in this regard. Its contracted >>> parties can possibly do something such as verisign that has taken down a >>> number of .com domains in collaboration with the US authorities on various >>> occasions. The pharma guys are just trying to get some limelight by calling >>> out to ICANN and trying to attempt a bit of harassing the domain community >>> by going to WIPO that most of the times appears bewildered on IG or open >>> access issues. The WIPO itself is yet to face the surges to emerge from the >>> newGTLD process. >>> >>> On the other hand counterfeit drugs of any sort should be countered but >>> its the payment, postal, freight and delivery systems that require >>> moderation and not just Internet. >>> >>> Somebody must tell the pharma people that ICANN is not the Viagara of the >>> Internet or the means to stop counterfeit trade of drugs, its just a >>> .0000001% of the pharma industry's incapacity to keep its business clean and >>> no business by far is clean! >>> >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 2 08:38:50 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:38:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits In-Reply-To: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> References: <501A3D67.2090305@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DAFD2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Good point, Riaz, why isn't _this_ constructed as part of a UN takeover of the internet? Global Pharma Calls On ICANN To Act Against Online Counterfeits Published on 28 July 2012 @ 2:06 pm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Aug 2 09:34:28 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:34:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sha_Zukang=B4s_Good_Bye?= References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD077@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/newsletter/desanews/feature/2012/08/index.html#4524 Any info who will get the job (and a crucial role for the future of the IGF & EC)? wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 2 10:14:53 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:14:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message , at 16:53:16 on Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Fouad Bajwa writes >Why don't our knowledgeable members like Roland, John and your kindself >write a brief that clarifies how the root server network works and >where are they located and we transmit that through IT4Change and CIS >Center for Internet and society to the Ministry. Be part of a solution! Happy to write something, especially if it starts to dispel the needless confusion between (eg) Root servers and Route servers. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 10:57:34 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 19:57:34 +0500 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: +1 Fouad Bajwa On Aug 2, 2012 7:17 PM, "Roland Perry" wrote: > In message *gmail.com>, > at 16:53:16 on Thu, 2 Aug 2012, Fouad Bajwa writes > > Why don't our knowledgeable members like Roland, John and your kindself >> write a brief that clarifies how the root server network works and where >> are they located and we transmit that through IT4Change and CIS Center for >> Internet and society to the Ministry. Be part of a solution! >> > > Happy to write something, especially if it starts to dispel the needless > confusion between (eg) Root servers and Route servers. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 11:37:49 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 18:37:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sha_Zukang=B4s_Good_Bye?= In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD077@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD077@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: "Good Bye" to the volcanic and Sha Zukang. He was famous for his volcanic stances at other officials especially - but not limited to - the SG of the UN Mr. Ban Ki-Moon. Fahd On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/newsletter/desanews/feature/2012/08/index.html#4524 > > Any info who will get the job (and a crucial role for the future of the > IGF & EC)? > > wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 2 11:47:14 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 21:17:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Dear Alejandro, Many of these 'misunderstandings' indicate that our policy makers, as also, those in many other countries are misled by anti-Internet lobby groups, in this case this misunderstanding is a reflection of what has been fed by "Advisors" who haven't worried about the blatant inaccuracy of the misinformation planted at the ministerial level. The situation you have described about the Kenya IGF where the IBSA proposal caused discomfort, is another example of wrong advice and strong influences at junior level which sometimes causes people of higher administrative and/or ministerial responsibility to be criticized. In this Kenya and some other instances, it could have been a situation of a lobbyist with an NGO facade earning enough trust to prepare a whole draft in the name of the country. Such situations would indeed change with learned and responsible good people within the administration paying attention to the inner dynamics and paying attention to every word that gets published / spoken in the name of the country. Unfortunately, what has so far surfaced in the name of India does not truly reflect the Indian mind, which is far more sensible and evolved. I would strongly agree with an earlier comment on this thread that the Internet Community has not done enough to disseminate fundamental information on the workings of something as new as the Internet on which not many policy makers could be expected to be experts without a focussed program. While this need is left unfilled by the Internet Community, negative forces are busy with plenty of misinformation by proximity. Sent from Turiya MID http://turiya.mobi On Aug 2, 2012 11:03 AM, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" wrote: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Thu Aug 2 11:54:00 2012 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:54:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] LAC PRE- IGF 5 /Becas/Grants/Bolsas Message-ID: <6DD180FF-2D90-4429-BADD-6174A8087A3A@apc.org> Dear all, We would appreciate your help for distributing the announcement below among your contacts and networks. Best, Valeria --------------------- (English Below) (Portugues Abaixo) Estimados Amigos: LACNIC junto con la Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones (APC), el Instituto NUPEF, la Internet Society (ISOC) y nuevos socios que se incorporarán en el curso de 2012, organizarán la quinta Reunión Regional Preparatoria para el Foro de Gobernanza de Internet (FGI), a realizarse del 24 al 26 de Septiembre en el centro de convenciones Cosmos 100 de la Ciudad de Bogotá, Colombia. El llamado a Postulación para Becas se encuentra abierto http://www.lacigf.org/sp/lacigf5/becas.html Saludos Cordiales, Andrés Piazza Responsable de Relaciones Externas LACNIC -------------------- Dear Friends, LACNIC together with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), the NUPEF Institute, the Internet Society (ISOC) and new partners that will join the initiative during the course of 2012, are is organizing the Fifth Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Internet Governance Forum which will be held in Bogota, Colombia on 24-26 September. The call for Finantial Asistance is now open http://www.lacigf.org/en/lacigf5/becas.html Warmest Regards, Andrés Piazza Public Affairs Officer LACNIC --- Caros Amigos: O LACNIC conjuntamente com a Associação para o Progresso das Comunicações (APC), o Instituto NUPEF, a Internet Society (ISOC) e os novos sócios que venham a ser incorporados no decorrer de 2012, vão organizar a quinta Reunião Regional Preparatória para o Fórum de Governança da Internet (FGI), a ser realizada de 24 a 26 de setembro na Cidade de Bogotá, Colômbia. A chamada para pedido de bolsa está aberta http://www.lacigf.org/pt/lacigf5/becas.html Com os melhores cumprimentos, Piazza Andres Responsável de Relações Externas LACNIC ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 2 12:43:45 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:43:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] African CS statement on internet governance and rights Message-ID: <501AAE41.7000903@apc.org> Greetings everyone Last week the Kenyan Human Rights Commission, Global Partners and APC convened a meeting in Nairobi on internet governance and human rights. The civil society groups were from the human rights, media and ICT sectors. Attached is the statement that emerged from this workshop. It was a really good workshop. Several of the participants are on this list so they can add their own perspectives. I felt that we discussed important issues without resorting to too much jargon, or 'knee jerk' responses. People were respectful of one another's views (and there were diverse views) and everyone left with more knowledge and a better understanding of the questions/issues around internet governance and human rights on the internet. Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Final Statement of the Pan African CS Workshop on Who Controls the Internet_02082012.pdf Type: application/force-download Size: 142676 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Aug 2 12:48:33 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:48:33 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:14 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > Happy to write something, especially if it starts to dispel the needless confusion between (eg) Root servers and Route servers. Err. Traffic doesn't flow through route servers either (:-)). While writing yet another document aimed at policy makers explaining the role of the root servers would undoubtedly be beneficial (and I'd be happy to contribute), the fact that the demonstrated level of misunderstanding currently exists despite the Indian GAC rep being an advisor to the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology may suggest there are larger issues here. I guess the real question I'm asking is how can the 'technical community' most effectively communicate the underlying realities of the Internet to policy makers? Is writing briefs the best way or are there other approaches that would increase the likelihood that policy makers would actually understand what it is they are attempting to create policy for? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rguerra at privaterra.org Thu Aug 2 12:52:50 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:52:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sha_Zukang=B4s_Good_Bye?= In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD077@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD077@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <829C14F7-70AF-4492-8C30-ACC94E36B9AE@privaterra.org> Wolfgang, I heard from multiple sources that the position likely would go to someone from Asia, likely China. Robert On 2012-08-02, at 9:34 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/newsletter/desanews/feature/2012/08/index.html#4524 > > Any info who will get the job (and a crucial role for the future of the IGF & EC)? > > wolfgang > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 2 15:07:46 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:07:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> 1. There is a double standard when it comes to technical accuracy. 2. Technical information should not be conflated with socio-political issues - such as legitimacy over the role of ICANN in CIR. This conflation is as abominable as inaccuracies in technical information. 3. IMHO Much of the technical community on this list stands in opposition to issues of legitimacy (basically on the principle - if ain't broke don't fix it - which explains why this list in particular "misconstrued" the Chinese position on Enhanced Cooperation). On 2012/08/02 06:48 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:14 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> Happy to write something, especially if it starts to dispel the needless confusion between (eg) Root servers and Route servers. > Err. Traffic doesn't flow through route servers either (:-)). > > While writing yet another document aimed at policy makers explaining the role of the root servers would undoubtedly be beneficial (and I'd be happy to contribute), the fact that the demonstrated level of misunderstanding currently exists despite the Indian GAC rep being an advisor to the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology may suggest there are larger issues here. > > I guess the real question I'm asking is how can the 'technical community' most effectively communicate the underlying realities of the Internet to policy makers? Is writing briefs the best way or are there other approaches that would increase the likelihood that policy makers would actually understand what it is they are attempting to create policy for? > > Regards, > -drc > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 2 15:34:06 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:04:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: The root server infrastructure, despite its harmless functions, occupy a recurrent space in Internet Governance debates, their functions understood, or otherwise, for its symbolic value. I have always wondered if it wouldn't be wiser for United States to make a gesture of assurance to the rest of the world by exploring the technical feasibility of locating a few more elsewhere. The Wikipedia article on Root Name Server says that "The choice of 13 nameservers was made because of limitations in the original DNS specification" with a 'why?' asking for citation. Assuming that there is a limitation, could there be other possible gesturegs? Fully Qualified Mirrors? Or, could there be an extraordinary gesture of one of the Universities retaining a Fully Connected Mirror in their premises and relocate the Root Server to an Institution such as the Indian Institute of Technology with transition support for 3 to 5 years? Or, would Verisign Inc do the same to make this extraordinary gesture by shifting the root server to Verisign India or Verisign Africa? The relocated servers would be under the present root server infrastructure any way. It may not be easy, it could be technically complex, and possibly expensive. Even a pretension to add / relocate one or two servers would lay to rest most of the criticism about the unilateral control of the root, read (conveniently by those who archestrate anti-Internet propaganda), unilateral control of the Internet. Sent from Turiya MID http://turiya.mobi On Aug 2, 2012 9:17 PM, "Sivasubramanian M" wrote: > > Dear Alejandro, > > Many of these 'misunderstandings' indicate that our policy makers, as > also, those in many other countries are misled by anti-Internet lobby > groups, in this case this misunderstanding is a reflection of what has been > fed by "Advisors" who haven't worried about the blatant inaccuracy of the > misinformation planted at the ministerial level. > > The situation you have described about the Kenya IGF where the IBSA > proposal caused discomfort, is another example of wrong advice and strong > influences at junior level which sometimes causes people of higher > administrative and/or ministerial responsibility to be criticized. In this > Kenya and some other instances, it could have been a situation of a > lobbyist with an NGO facade earning enough trust to prepare a whole draft > in the name of the country. Such situations would indeed change with > learned and responsible good people within the administration paying > attention to the inner dynamics and paying attention to every word that > gets published / spoken in the name of the country. > > Unfortunately, what has so far surfaced in the name of India does not > truly reflect the Indian mind, which is far more sensible and evolved. > > I would strongly agree with an earlier comment on this thread that the > Internet Community has not done enough to disseminate fundamental > information on the workings of something as new as the Internet on which > not many policy makers could be expected to be experts without a focussed > program. While this need is left unfilled by the Internet Community, > negative forces are busy with plenty of misinformation by proximity. > > Sent from Turiya MID > http://turiya.mobi > On Aug 2, 2012 11:03 AM, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" > wrote: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Aug 2 15:47:41 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 12:47:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> Riaz, On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > 1. There is a double standard when it comes to technical accuracy. Oh? Details? > 2. Technical information should not be conflated with socio-political issues - such as legitimacy over the role of ICANN in CIR. This conflation is as abominable as inaccuracies in technical information. I think I agree that technical information should not be conflated with socio-political issues, but to be honest, I'm not sure what that means in this context. > 3. IMHO Much of the technical community on this list stands in opposition to issues of legitimacy (basically on the principle - if ain't broke don't fix it - which explains why this list in particular "misconstrued" the Chinese position on Enhanced Cooperation). I would be surprised if this were true. From my personal perspective it isn't so much "if it ain't broke don't fix it" than "let's see the details of an alternative to ensure it doesn't make things worse." However, my question was more along the lines of how can the 'technical community' more effectively communicate to policy makers, not what should be communicated. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Aug 2 15:49:54 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 05:49:54 +1000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Siva wrote ³. Even a pretension to add / relocate one or two servers would lay to rest most of the criticism about the unilateral control of the root, read (conveniently by those who archestrate anti-Internet propaganda), unilateral control of the Internet.² No it wouldn¹t. Until such time as the US authority to unilaterally give final approval to changes to the root zone is removed, the criticism will remain. Ian Peter From: Sivasubramanian M Reply-To: , Sivasubramanian M Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:04:06 +0530 To: , "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" Cc: Adam Peake Subject: RE: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) The root server infrastructure, despite its harmless functions, occupy a recurrent space in Internet Governance debates, their functions understood, or otherwise, for its symbolic value. I have always wondered if it wouldn't be wiser for United States to make a gesture of assurance to the rest of the world by exploring the technical feasibility of locating a few more elsewhere. The Wikipedia article on Root Name Server says that "The choice of 13 nameservers was made because of limitations in the original DNS specification" with a 'why?' asking for citation. Assuming that there is a limitation, could there be other possible gesturegs?  Fully Qualified Mirrors?  Or, could there be an extraordinary gesture of one of the Universities retaining a Fully Connected Mirror in their premises and relocate the Root Server to an Institution such as the Indian Institute of Technology with transition support for 3 to 5 years?  Or, would Verisign Inc do the same to make this extraordinary gesture by shifting the root server to Verisign India or Verisign Africa? The relocated servers would be under the present root server infrastructure any way. It may not be easy, it could be technically complex, and possibly expensive. Even a pretension to add / relocate one or two servers would lay to rest most of the criticism about the unilateral control of the root, read (conveniently by those who archestrate anti-Internet propaganda), unilateral control of the Internet. Sent from Turiya MID http://turiya.mobi On Aug 2, 2012 9:17 PM, "Sivasubramanian M" wrote: > > > Dear Alejandro, > > Many of these 'misunderstandings' indicate that our policy makers, as also, > those in many other countries are misled by anti-Internet lobby groups, in > this case this misunderstanding is a reflection of what has been fed by > "Advisors" who haven't worried about the blatant inaccuracy of the > misinformation planted at the ministerial level. > > The situation you have described about the Kenya IGF where the IBSA proposal > caused discomfort, is another example of wrong advice and strong influences at > junior level which sometimes causes people of higher administrative and/or > ministerial responsibility to be criticized. In this Kenya and some other > instances, it could have been a situation of a lobbyist with an NGO facade > earning enough trust to prepare a whole draft in the name of the country. Such > situations would indeed change with learned and responsible good people within > the administration paying attention to the inner dynamics and paying attention > to every word that gets published / spoken in the name of the country. > > Unfortunately, what has so far surfaced in the name of India does not truly > reflect the Indian mind, which is far more sensible and evolved. > > I would strongly agree with an earlier comment on this thread that the > Internet Community has not done enough to disseminate fundamental information > on the workings of something as new as the Internet on which not many policy > makers could be expected to be experts without a focussed program.  While this > need is left unfilled by the Internet Community, negative forces are busy with > plenty of misinformation by proximity. > > Sent from Turiya MID > http://turiya.mobi > > On Aug 2, 2012 11:03 AM, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" > wrote: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Thu Aug 2 15:51:07 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:51:07 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> References: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <005b01cd70e8$2dd3c7f0$897b57d0$@uol.com.br> Dear, since I had lots of opportunities to deal with " authorities" with really low knowledge of Internet ( remember Brazil´s positions at GAC some years ago?) I can tell you that the only way is to promote large knowledge/ capacitation programs for the levels below the Minister in the "technical" Ministries. These persons are the ones to tell what to say to their Ministers, so once these levels has enough knowledge we will stop to see " strange" explanations from those "leaders". Best, -----Mensagem original----- De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de David Conrad Enviada em: quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2012 02:51 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) On Aug 1, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > (Times of India, interview > ) I will admit I find the level of knowledge demonstrated in the responses from a "minister of state for communications and information technology" in that interview quite distressing. For those more attuned to political realities than I, how should the 'technical community' go about improving the level of understanding of the basic systems used by the Internet? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 2 16:01:01 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:01:01 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <005b01cd70e8$2dd3c7f0$897b57d0$@uol.com.br> References: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> <005b01cd70e8$2dd3c7f0$897b57d0$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: <501ADC7D.7040804@cafonso.ca> Data venia, dear Vanda, I do not think that the "positions at GAC" by the Brazilian reps were motivated by a lack of knowledge of how the Internet works. We might disagree with the proposals but not dismiss them on these grounds. frt rgds --c.a. On 08/02/2012 04:51 PM, Vanda UOL wrote: > Dear, since I had lots of opportunities to deal with " authorities" with > really low knowledge of Internet ( remember Brazil´s positions at GAC some > years ago?) I can tell you that the only way is to promote large > knowledge/ capacitation programs for the levels below the Minister in the > "technical" Ministries. > These persons are the ones to tell what to say to their Ministers, so once > these levels has enough knowledge we will stop to see " strange" > explanations from those "leaders". > Best, > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de David Conrad > Enviada em: quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2012 02:51 > Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Assunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server > misunderstanding (still...) > > On Aug 1, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> (Times of India, interview >> > _internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers>) > > I will admit I find the level of knowledge demonstrated in the responses > from a "minister of state for communications and information technology" in > that interview quite distressing. For those more attuned to political > realities than I, how should the 'technical community' go about improving > the level of understanding of the basic systems used by the Internet? > > Regards, > -drc > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 2 16:06:35 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:06:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> On 2012/08/02 09:47 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Riaz, > > On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> 1. There is a double standard when it comes to technical accuracy. > Oh? Details? You mean you did not follow the debates as to whether there can be other roots? Karl Auerbach is fabulous on this at his cavebear archive. Mueller also has some interesting stuff. > >> 2. Technical information should not be conflated with socio-political issues - such as legitimacy over the role of ICANN in CIR. This conflation is as abominable as inaccuracies in technical information. > I think I agree that technical information should not be conflated with socio-political issues, but to be honest, I'm not sure what that means in this context. Legitimacy of ICANN should not be conflated with its "effectiveness". > >> 3. IMHO Much of the technical community on this list stands in opposition to issues of legitimacy (basically on the principle - if ain't broke don't fix it - which explains why this list in particular "misconstrued" the Chinese position on Enhanced Cooperation). > I would be surprised if this were true. From my personal perspective it isn't so much "if it ain't broke don't fix it" than "let's see the details of an alternative to ensure it doesn't make things worse." Which in politics is much the same thing. As I said previously the responsiveness of ICANN to "legitimacy' complaints has been far greater than some ICANN "hacks" have been will to admit on this list. Curran is much more balanced and fair here and argues for an evolutionary perspective. Perhaps Parminer (who is often the butt of these kinds of things) may have more details. > > However, my question was more along the lines of how can the 'technical community' more effectively communicate to policy makers, not what should be communicated. Unfortunately "disinterested" engagement on this list is difficult. See posts under this subject header related to anti-Internet propaganda... > > Regards, > -drc > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 2 15:42:07 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:42:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <501AD80F.6050406@gmail.com> ? Is legitimacy being conflated with effectiveness here? Or am I just an anti-Internet propagandist? On 2012/08/02 09:34 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > read (conveniently by those who archestrate anti-Internet propaganda), > unilateral control of the Internet. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 2 16:10:16 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:10:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <501ADEA8.8070005@gmail.com> David Apologies, I may have been more curt than I intended. Certainly this is something that can benefit us all greatly. And perhaps some level of disinterest would not be inopportune. Riaz On 2012/08/02 09:47 PM, David Conrad wrote: > However, my question was more along the lines of how can the 'technical community' more effectively communicate to policy makers, not what should be communicated. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Aug 2 16:13:11 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:13:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > The root server infrastructure, despite its harmless functions, occupy a recurrent space in Internet Governance debates, their functions understood, or otherwise, for its symbolic value. Understandable. > I have always wondered if it wouldn't be wiser for United States to make a gesture of assurance to the rest of the world by exploring the technical feasibility of locating a few more elsewhere. Technically, it is feasible to locate a root server anywhere there is Internet connectivity (and, in fact, with the deployment of anycast instances, this has already occurred, see http://root-servers.org/map/). I believe the issue isn't placement, it is ownership. > The Wikipedia article on Root Name Server says that "The choice of 13 nameservers was made because of limitations in the original DNS specification" with a 'why?' asking for citation. The answer to "why?" is quite simple: the original DNS specification limited the guaranteed supported size of a DNS message to 512 bytes and 13 IP(v4) addresses is all you can fit in a message of that size. While the DNS specifications have evolved to support larger messages, it turns out a surprisingly (at least to me) large percentage of the infrastructure refuses to allow those larger messages (the refusals being largely due to old software, broken implementations, or security policy that mistakenly assumes DNS messages must be less than or equal to 512 bytes in length). As such, we're stuck with 13. > Assuming that there is a limitation, could there be other possible gesturegs? Fully Qualified Mirrors? Or, could there be an extraordinary gesture of one of the Universities retaining a Fully Connected Mirror in their premises and relocate the Root Server to an Institution such as the Indian Institute of Technology with transition support for 3 to 5 years? Or, would Verisign Inc do the same to make this extraordinary gesture by shifting the root server to Verisign India or Verisign Africa? The relocated servers would be under the present root server infrastructure any way. I'm not sure what you mean by "Fully Qualified Mirror". The myriad of root server instances spread all over the world as shown in that map are indistinguishable at a protocol level from each other. The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. > It may not be easy, it could be technically complex, and possibly expensive. It is actually quite easy and relatively inexpensive to deploy a root server instance. I believe ICANN is more than happy to let pretty much anyone run a copy of "L" if they buy a ~$3K server (to ICANN specifications), provide Internet connectivity to that server, and sign an agreement with ICANN saying they won't muck with or limit the data the instance serves. > Even a pretension to add / relocate one or two servers would lay to rest most of the criticism about the unilateral control of the root, read (conveniently by those who archestrate anti-Internet propaganda), unilateral control of the Internet. Unfortunately, I suspect this isn't true. My impression is that the "control of the root" isn't really about root servers, it is about editorial control of the data in the root zone. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Thu Aug 2 16:21:32 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:21:32 +0000 Subject: RES: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501ADC7D.7040804@cafonso.ca> References: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> <005b01cd70e8$2dd3c7f0$897b57d0$@uol.com.br>,<501ADC7D.7040804@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A7A16@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Carlos, you are right. It's more that they choose to ignore it than that they don't know. Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] Enviado el: jueves, 02 de agosto de 2012 15:01 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Vanda UOL CC: 'David Conrad' Asunto: Re: RES: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) Data venia, dear Vanda, I do not think that the "positions at GAC" by the Brazilian reps were motivated by a lack of knowledge of how the Internet works. We might disagree with the proposals but not dismiss them on these grounds. frt rgds --c.a. On 08/02/2012 04:51 PM, Vanda UOL wrote: > Dear, since I had lots of opportunities to deal with " authorities" with > really low knowledge of Internet ( remember Brazil´s positions at GAC some > years ago?) I can tell you that the only way is to promote large > knowledge/ capacitation programs for the levels below the Minister in the > "technical" Ministries. > These persons are the ones to tell what to say to their Ministers, so once > these levels has enough knowledge we will stop to see " strange" > explanations from those "leaders". > Best, > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de David Conrad > Enviada em: quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2012 02:51 > Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Assunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server > misunderstanding (still...) > > On Aug 1, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> (Times of India, interview >> > _internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers>) > > I will admit I find the level of knowledge demonstrated in the responses > from a "minister of state for communications and information technology" in > that interview quite distressing. For those more attuned to political > realities than I, how should the 'technical community' go about improving > the level of understanding of the basic systems used by the Internet? > > Regards, > -drc > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 2 16:29:07 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:29:07 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A7A16@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <7FB6AE34-A8CF-468B-814A-5B735A659E20@virtualized.org> <005b01cd70e8$2dd3c7f0$897b57d0$@uol.com.br>,<501ADC7D.7040804@cafonso.ca> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A7A16@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <501AE313.8050702@cafonso.ca> Alejandro never loses an opportunity to be the delicate gentleman he is... :) frt rgds --c.a. On 08/02/2012 05:21 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Carlos, > > you are right. It's more that they choose to ignore it than that they don't know. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] > Enviado el: jueves, 02 de agosto de 2012 15:01 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Vanda UOL > CC: 'David Conrad' > Asunto: Re: RES: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) > > Data venia, dear Vanda, I do not think that the "positions at GAC" by > the Brazilian reps were motivated by a lack of knowledge of how the > Internet works. We might disagree with the proposals but not dismiss > them on these grounds. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 08/02/2012 04:51 PM, Vanda UOL wrote: >> Dear, since I had lots of opportunities to deal with " authorities" with >> really low knowledge of Internet ( remember Brazil´s positions at GAC some >> years ago?) I can tell you that the only way is to promote large >> knowledge/ capacitation programs for the levels below the Minister in the >> "technical" Ministries. >> These persons are the ones to tell what to say to their Ministers, so once >> these levels has enough knowledge we will stop to see " strange" >> explanations from those "leaders". >> Best, >> >> -----Mensagem original----- >> De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de David Conrad >> Enviada em: quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2012 02:51 >> Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Assunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server >> misunderstanding (still...) >> >> On Aug 1, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> (Times of India, interview >>> >> > _internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers>) >> >> I will admit I find the level of knowledge demonstrated in the responses >> from a "minister of state for communications and information technology" in >> that interview quite distressing. For those more attuned to political >> realities than I, how should the 'technical community' go about improving >> the level of understanding of the basic systems used by the Internet? >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Thu Aug 2 16:44:28 2012 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 13:44:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] EFF Pioneer Award nominations - deadline August 6 Message-ID: <501AE6AC.9010905@eff.org> EFF is accepting nominations for our Pioneer Awards through Monday, August 6. Every year, we award three different individuals or groups who have "contributed substantially to the health, growth, accessibility, or freedom of computer-based communications." The contribution may be technical, social, economic, or cultural. Last year, our three winners were US SenatorRon Wyden , the Tunisian group Nawaat.org , andIan Goldberg . A complete list ofpast winners is here. To nominate, click here: https://www.eff.org/awards/pioneer/nominate Best, Katitza -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Aug 2 17:06:14 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 14:06:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> Message-ID: <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> Riaz, On Aug 2, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:07 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >>> 1. There is a double standard when it comes to technical accuracy. >> Oh? Details? > You mean you did not follow the debates as to whether there can be other roots? Karl Auerbach is fabulous on this at his cavebear archive. Mueller also has some interesting stuff. Technically speaking, the architecture of the global DNS fundamentally requires a single root to the namespace. I do not think Karl would disagree with this statement (if he did, he'd be wrong :-)). Where disagreements arise is how that singly rooted namespace is implemented. The easiest/simplest/most efficient way to implement a single root is to have a single entity act as a gatekeeper for all requests for changes. This ensures that there will be no conflicts in change requests. However, there are other ways of implementing the same gatekeeping functionality: you could have multiple gatekeepers that mutually agree to never ever conflict (e.g., "hey guys, I'm going to change X, anybody have a problem with that?"), you could split the namespace to ensure conflicts can't happen (e.g., "I am responsible for any changes that start with X"), etc. Or, you could remove the "global" in front of the DNS and have a myriad of "local" DNS namespaces that people choose based on their whim. The problem with these other ways is they all increase complexity, cost, administrative overhead, risk of collision/confusion, etc. As a result, I believe it safe to say the technically best solution is the single gatekeeper approach. This obviously does not mean it is the politically best solution. >>> 2. Technical information should not be conflated with socio-political issues - such as legitimacy over the role of ICANN in CIR. This conflation is as abominable as inaccuracies in technical information. >> I think I agree that technical information should not be conflated with socio-political issues, but to be honest, I'm not sure what that means in this context. > Legitimacy of ICANN should not be conflated with its "effectiveness". While I personally believe existence and an ability to perform a function does imply some level of legitimacy (perhaps this comes from sitting through too many presentations describing the wonders of unreleased software :-)), I don't think this is particularly relevant to how the technical community can improve the understanding of the technological underpinnings of the Internet. My question isn't about how ICANN can justify what it does, it's about how we in the technical community can get those outside that community to understand "this is how the Internet works". Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 2 17:24:52 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 02:54:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Dear David Conrad, On Aug 3, 2012 1:57 AM, "David Conrad" wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > The root server infrastructure, despite its harmless functions, occupy a recurrent space in Internet Governance debates, their functions understood, or otherwise, for its symbolic value. > > Understandable. > > > I have always wondered if it wouldn't be wiser for United States to make a gesture of assurance to the rest of the world by exploring the technical feasibility of locating a few more elsewhere. > > Technically, it is feasible to locate a root server anywhere there is Internet connectivity (and, in fact, with the deployment of anycast instances, this has already occurred, see http://root-servers.org/map/). I believe the issue isn't placement, it is ownership. > > > The Wikipedia article on Root Name Server says that "The choice of 13 nameservers was made because of limitations in the original DNS specification" with a 'why?' asking for citation. > > The answer to "why?" is quite simple: the original DNS specification limited the guaranteed supported size of a DNS message to 512 bytes and 13 IP(v4) addresses is all you can fit in a message of that size. While the DNS specifications have evolved to support larger messages, it turns out a surprisingly (at least to me) large percentage of the infrastructure refuses to allow those larger messages (the refusals being largely due to old software, broken implementations, or security policy that mistakenly assumes DNS messages must be less than or equal to 512 bytes in length). As such, we're stuck with 13. > > > Assuming that there is a limitation, could there be other possible gesturegs? Fully Qualified Mirrors? Or, could there be an extraordinary gesture of one of the Universities retaining a Fully Connected Mirror in their premises and relocate the Root Server to an Institution such as the Indian Institute of Technology with transition support for 3 to 5 years? Or, would Verisign Inc do the same to make this extraordinary gesture by shifting the root server to Verisign India or Verisign Africa? The relocated servers would be under the present root server infrastructure any way. > > I'm not sure what you mean by "Fully Qualified Mirror". The myriad of root server instances spread all over the world as shown in that map are indistinguishable at a protocol level from each other. The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. > > > It may not be easy, it could be technically complex, and possibly expensive. > > It is actually quite easy and relatively inexpensive to deploy a root server instance. I believe ICANN is more than happy to let pretty much anyone run a copy of "L" if they buy a ~$3K server (to ICANN specifications), provide Internet connectivity to that server, and sign an agreement with ICANN saying they won't muck with or limit the data the instance serves. > > > Even a pretension to add / relocate one or two servers would lay to rest most of the criticism about the unilateral control of the root, read (conveniently by those who archestrate anti-Internet propaganda), unilateral control of the Internet. > > Unfortunately, I suspect this isn't true. My impression is that the "control of the root" isn't really about root servers, it is about editorial control of the data in the root zone. Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed reply explaining the technical answers. I did have an idea, more so from Ian's earlier response, that the central issue is one of what you call "editorial control". I don't expect a political decision on Internationalization of the IANA functions, but US probably knows that these functions would not eternally remain as a DoC controlled operation. In the long term (how long it is is left to the comfort if the reader), US would open up. If not bequeath the functions to a committe of 200, IANA might at least include a few experts from different geographic regions in a gesture of Internationalization. US would know that a posture of total unwillingness causes undesirable moves such as imaginative proposals for a Circus for Internet Governance. As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? The Fully Qualified Mirror that I talked about is a mirror that is not a $3k mirror of ICANN's specification, but a Mirror with specifications for its infrastructure almost as rigid that of one of the 13 root server instances. It could be a mirror with an elevated symbolic status. The other ideas expressed, that of moving a root server from Verisign Inc to Verisign Africa are with the same purpose of offering a glimpse, conveying an inclination. I still believe that it would make an enormous difference and make it easier to handle the negative overtures. Sivasubramanian M (Thinking aloud, on my own, hats on the hanger) > > Regards, > -drc > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Thu Aug 2 18:48:26 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 19:48:26 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] LAC PRE- IGF 5 /Becas/Grants/Bolsas In-Reply-To: <6DD180FF-2D90-4429-BADD-6174A8087A3A@apc.org> References: <6DD180FF-2D90-4429-BADD-6174A8087A3A@apc.org> Message-ID: <011901cd7100$efded7f0$cf9c87d0$@uol.com.br> My pleasure, will do! De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Valeria Betancourt Enviada em: quinta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2012 12:54 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: [governance] LAC PRE- IGF 5 /Becas/Grants/Bolsas Dear all, We would appreciate your help for distributing the announcement below among your contacts and networks. Best, Valeria --------------------- (English Below) (Portugues Abaixo) Estimados Amigos: LACNIC junto con la Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones (APC), el Instituto NUPEF, la Internet Society (ISOC) y nuevos socios que se incorporarán en el curso de 2012, organizarán la quinta Reunión Regional Preparatoria para el Foro de Gobernanza de Internet (FGI), a realizarse del 24 al 26 de Septiembre en el centro de convenciones Cosmos 100 de la Ciudad de Bogotá, Colombia. El llamado a Postulación para Becas se encuentra abierto http://www.lacigf.org/sp/lacigf5/becas.html Saludos Cordiales, Andrés Piazza Responsable de Relaciones Externas LACNIC -------------------- Dear Friends, LACNIC together with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), the NUPEF Institute, the Internet Society (ISOC) and new partners that will join the initiative during the course of 2012, are is organizing the Fifth Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Internet Governance Forum which will be held in Bogota, Colombia on 24-26 September. The call for Finantial Asistance is now open http://www.lacigf.org/en/lacigf5/becas.html Warmest Regards, Andrés Piazza Public Affairs Officer LACNIC --- Caros Amigos: O LACNIC conjuntamente com a Associação para o Progresso das Comunicações (APC), o Instituto NUPEF, a Internet Society (ISOC) e os novos sócios que venham a ser incorporados no decorrer de 2012, vão organizar a quinta Reunião Regional Preparatória para o Fórum de Governança da Internet (FGI), a ser realizada de 24 a 26 de setembro na Cidade de Bogotá, Colômbia. A chamada para pedido de bolsa está aberta http://www.lacigf.org/pt/lacigf5/becas.html Com os melhores cumprimentos, Piazza Andres Responsável de Relações Externas LACNIC ------------- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 2 19:38:31 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 19:38:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Great infographic on the new TLD situation Message-ID: <501B0F77.5040600@communisphere.com> This is not a governance issue, but a great infographic about the new TLDs. http://themainstreetanalyst.com/2012/08/01/new-top-level-domain-names-and-the-future-of-the-internet-infographic/ Tom Lowenhaupt P.S. It's from: /The Main Street Anal/ /ys t is publishing news about marketing, social media, technology, politics, entertainment, soccer and life. We pull information from websites such Mashable, The Next Web, Bloomberg, WordPress and many others to add to our own publications. We are not publishing others articles in our name, we link to them and use the technology made available by those publishers./ /The Main Street Analy/st is also the publishing arm of our own Maxus1.com and Soccer is Life!. We post promotions and articles expressing our own opinion about things that might be of interest. Besides of posting on this site, we post on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and other public internet sites. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 19:51:35 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 04:51:35 +0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Giants form new Lobbying Group - Internet Association In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some of you might already know but if not then here is the US Congressional Internet Lobbying front of the private sector...Google, Facebook, Amazon and eBay jointly formulated "Internet Association" beyond the likes of ISOC or any other group: About The Internet Association Source: http://internetassociation.org The Internet Association is the unified voice of the Internet economy, representing the interests of America's leading Internet companies and their global community of users. The Internet Association is dedicated to advancing public policy solutions to strengthen and protect an open, innovative and free Internet. Here is a more detailed article on the subject: http://www.itproportal.com/2012/07/26/google-facebook-ebay-amazon-join-other-leading-internet-companies-form-lobby-group/ I think this sends out a message to CS too to get more organized and coordinated. Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mousavi.sa48 at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 20:19:34 2012 From: mousavi.sa48 at gmail.com (Mousavi) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 20:19:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Giants form new Lobbying Group - Internet Association In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5237B7D5-88DE-4903-9E94-08D4B8741D8B@gmail.com> A Sent from my iPhone On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:51 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Some of you might already know but if not then here is the US Congressional Internet Lobbying front of the private sector...Google, Facebook, Amazon and eBay jointly formulated "Internet Association" beyond the likes of ISOC or any other group: > > About The Internet Association > Source: http://internetassociation.org > The Internet Association is the unified voice of the Internet economy, representing the interests of America's leading Internet companies and their global community of users. The Internet Association is dedicated to advancing public policy solutions to strengthen and protect an open, innovative and free Internet. > > Here is a more detailed article on the subject: > http://www.itproportal.com/2012/07/26/google-facebook-ebay-amazon-join-other-leading-internet-companies-form-lobby-group/ > > I think this sends out a message to CS too to get more organized and coordinated. > > Fouad Bajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 2 20:59:02 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:59:02 -0700 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunder?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?standing_=28still=85=29=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > I did have an idea, more so from Ian's earlier response, that the central issue is one of what you call "editorial control". I don't expect a political decision on Internationalization of the IANA functions, but US probably knows that these functions would not eternally remain as a DoC controlled operation. In the long term (how long it is is left to the comfort if the reader), US would open up. If not bequeath the functions to a committe of 200, IANA might at least include a few experts from different geographic regions in a gesture of Internationalization. US would know that a posture of total unwillingness causes undesirable moves such as imaginative proposals for a Circus for Internet Governance. > I suspect that the various parts of the US Government, when considering Internet matters, are quite capable of recognizing when circumstances warrant a change on how the various IANA functions are performed. After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet resources, including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs, the formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture of total unwillingness"... > As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed the Internet community itself? /John Disclaimer: Also thinking aloud, on my own, hats on the hanger... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 21:09:13 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 06:09:13 +0500 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld Message-ID: http://www.itworld.com/internet/288237/us-will-push-open-markets-free-expression-itu-meeting Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 01:28:49 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:58:49 +0530 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunderstandin?= =?UTF-8?Q?g_=28still=E2=80=A6=29=29?= In-Reply-To: <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Aug 3, 2012 6:29 AM, "John Curran" wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> >> I did have an idea, more so from Ian's earlier response, that the central issue is one of what you call "editorial control". I don't expect a political decision on Internationalization of the IANA functions, but US probably knows that these functions would not eternally remain as a DoC controlled operation. In the long term (how long it is is left to the comfort if the reader), US would open up. If not bequeath the functions to a committe of 200, IANA might at least include a few experts from different geographic regions in a gesture of Internationalization. US would know that a posture of total unwillingness causes undesirable moves such as imaginative proposals for a Circus for Internet Governance. > > I suspect that the various parts of the US Government, when considering Internet > matters, are quite capable of recognizing when circumstances warrant a change > on how the various IANA functions are performed. > > After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these > functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet > resources, including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs, the > formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. Who knows this? Who understands this? How many people know that it takes no more than $3k to mirror the ICANN root server? A few among the few thousand ICANN / IG / RIR / ISOC participants. In a world of sensational headlines on unilateral control of the root, all these positive goodness is buried in fine print. The gestures I have talked about would be a visible, graphic answer to the bad headlines. > > None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture of total unwillingness"... So it appears to the common man, or made to appear to the common man in a carefully archestrated propaganda of misleading 'headlines' that appears to me to be a psychological campaign with carefully calculated omissions. > >> As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? > > > Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed > the Internet community itself? :-) Sivasubramanian M > > /John > > Disclaimer: Also thinking aloud, on my own, hats on the hanger... > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Thu Aug 2 23:06:42 2012 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 00:06:42 -0300 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The problem is that free markets are increasingly hostile to free speech: when companies control the online fora and are left to discriminate speech at will we have a scenario that's arguably just as bad as an ITU-controlled internet. Sadly, because the prevailing notion in American law and politics is that only the state can violate human rights, such a problem will never get the proper framing. Ivar On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > http://www.itworld.com/internet/288237/us-will-push-open-markets-free-expression-itu-meeting > > Fouad Bajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 02:48:11 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 08:48:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> Of relevance to the question of whether only UN actions count as enhanced cooperation to enable governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues... BD > > Subject: [council] Introducing the GAC Advice Register > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30jul12-en.htm > Introducing the GAC Advice Register > > 30 July 2012 > ICANN and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) are pleased to announce the launch of an online register of GAC Advice to the ICANN Board. Arranged alphabetically by topic, the register tracks original GAC advice, responses from the Board, action items, dates of action, implementation plans and status of completion. The new GAC Advice Register can be found on the GAC website. > > Comprised of national governments, governmental organizations and distinct economies, the GAC is a principal advisor to the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, especially those pertaining to national laws and international agreements. > > The online register was launched through the ongoing work of the Board/GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group to implement one of the recommendations made by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT). As GAC advice is received, it is entered into the register to go through an assessment phase while actions and implementation plans are determined. > > All GAC advice preceding June 2012 also is available in the register, but any resulting actions or outstanding items still are being determined and chronicled. > > Learn more about the GAC: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/About+The+GAC > > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 3 03:58:22 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 08:58:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> Message-ID: In message <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB at virtualized.org>, at 14:06:14 on Thu, 2 Aug 2012, David Conrad writes >Or, you could remove the "global" in front of the DNS and have a myriad >of "local" DNS namespaces that people choose based on their whim. From the end user's point of view, that is already the case. How many realise that calling your http server "www" is just a local whim, and that calling it "m" works just as well[1]. With "m" merely being another local whim to indicate it might be in a lower resolution so that mobiles can cope better with it. DNS is more than the content of the root zone file, and conveying that concept is vital in putting the root name servers into context. [1] eg http://m.bbc.co.uk/news vs http://www.bbc.co.uk/news -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 3 03:58:58 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 08:58:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> Message-ID: In message <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7 at virtualized.org>, at 09:48:33 on Thu, 2 Aug 2012, David Conrad writes >On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:14 AM, Roland Perry > wrote: >> Happy to write something, especially if it starts to dispel the >>needless confusion between (eg) Root servers and Route servers. > >Err. Traffic doesn't flow through route servers either (:-)). Yes I know, but it's another example of almost deliberate built-in confusion. >While writing yet another document aimed at policy makers explaining >the role of the root servers would undoubtedly be beneficial (and I'd >be happy to contribute), the fact that the demonstrated level of >misunderstanding currently exists despite the Indian GAC rep being an >advisor to the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology >may suggest there are larger issues here. > >I guess the real question I'm asking is how can the 'technical >community' most effectively communicate the underlying realities of the >Internet to policy makers? Is writing briefs the best way or are there >other approaches that would increase the likelihood that policy makers >would actually understand what it is they are attempting to create >policy for? I believe I listed some activities that would help. Traditional briefing papers tend to suffer from being like pieces in a jigsaw, and it's how they fit together that needs explaining. To that extent, the paper I've started writing about Root Servers is more in the nature of "the ecosystem of the DNS", which is a wide enough subject to be able to give a picture that a non-techie has some hope of understanding. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 04:04:17 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:04:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <1343981057.39407.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> GAC Advices & Recommendations were already recorded online, however, the trailing response and follow-up process was not as much as they will incorporate in the Online GAC Advise Register.   I think it is formed to increase the GAC weightage (comparing to public comments) and restricting/ controlling the ICANN Board to follow GAC   Regards   Imran From: William Drake >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012, 11:48 >Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register > > >Of relevance to the question of whether only UN actions count as enhanced cooperation to enable governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues... > > >BD > > > >> >>Subject: [council] Introducing the GAC Advice Register >> >> >>http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30jul12-en.htm >>Introducing the GAC Advice Register >>30 July 2012 >>ICANN and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) are pleased to announce the launch of an online register of GAC Advice to the ICANN Board.  Arranged alphabetically by topic, the register tracks original GAC advice, responses from the Board, action items, dates of action, implementation plans and status of completion. The new GAC Advice Register can be found on the GAC website. >>Comprised of national governments, governmental organizations and distinct economies, the GAC is a principal advisor to the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, especially those pertaining to national laws and international agreements. >>The online register was launched through the ongoing work of the Board/GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group to implement one of the recommendations made by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT). As GAC advice is received, it is entered into the register to go through an assessment phase while actions and implementation plans are determined. >>All GAC advice preceding June 2012 also is available in the register, but any resulting actions or outstanding items still are being determined and chronicled. >>Learn more about the GAC: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/About+The+GAC >>  >>  >>Glen de Saint Géry >>GNSO Secretariat >>gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>http://gnso.icann.org/ >>  > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > advices. However, what is the balance com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 04:17:55 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:17:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] Former ICANN CEO Calls on Hackers to Keep the Internet Free from Regulation Message-ID: http://venturebeat.com/2012/07/28/icann-hackers-regulation/ I wonder what Rod's up to now? Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 04:20:24 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:20:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal Message-ID: http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks within the ICANN community. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 3 04:31:57 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 09:31:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: In message , at 01:04:06 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Sivasubramanian M writes >The Wikipedia article on Root Name Server says that "The choice of 13 >nameservers was made because of limitations in the original DNS >specification" with a 'why?' asking for citation. The reason it's 13 (rather than 12 or 14 etc) is very simple, and one of the things I've already listed to include in my paper. Or when they ask "why" do they really mean "why was any limit at all designed in?" Perhaps I'll look into that as well - maybe the answer is "because we never expected there ever to be more than 13". (And I don't mean that as a criticism - I once designed a home computer that could be re-branded and sold under different names, with the sign-on message changing; and I was told there would never be more than eight such re-branding opportunities, so we only assigned a 3-bit field). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 04:43:59 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:43:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: <1343981057.39407.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <1343981057.39407.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1343983439.10025.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> just completing .....  ........ However, what is the balance of powers comparing with public comments and feedback from other Working Groups, is it not empowering the GAC like veto power on ICANN policies. Regards Imran   From: Imran Ahmed Shah >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; William Drake >Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012, 13:04 >Subject: Re: [governance] GAC Advice Register > > >GAC Advices & Recommendations were already recorded online, however, the trailing response and follow-up process was not as much as they will incorporate in the Online GAC Advise Register. >  >I think it is formed to increase the GAC weightage (comparing to public comments) and restricting/ controlling the ICANN Board to follow GAC >  >Regards >  >Imran > > >From: William Drake >>To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012, 11:48 >>Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register >> >> >>Of relevance to the question of whether only UN actions count as enhanced cooperation to enable governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues... >> >> >>BD >> >> >> >>> >>>Subject: [council] Introducing the GAC Advice Register >>> >>> >>>http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30jul12-en.htm >>>Introducing the GAC Advice Register >>>30 July 2012 >>>ICANN and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) are pleased to announce the launch of an online register of GAC Advice to the ICANN Board.  Arranged alphabetically by topic, the register tracks original GAC advice, responses from the Board, action items, dates of action, implementation plans and status of completion. The new GAC Advice Register can be found on the GAC website. >>>Comprised of national governments, governmental organizations and distinct economies, the GAC is a principal advisor to the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, especially those pertaining to national laws and international agreements. >>>The online register was launched through the ongoing work of the Board/GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group to implement one of the recommendations made by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT). As GAC advice is received, it is entered into the register to go through an assessment phase while actions and implementation plans are determined. >>>All GAC advice preceding June 2012 also is available in the register, but any resulting actions or outstanding items still are being determined and chronicled. >>>Learn more about the GAC: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/About+The+GAC >>>  >>>  >>>Glen de Saint Géry >>>GNSO Secretariat >>>gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>>http://gnso.icann.org/ >>>  >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> advices. However, what is the balance com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 05:16:05 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:16:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Keeping in mind that news articles aren't always reliable... Worth noting India is hardly an unconnected country. Tata Communications runs a global cable network, is a U.S. tier one backbone provider. There's a major national neutral interent exchange, NIXI (now run by Dr. Govind who was one of the organizers of the IGF in Hyderabad, ran the ICANN GAC secretariat.) That such a senior govt official from a highly developed ICT country appears clueless about how the Internet works, is a shame. And is exactly what we faced in 2002/3 in WSIS, talking to delegations, explaining Internet basics. What can anyone do to help? Not much, the Indian government has many experts who could brief the minister, if he/his office don't seek their advice then there's nothing we can do. Adam On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:58 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7 at virtualized.org>, at > 09:48:33 on Thu, 2 Aug 2012, David Conrad writes > >> On Aug 2, 2012, at 7:14 AM, Roland Perry >> wrote: >>> >>> Happy to write something, especially if it starts to dispel the needless >>> confusion between (eg) Root servers and Route servers. >> >> >> Err. Traffic doesn't flow through route servers either (:-)). > > > Yes I know, but it's another example of almost deliberate built-in > confusion. > > >> While writing yet another document aimed at policy makers explaining the >> role of the root servers would undoubtedly be beneficial (and I'd be happy >> to contribute), the fact that the demonstrated level of misunderstanding >> currently exists despite the Indian GAC rep being an advisor to the Ministry >> of Communications and Information Technology may suggest there are larger >> issues here. >> >> I guess the real question I'm asking is how can the 'technical community' >> most effectively communicate the underlying realities of the Internet to >> policy makers? Is writing briefs the best way or are there other approaches >> that would increase the likelihood that policy makers would actually >> understand what it is they are attempting to create policy for? > > > I believe I listed some activities that would help. Traditional briefing > papers tend to suffer from being like pieces in a jigsaw, and it's how they > fit together that needs explaining. > > To that extent, the paper I've started writing about Root Servers is more in > the nature of "the ecosystem of the DNS", which is a wide enough subject to > be able to give a picture that a non-techie has some hope of understanding. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 07:01:01 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:01:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] Great infographic on the new TLD situation In-Reply-To: <501B0F77.5040600@communisphere.com> References: <501B0F77.5040600@communisphere.com> Message-ID: A nice info graph. Fahd On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > This is not a governance issue, but a great infographic about the new > TLDs. > > > http://themainstreetanalyst.com/2012/08/01/new-top-level-domain-names-and-the-future-of-the-internet-infographic/ > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > P.S. It's from: > > *The Main Street Anal* *yst > is publishing news about marketing, social media, technology, politics, > entertainment, soccer and life. We pull information from websites such > Mashable, The Next Web, Bloomberg, WordPress and many others to add to our > own publications. We are not publishing others articles in our name, we > link to them and use the technology made available by those publishers.* > > *The Main Street Analy*st is also the publishing arm of our own > Maxus1.com and Soccer is Life!. We post promotions and articles expressing > our own opinion about things that might be of interest. Besides of posting > on this site, we post on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and other public > internet sites. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 07:01:59 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 13:01:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: <1343983439.10025.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <1343981057.39407.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1343983439.10025.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Imran I wouldn't go as far as to say the GAC has a veto, but as you well know its influence in the process is certainly increasing and becoming ever more institutionalized. I was simply pointing out that while enhanced cooperation may not be occurring within the UN, it is empirically demonstrable that it is occurring outside it, so hopefully we can get beyond the silly binary debate. Bill On Aug 3, 2012, at 10:43 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > just completing ..... > > ........ However, what is the balance of powers comparing with public comments and feedback from other Working Groups, is it not empowering the GAC like veto power on ICANN policies. > > Regards > > Imran > > > From: Imran Ahmed Shah > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; William Drake > Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012, 13:04 > Subject: Re: [governance] GAC Advice Register > > GAC Advices & Recommendations were already recorded online, however, the trailing response and follow-up process was not as much as they will incorporate in the Online GAC Advise Register. > > I think it is formed to increase the GAC weightage (comparing to public comments) and restricting/ controlling the ICANN Board to follow GAC advices. However, what is the balance com > > Regards > > Imran > > From: William Drake > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Sent: Friday, 3 August 2012, 11:48 > Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register > > Of relevance to the question of whether only UN actions count as enhanced cooperation to enable governments to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues... > > BD > >> >> Subject: [council] Introducing the GAC Advice Register >> >> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30jul12-en.htm >> Introducing the GAC Advice Register >> >> 30 July 2012 >> ICANN and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) are pleased to announce the launch of an online register of GAC Advice to the ICANN Board. Arranged alphabetically by topic, the register tracks original GAC advice, responses from the Board, action items, dates of action, implementation plans and status of completion. The new GAC Advice Register can be found on the GAC website. >> Comprised of national governments, governmental organizations and distinct economies, the GAC is a principal advisor to the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, especially those pertaining to national laws and international agreements. >> The online register was launched through the ongoing work of the Board/GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group to implement one of the recommendations made by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT). As GAC advice is received, it is entered into the register to go through an assessment phase while actions and implementation plans are determined. >> All GAC advice preceding June 2012 also is available in the register, but any resulting actions or outstanding items still are being determined and chronicled. >> Learn more about the GAC: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/About+The+GAC >> >> >> Glen de Saint Géry >> GNSO Secretariat >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >> http://gnso.icann.org/ >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Fri Aug 3 07:11:03 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:11:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The article mentions "*Also at WCIT, Russia, China and other countries may push for the ITU to take Internet governance away from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and other organizations*" Another misconception! Since when did "ICANN and other Organizations" govern the Internet. Fahd On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > http://www.itworld.com/internet/288237/us-will-push-open-markets-free-expression-itu-meeting > > Fouad Bajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 3 07:14:03 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 12:14:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <$DTGyhE7J7GQFAts@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 18:16:05 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Adam Peake writes >What can anyone do to help? Not much, the Indian government has many >experts who could brief the minister, if he/his office don't seek >their advice then there's nothing we can do. You don't wait for them to seek advice, you arrange to drip-feed it. How do you do that - assign professional communicators to the task. I met Dr Govind many times, the most recent in London (which was a surprise at the time) but he was very approachable and happy to learn more, which is exactly what I expect. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 3 08:36:40 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 13:36:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 14:11:03 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Fahd A. Batayneh writes >The article mentions "Also at WCIT, Russia, China and other countries >may push for the ITU to take Internet governance away from the Internet >Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and other >organizations" > >Another misconception! Since when did "ICANN and other Organizations" >govern the Internet They appear to me to govern the processes of issuing new TLDs and address space, and policing some (but not all) kinds of abusive registration. So, as ever, it depends what you mean by IG, and what others think they want to 'take away' from existing stewards. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 08:48:57 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:48:57 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The financial aspect and opportunities will always be there because at the end of the day, we see a lot of stuff that inclines towards benefiting the domain industry. Best Fouad On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal > > I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in > favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks > within the ICANN community. > > Fahd > > _______________________________________________ > list mailing list > list at igfarab.org > http://mail.igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Aug 3 09:30:55 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 06:30:55 -0700 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunder?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?standing_=28still=85=29=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> Message-ID: <4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org> On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > On Aug 3, 2012 6:29 AM, "John Curran" wrote: > > > After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these > > functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet > > resources, including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs, the > > formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. > > Who knows this? Who understands this? How many people know that it takes no more than $3k to mirror the ICANN root server? A few among the few thousand ICANN / IG / RIR / ISOC participants. In a world of sensational headlines on unilateral control of the root, all these positive goodness is buried in fine print. The gestures I have talked about would be a visible, graphic answer to the bad headlines. > If you are suggesting the USG needs some help in doing PR with regards to its positive steps in Internet Governance over the last two decades, I would not argue with that... > > None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture of total unwillingness"... > > So it appears to the common man, or made to appear to the common man in a carefully archestrated propaganda of misleading 'headlines' that appears to me to be a psychological campaign with carefully calculated omissions. > Indeed. I believe that some actively obscure or misrepresent the USG track record in facilitating decentralization of Internet Governance since inception of the Internet. Like many things in this world, it is not perfect, but I do believe that has been an enabler of discussion of open and transparent multi-stakeholder governance which might easily not have otherwise occurred. > >> As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? > > > > > > Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed > > the Internet community itself? > > :-) > Thanks for raising this important topic! /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Email written at higher altitudes may lack coherence; use at your own risk. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 09:51:09 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:51:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? In-Reply-To: <4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org> Message-ID: <501BD74D.5030906@cafonso.ca> Hi John, indeed, in most countries there is no idea among policy makers. journalists, other opinion makers, even some Internet operators, about how the root works, what is it good for, and what Anycast is and how you can mirror the root -- among many other aspects of the logical infra of the Internet. My view is that this is a promotional task for NICs with the support of their RIRs (I am not saying there are not doing anything). In our recent dialogue regarding FBI/IPv6/ICANN I discovered that some top techies involved with LACNIC discussions do not have a clear idea of what the governance role of ICANN is -- so we might need to educate our machine room people too :) In some countries (I am happy to say this is the case of Brazil) most of these people do not need to worry -- their NICs or similar organizations are way ahead in this, both in optimizing their DNS operations and in going deep in locally interconnecting their networks. But even so we need to do far more in educating the public on how these things work and help them in separating sugar from salt. fraternal regards --c.a. On 08/03/2012 10:30 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> On Aug 3, 2012 6:29 AM, "John Curran" wrote: >> >>> After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these >>> functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet >>> resources, including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs, the >>> formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. >> >> Who knows this? Who understands this? How many people know that it takes no more than $3k to mirror the ICANN root server? A few among the few thousand ICANN / IG / RIR / ISOC participants. In a world of sensational headlines on unilateral control of the root, all these positive goodness is buried in fine print. The gestures I have talked about would be a visible, graphic answer to the bad headlines. >> > If you are suggesting the USG needs some help in doing PR with regards to its positive > steps in Internet Governance over the last two decades, I would not argue with that... >>> None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture of total unwillingness"... >> >> So it appears to the common man, or made to appear to the common man in a carefully archestrated propaganda of misleading 'headlines' that appears to me to be a psychological campaign with carefully calculated omissions. >> > Indeed. I believe that some actively obscure or misrepresent the USG track record in > facilitating decentralization of Internet Governance since inception of the Internet. Like > many things in this world, it is not perfect, but I do believe that has been an enabler of > discussion of open and transparent multi-stakeholder governance which might easily not > have otherwise occurred. >>>> As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? >>> >>> >>> Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed >>> the Internet community itself? >> >> :-) >> > Thanks for raising this important topic! > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. Email written at higher altitudes may lack coherence; > use at your own risk. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Aug 3 10:54:32 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:54:32 +0000 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunder?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?standing_=28still=85=29=29?= In-Reply-To: <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of John Curran After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet resources, [Milton L Mueller] Well, at best, you can say that the USG runs a public comment period, but the contract is drafted by the USG and for the USG. Sort of like the way the ITU is going to listen to online public comment as it does the ITRs, right? including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs [Milton L Mueller] Aside from ARIN’s creation, this had nothing to do with the Commerce Department, but was done when the NSF was in control. It’s not likely this authority would be delegated to Europe or Asia had the Commerce Dept been in control. , the formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. [Milton L Mueller] the formation of ICANN was supposed to lead to full privatization after “two years at most” to quote Magaziner, perhaps you can explain to us why that didn’t happen. None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture of total unwillingness"... [Milton L Mueller] Perhaps he remembers the Bush administration… Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed the Internet community itself? [Milton L Mueller] Because the USG controls ICANN and the IANA contract. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Aug 3 10:57:16 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 14:57:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> As a transparency-enhancing move, this is great. If ICANN is going to be jerked around by governments, best to know how, when and where. It also indicates that the hysteria about government control of the Internet emanating from the ITU is rather selective. After all, GAC has essentially the same members and, de facto if not de jure, as much if not more power over the Internet than an intergovernmental organization such as ITU. Subject: [council] Introducing the GAC Advice Register http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30jul12-en.htm Introducing the GAC Advice Register 30 July 2012 ICANN and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) are pleased to announce the launch of an online register of GAC Advice to the ICANN Board. Arranged alphabetically by topic, the register tracks original GAC advice, responses from the Board, action items, dates of action, implementation plans and status of completion. The new GAC Advice Register can be found on the GAC website. Comprised of national governments, governmental organizations and distinct economies, the GAC is a principal advisor to the ICANN Board on issues of public policy, especially those pertaining to national laws and international agreements. The online register was launched through the ongoing work of the Board/GAC Recommendation Implementation Working Group to implement one of the recommendations made by the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT). As GAC advice is received, it is entered into the register to go through an assessment phase while actions and implementation plans are determined. All GAC advice preceding June 2012 also is available in the register, but any resulting actions or outstanding items still are being determined and chronicled. Learn more about the GAC: https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/About+The+GAC Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 11:09:40 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 18:09:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <501BE9B4.7050408@digsys.bg> I will try to discuss this issue strictly on technical and operational perspective. On 03.08.12 00:24, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > [...] US would open up. If not bequeath the functions to a committe of > 200, IANA might at least include a few experts from different > geographic regions in a gesture of Internationalization. US would know > that a posture of total unwillingness causes undesirable moves such as > imaginative proposals for a Circus for Internet Governance. This is common misunderstanding of the IANA functions. IANA is not a policy setting body, it is a (very) small operational units, charged with the task to make sure the policy is properly implemented and that there is no chaos in the Internet's naming space. The Internet's naming space includes all kinds of numbers used on Internet, from IP address, protocol numbers and names, protocol port numbers, organization ids, MAC address prefixes .. up to the DNS root contents. People often see only the DNS root zone editor function of IANA, but they fail to remember, that IANA is in fact *only* the editor of the root zone: policy is set by ICANN and monitored by DoC. IANA in fact employs people originating from all around the globe. There is however no point to employ many more there currently are, nor is there any benefit into turning IANA into an committee -- because none of IANA's functions have any policy impact. > The Fully Qualified Mirror that I talked about is a mirror that is not > a $3k mirror of ICANN's specification, but a Mirror with > specifications for its infrastructure almost as rigid that of one of > the 13 root server instances. It could be a mirror with an elevated > symbolic status. The other ideas expressed, that of moving a root > server from Verisign Inc to Verisign Africa are with the same purpose > of offering a glimpse, conveying an inclination. > $3k was mentioned, because this is the current price of quality low-end server equipment, that is "guaranteed" to do the task. An root server does not require much computing power, nor (that) much bandwidth -- but it has to work reliably, when operational and therefore should be closely monitored. This is why it is built "to specification" -- to reduce the number of variables and ease the monitoring and administration tasks. As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. Each of these is an actual root server. As good as any other. The technology used is called 'anycast'. Basically, what 'anycast' does in this case is announce the IP address prefixes of the respective root server at an local exchange point for Internet traffic. Everyone who is connected at that exchange points sees this root server 'nearby' and sends there the DNS queries. That local instance of the server then responds. In your example, Verisign can (and probably does) run an instance of their root server at both their 'primary' facilities *and* in Africa (perhaps in several countries in Africa as well). Each of these is the same root server. It contains the same data, answers the same way to queries. There is absolutely no point for Verisign to leave only one instance of their server in Africa, and shut all others, including the one at their primary facilities and all others in other African countries (and across the globe). This will only damage Internet users, and is not worth it, whatever other political benefits it might seem to bring. The 'why 13' limits were already explained. You just need to remember, that each of these 13 can be 'cloned' anywhere in the world and that most of them are in fact and if you need one in your country, it is relatively easy to set it up. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Aug 3 11:12:19 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 08:12:19 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> Message-ID: On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed reply explaining the technical answers. I hope it is helpful. > If not bequeath the functions to a committe of 200, IANA might at least include a few experts from different geographic regions in a gesture of Internationalization. US would know that a posture of total unwillingness causes undesirable moves such as imaginative proposals for a Circus for Internet Governance. Out of curiosity, what do you believe would be the function of these experts? The latest version of the IANA Functions contract has gone out of its way to exclude IANA staff from performing _any_ policy role -- the job of IANA staff is merely to execute publicly documented processes. I'm not entirely sure what the experts would do (at least in the context of IANA operations). Oh, and FWIW, last I checked, IANA staff are from Australia, Belarus, Taiwan, the UK, and the US (:-)). > The Fully Qualified Mirror that I talked about is a mirror that is not a $3k mirror of ICANN's specification, but a Mirror with specifications for its infrastructure almost as rigid that of one of the 13 root server instances. To clarify a bit about root server architecture, most of the root servers are made up of some number of commodity servers running some open source operating system (Linux or FreeBSD) and some open source name server (BIND or NSD, although I believe 2 root servers are running proprietary code). In some cases, servers are deployed as single machines that advertise the IP address of the root server themselves. In other cases, a number of commodity servers are put into a rack and a router sits in front of them and the router advertises the root server IP address. There is no rigid infrastructure -- each root server operator makes its own decision about how it will deploy its root server instances. In the case I'm most familiar with ("L"), the initial model was "big router feeding many machines in major colocation facilities around the world", but that architecture evolved to "zillions of single machines in any reasonable infrastructure all over the world". > It could be a mirror with an elevated symbolic status. The other ideas expressed, that of moving a root server from Verisign Inc to Verisign Africa are with the same purpose of offering a glimpse, conveying an inclination. One of the challenges here is that there is no centralized control over the root server operators. Each root server operator makes its own decisions for its own reasons. However, ignoring that, the way root servers are generally deployed (ignoring "B", "D", and "H"), they aren't in a single place. Thus saying Verisign (US) should "move" its root server to Verisign (Africa) doesn't make sense: Verisign's root server already is in Verisign (Africa). What I suspect you're looking for is for administrative ownership of a root server to be moved from a current owner to a new owner outside the US (or for a current owner to relocate from the US to somewhere else). The challenge here is that since there is no centralized control, there is no one to tell one of the root operators "give your root server IP address to (say) Bill's Bait and Sushi Shop in North Korea" and as far as I can tell, there is no incentive for any of the root server operators to voluntarily decide to do this. One could make the case that since the USG operates 3 root servers directly ("E" (NASA), "G" and "H" (DoD)) and has contracted with Verisign to operate 2 more ("A" and "J"), that the White House (being the top of the executive branch) could direct the relevant departments to a few up, but to date, I'm unaware of any concerted effort to make this case. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Aug 3 11:27:05 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 08:27:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: On Aug 3, 2012, at 1:31 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > Or when they ask "why" do they really mean "why was any limit at all designed in?" Perhaps I'll look into that as well - maybe the answer is "because we never expected there ever to be more than 13". I believe the 512 byte limit was a more-or-less arbitrary selection that fit within what was deemed to be the maximum that could reasonably be supported in the typical infrastructure of the day (circa mid-80s). It also corresponded roughly with a similar arbitrary limit specified in an earlier core protocol, TCP. Originally, I believe there were only 2 root servers. When those 2 began to get overloaded, Postel asked some Usual Suspects to host more (in the late 80s, I was working at the University of Maryland Computer Science Center when TERP.UMD.EDU (now known as D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) was set up). The last of the 13 weren't assigned until the mid- to late-90s). However, back when Mockapetris was finalizing the DNS specifications, I suspect the idea that root servers would become political footballs and/or viewed as a critical component of Internet governance would have been seen as laughable, so the idea of supporting more root servers for non-technical reasons wouldn't even have come up. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 3 12:07:53 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 17:07:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4 at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 14:57:16 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >It also indicates that the hysteria about government control of the >Internet emanating from the ITU is rather selective. After all, GAC has >essentially the same members and, de facto if not de jure, as much if >not more power over the Internet than an intergovernmental organization >such as ITU. You don't think the facets of the Internet that the ITU might want to control are wider than the rather small subset dealt with by ICANN? Settlement peering and cybersecurity, for example. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 12:58:20 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 22:28:20 +0530 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunderstandin?= =?UTF-8?Q?g_=28still=E2=80=A6=29=29?= In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Dear Milton, On Aug 3, 2012 8:24 PM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of John Curran > > After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these > > functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet > > resources, > > [Milton L Mueller] Well, at best, you can say that the USG runs a public comment period, but the contract is drafted by the USG and for the USG. Sort of like the way the ITU is going to listen to online public comment as it does the ITRs, right? > > > > including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs > > [Milton L Mueller] Aside from ARIN’s creation, this had nothing to do with the Commerce Department, but was done when the NSF was in control. It’s not likely this authority would be delegated to Europe or Asia had the Commerce Dept been in control. > > > > , the formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. > > [Milton L Mueller] the formation of ICANN was supposed to lead to full privatization after “two years at most” to quote Magaziner, perhaps you can explain to us why that didn’t happen. > > > > None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture of total unwillingness"... > > [Milton L Mueller] Perhaps he remembers the Bush administration… [Sivasubramanian M] Thank you for this guess in my defense. But I do not so vividly and systematically track policy developments as to analyse policy / attitudinal differences between one Administration and another, nor between Democrats and Republicans :-) [Sivasubramanian M] It is interesting to read your comments, I agree that it is not all perfect. There is much to discuss within ICANN on further milestones, that are bound to be achieved over time, sooner or later. But there is so much of goodness already, or at least a framework for goodness, which is unknown to most of the world. > > > > Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed the Internet community itself? > > [Milton L Mueller] Because the USG controls ICANN and the IANA contract. > > [Sivasubramanian M] I would agree with John Curran because, in our multi-stakeholder environment, the Internet Community is at liberty to take the initiatives and propose a roadmap. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Aug 3 14:32:03 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:32:03 +0000 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunderstandin?= =?UTF-8?Q?g_=28still=E2=80=A6=29=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB17@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> [Sivasubramanian M] I would agree with John Curran because, in our multi-stakeholder environment, the Internet Community is at liberty to take the initiatives and propose a roadmap. [Milton L Mueller] good. Be positive. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Aug 3 14:39:46 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:39:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > > You don't think the facets of the Internet that the ITU might want to > control are wider than the rather small subset dealt with by ICANN? > > Settlement peering and cybersecurity, for example. > -- Roland, this may come across as a back-handed comment but I can't think of a better way to put it, and my concern is to "put your heart at ease." Here we go: Since cybersecurity issues emerges from a complex ecosystem involving software at the application layer all the way down to the network layer, devices, tens of thousands of autonomous systems, and those multiple services and system are supplied by literally millions of independent vendors and thousands of different standards, the ITU is no more capable of controlling that than it is capable of solving the Eurpoean debt crisis or taking over the world's money supply. Only people who don't understand the cybersecurity problem think we are in any danger of having the ITU "control" it. As for settlements and peering, please acquaint yourself with the history of international telecom settlements and peering from 1991 to 1998, the collapse of the accounting rate system, and the unilateral US FCC intervention that reconfigured accounting rates, and then we'll talk. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 15:12:25 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 00:42:25 +0530 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunderstandin?= =?UTF-8?Q?g_=28still=E2=80=A6=29=29?= In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB17@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB17@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Aug 4, 2012 12:02 AM, "Milton L Mueller" wrote: > > > > > > [Sivasubramanian M] I would agree with John Curran because, in our multi-stakeholder environment, the Internet Community is at liberty to take the initiatives and propose a roadmap. > > [Milton L Mueller] good. Be positive. Thank you Milton. I am. :-) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 15:59:53 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 01:29:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Dear David Conrad, On Aug 3, 2012 8:42 PM, "David Conrad" wrote: > > On Aug 2, 2012, at 2:24 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed reply explaining the technical answers. > > I hope it is helpful. Yes, it is very helpful. > > > If not bequeath the functions to a committe of 200, IANA might at least include a few experts from different geographic regions in a gesture of Internationalization. US would know that a posture of total unwillingness causes undesirable moves such as imaginative proposals for a Circus for Internet Governance. > > Out of curiosity, what do you believe would be the function of these experts? The latest version of the IANA Functions contract has gone out of its way to exclude IANA staff from performing _any_ policy role -- the job of IANA staff is merely to execute publicly documented processes. I'm not entirely sure what the experts would do (at least in the context of IANA operations). There is value in inclusion, as it is a function erroneously PERCEIVED to be some sort of command headquarters of the world's Internet traffic :-) It is not known outside the Technical Community that IANA functions are process functions, with policy functions left to ICANN and the RIRs. The openness of ICANN processes and its inclusiveness in its multi-stakeholder framework, together with the inclusiveness of RIRs, offer ample room for participation in IANA policy. But it is perhaps not understood so well by policy makers around the world, especially by those who are not adequately exposed to ICANN and IGF by direct participation. (more below) > > Oh, and FWIW, last I checked, IANA staff are from Australia, Belarus, Taiwan, the UK, and the US (:-)). > > > The Fully Qualified Mirror that I talked about is a mirror that is not a $3k mirror of ICANN's specification, but a Mirror with specifications for its infrastructure almost as rigid that of one of the 13 root server instances. > > To clarify a bit about root server architecture, most of the root servers are made up of some number of commodity servers running some open source operating system (Linux or FreeBSD) and some open source name server (BIND or NSD, although I believe 2 root servers are running proprietary code). In some cases, servers are deployed as single machines that advertise the IP address of the root server themselves. In other cases, a number of commodity servers are put into a rack and a router sits in front of them and the router advertises the root server IP address. There is no rigid infrastructure -- each root server operator makes its own decision about how it will deploy its root server instances. > > In the case I'm most familiar with ("L"), the initial model was "big router feeding many machines in major colocation facilities around the world", but that architecture evolved to "zillions of single machines in any reasonable infrastructure all over the world". > > > It could be a mirror with an elevated symbolic status. The other ideas expressed, that of moving a root server from Verisign Inc to Verisign Africa are with the same purpose of offering a glimpse, conveying an inclination. > > One of the challenges here is that there is no centralized control over the root server operators. Each root server operator makes its own decisions for its own reasons. However, ignoring that, the way root servers are generally deployed (ignoring "B", "D", and "H"), they aren't in a single place. Thus saying Verisign (US) should "move" its root server to Verisign (Africa) doesn't make sense: Verisign's root server already is in Verisign (Africa). > Doesn't make technical sense. Political sense, perhaps. (more below) > What I suspect you're looking for is for administrative ownership of a root server to be moved from a current owner to a new owner outside the US (or for a current owner to relocate from the US to somewhere else). The challenge here is that since there is no centralized control, there is no one to tell one of the root operators "give your root server IP address to (say) Bill's Bait and Sushi Shop in North Korea" and as far as I can tell, there is no incentive for any of the root server operators to voluntarily decide to do this. >One could make the case that since the USG operates 3 root servers directly ("E" (NASA), "G" and "H" (DoD)) and has contracted with Verisign to operate 2 more ("A" and "J"), that the White House (being the top of the executive branch) could direct the relevant departments to a few up, but to date, I'm unaware of any concerted effort to make this case. > > Regards, > -drc > I am rathering talking about a symbolic inclusion of one or two countries outside America and Europe. Formally no one may have the 'authority' to tell a root operator to (symbolically) move, but informally the DoC could suggest that, the Internet Community could suggest that, ICANN could suggest that. The 'incentive' for the root operator would be ample, as it would result in enormous good will and plenty of good publicity for the root operator, if it were Verisign if I could drop that name to illustrate the idea. Google or Yahoo, if they could work out an arrangement with an institution or bid on a contract to maintain a server and send it their India or Africa or Japan subsidiary, it is again enormous political goodwill. These details by you, Daniel Kalchev, John Curran and Roland Perry (Thank You) are vivid and completely dispell the prejudices about root server functions. But the problem is that the knowledge you have shared does not actually get disseminated widely enough. It does not reach the right people in policy circles. If only they could understand how it all began with Jon Postel and how it emerged naturally as expansion through 'usual suspects' ! To convey a fair picture, it would perhaps take an interesting motion picture rather than a document such as the Affirmation of Commitments between ICANN and DoC, even if it were to be annexed by a paraphrased handbook on IANA functions. So it is far, far more easier if we could find a way to say, "Do you want a root server? I will give you one", - without the need for another alphabet - or, pull out a map and show "you have a three or four (equally functional mirrors) in your country already. Tell me if you want a few more." - this without compromizing the Security and Stability of the Internet, or complicating the routing table. Somewhere between the conflicts expressed in the paragraph above lies a solution that has not occurred to us yet. It could emerge by way of a need for extended DNS infrastructure with the delegation of new gTLDs / introduction of more and more IDNs in the root / deployment of IPv6. Why or How is beyond me to answer, it is for the IETF to ponder over :-) Sivasubramanian M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 3 16:00:13 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 21:00:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, at 18:39:46 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Milton L Mueller writes >> You don't think the facets of the Internet that the ITU might want to >> control are wider than the rather small subset dealt with by ICANN? >> >> Settlement peering and cybersecurity, for example. > >Roland, this may come across as a back-handed comment but I can't >think of a better way to put it, and my concern is to "put your >heart at ease." Haven't we had this conversation before? There's a difference between "want to control" and "will control" or even "do a useful job if put in control". ps. Regarding settlement peering, look at D.50 for an agenda that just won't die. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Aug 3 19:40:00 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 19:40:00 -0400 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunder?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?standing_=28still=85=29=29?= In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <1ADD48F6-FFA6-48ED-8992-4AA4B5C6932E@istaff.org> On Aug 3, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of John Curran > > After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these > functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet > resources, > [Milton L Mueller] Well, at best, you can say that the USG runs a public comment period, but the contract is drafted by the USG and for the USG. Sort of like the way the ITU is going to listen to online public comment as it does the ITRs, right? Milton - I don't see the USG making policy for DNS names or IP address management, and yet setting such policy was definitely done in long past by folks operating under USG contracts. Policy development is now undertaken by multi-stakeholder participants in the community. Are you aware of critical Internet resource policy being set by USG via its unique IANA contract relationship? > including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs > [Milton L Mueller] Aside from ARIN’s creation, this had nothing to do with the Commerce Department, but was done when the NSF was in control. It’s not likely this authority would be delegated to Europe or Asia had the Commerce Dept been in control. With respect to your question about DoC, it's hard to predict outcomes of hypothetical scenarios (e.g. whether DoC would have delegated outside US) I'll note that within USG there has always been some level of coordination of Internet issues (e.g. Federal Network Council, Interagency TF, etc); I do not believe that attributing the evolution in critical Internet resource management over 20 years to any one US department would accurately reflect what happened. > , the formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. > [Milton L Mueller] the formation of ICANN was supposed to lead to full privatization after “two years at most” to quote Magaziner, perhaps you can explain to us why that didn’t happen. Not my job to address such; I was simply pointing out that it is not quite appropriate to suggest that the USG has come from "a posture of total unwillingness", and if it were indeed true, these functions would be still performed under policy set by the USG. > Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed the Internet community itself? > [Milton L Mueller] Because the USG controls ICANN and the IANA contract. All the more reason for the community to come to consensus on how this should evolve, and propose such to the USG. There is no any particular reason for the USG to change the status quo (and frankly, I'm not certain why the global Internet community should or would accept a USG-proposed roadmap in any case...) FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Reality wins. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 3 20:38:42 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 05:38:42 +0500 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: There also something called giving the wrong idea or giving ideas. Some countries like following by example. On a desperate and separate note, some countries nearer to my part of the world have quietly put in policies quietly through non public directives for censorship, filtering, blocking and DPI surveillance wahay before they announced preparation for WCIT/ITRs. For us from this part of the world, the real threat is no more the WCIT/ITR recommendations but what are countries doing prior to influence and ascertain their positions and proposals. We can rant about IGF's lack of outcomes, IBSA, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, UN Centric Internet Control and Policing, ITU and WCIT/ITRs, educating ministers, unilateral propaganda behind a limited IG issue but the reality is that Internet Access Denied is happening behind the curtains, a submarine cable termination points on to the national trunks, US and Canadian companies are selling heaps of surveillance software and hardware for DPI in the name of cyber security but we are engrossed in gacs and lack of routing knowledge. When do we set our concerns straight? Fouad Bajwa On Aug 4, 2012 2:05 AM, "Roland Perry" wrote: > In message <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01E**CD21DCB2F at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.** > syr.edu <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F at SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>>, > at 18:39:46 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Milton L Mueller writes > >> You don't think the facets of the Internet that the ITU might want to >>> control are wider than the rather small subset dealt with by ICANN? >>> >>> Settlement peering and cybersecurity, for example. >>> >> >> Roland, this may come across as a back-handed comment but I can't >> think of a better way to put it, and my concern is to "put your >> heart at ease." >> > > Haven't we had this conversation before? There's a difference between > "want to control" and "will control" or even "do a useful job if put in > control". > > ps. Regarding settlement peering, look at D.50 for an agenda that just > won't die. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 4 03:25:04 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 09:25:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? In-Reply-To: <4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org> Message-ID: <501CCE50.1070503@gmail.com> On 2012/08/03 03:30 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Sivasubramanian M > wrote: >> >> On Aug 3, 2012 6:29 AM, "John Curran" > > wrote: >> >> > After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal >> contracting for these >> > functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of >> critical Internet >> > resources, including the decentralization of IP address management >> to the RIRs, the >> > formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation >> of Commitments. >> >> Who knows this? Who understands this? How many people know that it >> takes no more than $3k to mirror the ICANN root server? A few among >> the few thousand ICANN / IG / RIR / ISOC participants. In a world of >> sensational headlines on unilateral control of the root, all these >> positive goodness is buried in fine print. The gestures I have >> talked about would be a visible, graphic answer to the bad headlines. >> > If you are suggesting the USG needs some help in doing PR with regards > to its positive > steps in Internet Governance over the last two decades, I would not > argue with that... PR is one thing. Disinterested discourse in civil society is quite another. There are many who take an ICANN line, defending the "faith" - and are try to be more Catholic than the pope. Effectiveness arguments are INSUFFICIENT regarding claims of legitimacy. And of course in civil society ICANN "loyalists" (paid hacks or genuine believers) are overal IMHO rather coarse and vulgar bunch (needs be said). So there PR is one thing, and civil society engagement (based on reason - which is not too high a standard to cope with diversity) another. >> > None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture >> of total unwillingness"... >> >> So it appears to the common man, or made to appear to the common man >> in a carefully archestrated propaganda of misleading 'headlines' >> that appears to me to be a psychological campaign with carefully >> calculated omissions. >> > Indeed. I believe that some actively obscure or misrepresent the USG > track record in > facilitating decentralization of Internet Governance since inception > of the Internet. Like > many things in this world, it is not perfect, but I do believe that > has been an enabler of > discussion of open and transparent multi-stakeholder governance which > might easily not > have otherwise occurred. Ah but one cannot just take a single type of approach to this. Dialectically (in the Hegelian sense) MSG has been seen by some as a good alternative to actually doing something about the legitimacy issue. Name calling (anti-Internet propaganda sounds so similar to "there can be only one root") has been the forte of the coarse and vulgar, and ab initio takes the wind out of the sails of any genuine engagement/arguments. >> >> As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer >> a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? >> > >> > >> > Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, >> as opposed >> > the Internet community itself? >> >> :-) >> > Thanks for raising this important topic! The issue is that the combined might (i.e. power) of USG, ICANN (employees, hacks & believers & wannabe's) in an MSG institutional setting (where scant regard is given for corporate domination - perhaps because of the "quaint" definition of "private sector" in the US that includes both non-profit and for-profit) kinda makes it hard to have a civilised reasonable discussion about these topics. Yeah, people engage up to a point... so this needs to be said - just so that there is no doubt: if one does not conflate technical (effectiveness) with social then the legitimacy argument has and continues to have merit. And issues of where is your evidence or technical precision, are often (not always) raised, but NOT as a means to deal with the issue - but to fob it off. Now some on this list may present themselves as playing the game (because that is how the game is played)... not all are convinced by that wonderful alleged Bushism (elected 2x btw;), you can fool some of the people some of the time and those are the ones you should concentrate on. While some/few (in case there are others of my persuasion - but speaking for myself only) of us know our relative powerless, and very aware of the sophisticated hounding of our views, _we do believe in the reality of choice_, and engagement to bring about changes in an evolutionary way... so the real test will be weather these communication of technical details can actually stand up to being "neutral" in terms of legitimacy... after all Cassandra did warn about the Trojan Horse... > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. Email written at higher altitudes may > lack coherence; > use at your own risk. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 4 03:07:53 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2012 09:07:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> This can be understood in terms of path dependency as well as Public Choice theory... at some level of abstraction. On 2012/08/03 02:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > The financial aspect and opportunities will always be there because at > the end of the day, we see a lot of stuff that inclines towards > benefiting the domain industry. > > Best > > Fouad > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: >> http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal >> >> I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in >> favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks >> within the ICANN community. >> >> Fahd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> list mailing list >> list at igfarab.org >> http://mail.igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sat Aug 4 13:25:39 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 17:25:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> References: ,<501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Riaz, I can tell you from my eight years tenure in the ICANN Board that once the sustainability of the organization was achieved, the terms of contracts like the ones with Verisign were analyzed by the Board on a very principled basis. Their budgetary impact for ICANN itself was never a primary consideration. >From knowledge of present Directors I tend to presume mostly a similar trend. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 02:07 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fouad Bajwa Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal This can be understood in terms of path dependency as well as Public Choice theory... at some level of abstraction. On 2012/08/03 02:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > The financial aspect and opportunities will always be there because at > the end of the day, we see a lot of stuff that inclines towards > benefiting the domain industry. > > Best > > Fouad > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: >> http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal >> >> I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in >> favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks >> within the ICANN community. >> >> Fahd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> list mailing list >> list at igfarab.org >> http://mail.igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sat Aug 4 13:34:31 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 17:34:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? In-Reply-To: <501CCE50.1070503@gmail.com> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org>,<501CCE50.1070503@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA725@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Riaz, it is interesting that in the same breath in which you call a number of people a "coarse and vulgar bunch", in ways that make it difficult to separate those you mean to debase from those you don't, you choose to characterize some subset of people as "more Catholic than the Pope", "coarse and vulgar", and other terms which you may guess some might find between inadequate and offensive. Where there may be a flaw in your argumentation is, interestingly, where opportunity for real dialog lies. You may imagine that positions like the ones you often present, and their delivery, are equally alienating to others. One of them - and this one may cut both ways - is the creation of a Feindbild, in which A assumes that B is X just because a part of his/her positions are like some of X, sound like part of X, or are conflated in the reader's minds to be like X. When that happens each of us may be "seeing red" and not noticing important parts of the conversation, such as people being equally committed to build a system and to fix its faults. One instance would be people trying to carry on the task of building ICANN, yet keeping it within size and mission, and trying their best to solve the flaws of asymmetric USG power. Tell me what I may be seeing wrong, in a similar way, in your position, that can open up a dialogue and throw down or at least soften the walls of the tunnel situation in which we land again and again. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 02:25 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran Asunto: [governance] Re: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? On 2012/08/03 03:30 PM, John Curran wrote: On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Sivasubramanian M > wrote: On Aug 3, 2012 6:29 AM, "John Curran" > wrote: > After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal contracting for these > functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of critical Internet > resources, including the decentralization of IP address management to the RIRs, the > formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the Affirmation of Commitments. Who knows this? Who understands this? How many people know that it takes no more than $3k to mirror the ICANN root server? A few among the few thousand ICANN / IG / RIR / ISOC participants. In a world of sensational headlines on unilateral control of the root, all these positive goodness is buried in fine print. The gestures I have talked about would be a visible, graphic answer to the bad headlines. If you are suggesting the USG needs some help in doing PR with regards to its positive steps in Internet Governance over the last two decades, I would not argue with that... PR is one thing. Disinterested discourse in civil society is quite another. There are many who take an ICANN line, defending the "faith" - and are try to be more Catholic than the pope. Effectiveness arguments are INSUFFICIENT regarding claims of legitimacy. And of course in civil society ICANN "loyalists" (paid hacks or genuine believers) are overal IMHO rather coarse and vulgar bunch (needs be said). So there PR is one thing, and civil society engagement (based on reason - which is not too high a standard to cope with diversity) another. > None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture of total unwillingness"... So it appears to the common man, or made to appear to the common man in a carefully archestrated propaganda of misleading 'headlines' that appears to me to be a psychological campaign with carefully calculated omissions. Indeed. I believe that some actively obscure or misrepresent the USG track record in facilitating decentralization of Internet Governance since inception of the Internet. Like many things in this world, it is not perfect, but I do believe that has been an enabler of discussion of open and transparent multi-stakeholder governance which might easily not have otherwise occurred. Ah but one cannot just take a single type of approach to this. Dialectically (in the Hegelian sense) MSG has been seen by some as a good alternative to actually doing something about the legitimacy issue. Name calling (anti-Internet propaganda sounds so similar to "there can be only one root") has been the forte of the coarse and vulgar, and ab initio takes the wind out of the sails of any genuine engagement/arguments. >> As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? > > > Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the USG, as opposed > the Internet community itself? :-) Thanks for raising this important topic! The issue is that the combined might (i.e. power) of USG, ICANN (employees, hacks & believers & wannabe's) in an MSG institutional setting (where scant regard is given for corporate domination - perhaps because of the "quaint" definition of "private sector" in the US that includes both non-profit and for-profit) kinda makes it hard to have a civilised reasonable discussion about these topics. Yeah, people engage up to a point... so this needs to be said - just so that there is no doubt: if one does not conflate technical (effectiveness) with social then the legitimacy argument has and continues to have merit. And issues of where is your evidence or technical precision, are often (not always) raised, but NOT as a means to deal with the issue - but to fob it off. Now some on this list may present themselves as playing the game (because that is how the game is played)... not all are convinced by that wonderful alleged Bushism (elected 2x btw;), you can fool some of the people some of the time and those are the ones you should concentrate on. While some/few (in case there are others of my persuasion - but speaking for myself only) of us know our relative powerless, and very aware of the sophisticated hounding of our views, we do believe in the reality of choice, and engagement to bring about changes in an evolutionary way... so the real test will be weather these communication of technical details can actually stand up to being "neutral" in terms of legitimacy... after all Cassandra did warn about the Trojan Horse... /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Email written at higher altitudes may lack coherence; use at your own risk. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 14:13:45 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 21:13:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Alejandro, while I have no negative stance against the ICANN board or any board member in particular, there remains two unanswered questions for me: 1. How did the board approve .xxx while the community was against it. 2. How did the board approve the New gTLD program while many answers and concerns were unanswered. Even after the program was launched, the "TAS glitch" caused lots of controversy. Even worst, ICANN is talking about the next New gTLD round (initially planed for 2013) when current issues have not been resolved yet. What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). After all, shouldn't the board work in the best of the "Public Interest"? Fahd On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Riaz, > > I can tell you from my eight years tenure in the ICANN Board that once the > sustainability of the organization was achieved, the terms of contracts > like the ones with Verisign were analyzed by the Board on a very principled > basis. Their budgetary impact for ICANN itself was never a primary > consideration. > > From knowledge of present Directors I tend to presume mostly a similar > trend. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [ > riaz.tayob at gmail.com] > Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 02:07 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fouad Bajwa > Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from > New .com Deal > > This can be understood in terms of path dependency as well as Public > Choice theory... at some level of abstraction. > > > On 2012/08/03 02:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > The financial aspect and opportunities will always be there because at > > the end of the day, we see a lot of stuff that inclines towards > > benefiting the domain industry. > > > > Best > > > > Fouad > > > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh > > wrote: > >> > http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal > >> > >> I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in > >> favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks > >> within the ICANN community. > >> > >> Fahd > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> list mailing list > >> list at igfarab.org > >> http://mail.igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list > >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 4 15:43:51 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:43:51 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > Alejandro, while I have no negative stance against the ICANN board or any > board member in particular, there remains two unanswered questions for me: > > 1. How did the board approve .xxx while the community was against it. > > To examine and analyse this discretionary power and authority one has to go to the ICANN By laws. Is the Board obliged to accept the advice of Advisory Committees or do they have their own discretionary capacity. > > 1. How did the board approve the New gTLD program while many answers > and concerns were unanswered. Even after the program was launched, the "TAS > glitch" caused lots of controversy. Even worst, ICANN is talking about the > next New gTLD round (initially planed for 2013) when current issues have > not been resolved yet. > > If you revisit the Transcripts of the ICANN Meeting in Singapore, there was one sole dissenter (I could be wrong, maybe there were two, it would be worthwhile to check) and the lone dissenter raised objections with his rationale. However at the same time, to be fair the commercial world thrives on risks and the Board in this instance had the ultimate discretion to make the call. The obligation to manage and mitigate the risks is another issue. There is a delicate balance between listening to the community and feedback and making decisions. I still recall Tina Dam raising at the San Jose meeting her reservations about "Digital Archery" which was ultimately scrapped. However, one thing must be said is that ICANN is a community that is open and you can write or make submissions as an "affected party". For Governments, the GAC, for non- commercial stakeholders and At Large. There are other avenues other than commercial stakeholders where people can raise their concerns. One of the remarkable things about the current Board is that they are also going out of their way to extract feedback from the global community. They are also bound by core values within the ICANN By Laws and if people are not happy with how this is unfolding, then there are mechanisms in place to raise these concerns etc. What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their capacity > as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective > employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past > board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere > (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). > > Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled down to personal integrity and ethics as legally. This was of course through rigorous consultations with the global community addressed so that it never happens again. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 4 15:52:20 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:52:20 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Slight edits: Fahd: What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). Sal: Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled down to personal integrity and ethics as there was nothing in writing concerning that specific situation. This was of course addressed through rigorous consultations with the global community so that it never happens again. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 15:57:07 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 00:57:07 +0500 Subject: [governance] In Interview, Romney Brings Arab Spring Into Presidential Race - NYTimes.com Message-ID: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/in-interview-romney-brings-arab-spring-into-presidential-race/ This is going to be soul food for the Arab IGF I suppose. Fouad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 4 16:01:34 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:01:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] In Interview, Romney Brings Arab Spring Into Presidential Race - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/in-interview-romney-brings-arab-spring-into-presidential-race/ > > This is going to be soul food for the Arab IGF I suppose. > Having being at a recent Pacific Broadband Forum organised by the ITU in Fiji which followed the APT meeting. I was surprised to hear the Republic of Marshall Islands (RMI) talk about how the Arab Spring affected ICT development in RMI. ;) (chuckling) > Fouad > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From eiriarte at alfa-redi.org Sat Aug 4 16:16:12 2012 From: eiriarte at alfa-redi.org (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 15:16:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Congreso del Peru puede aprobar ley contra el #internetlibre by E.Iriarte References: <99FCE172-08AF-4FB3-8247-3CCC924655DC@alfa-redi.org> Message-ID: FYI Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: Erick Iriarte Ahon > Fecha: 3 de agosto de 2012 17:54:31 GMT-05:00 > Para: "Peru Digital: Espacio de Dialogo para un Peru Digital" , "Foro de Derecho Informático." > Cc: LatinoamerICANN LatinoamerICANN > Asunto: Congreso del Peru puede aprobar ley contra el #internetlibre by E.Iriarte > > Fuente: http://lexdigitalis.lamula.pe/2012/08/03/congreso-del-peru-puede-aprobar-ley-contra-el-internetlibre-by-e-iriarte/lexdigitalis > > Congreso del Peru puede aprobar ley contra el #internetlibre by E.Iriarte > > "El hacha sirve para cortar cabezas; pero también la utilizamos para cortar árboles y hacer casas con su madera. Has de aprender a descubrir lo mucho bueno que hay en lo malo y lo malísimo que puede resultar lo bueno. El dulce azúcar puede hacernos daño y el asqueroso ricino nos puede curar." Don Cesar de Echague by Jose Marllorquí > > El Dictamen de la Comisión de Justicia y Derechos Humanos recaído en los Proyectos de Ley 034/2011-CR, 307/2011-CR y 1136/2011-CR con un texto sustitutorio por el que se propone la Ley de los delitos informáticos, publicado con fecha 20 de Julio [ver: http://www2.congreso.gob.pe/Sicr/ApoyComisiones/comision2011.nsf/DictamenesFuturo/A720FCB4E0B6048A05257A4600510861/$FILE/JUSTICIA.34.307.1136-2011-CR.May.Txt.Sust..pdf] (a pesar de haberse aprobado el 26 de Junio tal como consta en la transcripción de la sesión de dicha fecha) [http://lexdigitalis.lamula.pe/2012/07/10/transcripcion-de-la-comision-de-justicia-26-06-12-dictamen-delitos-informaticos/lexdigitalis] busca enfrentar un fenómeno poco conocido por el legislador de la mejor manera que pueden: desarrollando un texto en base a su buen saber y entender, a pesar de que cuando pudimos le dimos un poco de información para poder comprender mejor el fenómeno [ver: http://iriartelaw.com/comentarios-Proyecto-de-Ley-de-Delitos-Informaticos] > > Sin duda un esfuerzo loable y notable por parte del legislador y de sus asesores (que tuvieron que capear criticas sobre la originalidad de los textos de los antecedentes [ver: http://www.blawyer.org/2012/07/02/congreso-delitos-informaticos-pirateo/], al enfrentarse a un difícil tema como es el cybercrimen. > > El proyecto ha pasado al Pleno donde se “debatirá” prontamente, incluyendo entre otros el siguiente texto: “No se encuentra dentro del alcance del secreto de las comunicaciones la información relacionada con la identidad de los titulares de telefonía móvil; los números de registro del cliente, de la línea telefónica y del equipo; el tráfico de llamadas y los números de protocolo de internet (números IP). Por lo tanto, las empresas proveedoras de servicios de telefonía e internet debe proporcionar la información antes señalada conjuntamente con los datos de identificación del titular del servicio que corresponda, a la Policía Nacional del Perú o al Ministerio Público dentro de las cuarenta y ocho horas de recibido el requerimiento, bajo responsabilidad, cuando estas instituciones actúen en el cumplimiento de sus funciones.” Mas asombroso que el texto mismo son los argumentos para mantenerlo expresados por el mismo presidente de la Comisión, Congresista Beingolea, quien indica que no estos temas "que creo que la cobertura constitucional no alcanza a estos", es decir como si la información de números IP que son datos personales (A pesar que la ley de protección de datos personales dice: "art.2.4 dato personal: toda información sobre una persona natural que la identifica o la hace identificable a través de medios que pueden ser razonablemente utilizados"). > > Entre los que hemos visto el peligro de la privacidad y los que han percibido un peligro a la libertad de expresión, tenemos razones mas que suficientes para temer por lo que implicaría este proyecto (casi tanto como la falta de reglamento de la ley de protección de datos, que deja en un limbo jurídico temas como los que pretende regular la presente ley). > > Es entonces innecesaria una ley de Delitos Informaticos?, ciertamente no es innecesaria y debe poder regular una serie de actos utilizando TICs y que afecten al bien jurídico información de una manera clara y directa. Somos unos de los países que mas tempranamente adoptaron una regulación en tema de delitos informáticos (delitos que afectan al bien jurídico información) con la incorporación de los artículos 207A, 207B y 207C, enfocados en el intrusismo informático y en el cracking. Luego desarrollamos una legislación para fortalecer el combate contra la pornografía infantil, le dimos potestades a los fiscales para poder intervenir en comunicaciones (incluyendo comunicaciones digitales) pero no le dimos para temas de delitos por medio de TICs, y se han planteado diversos proyectos para adecuadar los tipos penales existentes, pero no se han completado. > > Es pues necesario un instrumento internacional, como el Convenio de Cybercrimen, que nos permita insertarnos en los esfuerzos internacionales y no quedar como una isla no regulada. El Convenio aparte de haber sido firmado por los países europeos, USA, Japon, Australia, Nueva Zelandia entre otros, presenta de la región a Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Republica Dominicana y Mexico que han firmado o ya están en proceso de ratificación del acuerdo. Mientras que otros países ya se encuentran en proceso de firmar el acuerdo. > > Da instrumentos para adecuación normativa, para cooperación internacional y abre las puertas para el desarrollo de normativa sobre informática forense, necesaria para darle instrumento a la Policia y la Fiscalia para la persecución del delito. > > Siendo de relevancia para el desarrollo de la Sociedad de la Informacion y con ello crear un marco normativo favorable al desarrollo de la industria TIC pero sobre todo para el desarrollo social, la pregunta a hacerse es: ¿Y el Peru cuando firmara y ratificara el Acuerdo de Cybercrimen, o es que deseamos ser una isla donde impunemente se utilice la delincuencia para delinquir? > > Tomando en cuento lo anterior, la ley que pretende aprobar el parlamento, tomando en cuenta que ha sido con buena intención, en lugar de beneficiar y proteger, termina siendo un instrumento que puede vulnerar los derechos que se han ganado con ardua labor como son los de protección de datos personales, sumado a que debiendo adscribirnos al Convenio de Budapest (que curiosamente durante el debate en la Comisión se menciona como fuente para las "definiciones" no se toma como fuente para el articulado normativo). > > No nos enfrentamos a un debate sobre si es buena o mala una ley, nos enfrentamos a que "el dulcísimo azúcar produce caries" y esta ley que pretende ayudar, termina afectando. No se trata de inventar cosas nuevas, cuando mucha legislación a nivel internacional, porque esto es un fenómeno transfronterizo, ya ha sido avanzada y desarrollada en el Acuerdo de Cybercrimen, que hay que suscribirlo, tal como se ha dicho por funcionarios públicos y privados en los pasados 10 años. > > Aprobar esta ley no será un avance, será quizás un retroceso real y sensible en el desarrollo de la Sociedad de la Información en el Perú y por ende afectara mucho de los desarrollos y derechos que se han ganado con esta importante herramienta. > > Es hora de salir a reclamar, no podemos ser uno mas de los que hacen la cifra de los conectados. Requerimos instrumentos para perseguir los delitos como el Acuerdo de Budapest de Cybercrimen, que a la fecha no se ha firmado; pero tambien requerimos que los instrumentos defiendan los derechos de los individuos. Internet no es un mundo sin ley pero sin duda tampoco un sitio de actuar a mansalva. #NOLeydelitosinformaticos > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 16:06:00 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 01:06:00 +0500 Subject: [governance] In Interview, Romney Brings Arab Spring Into Presidential Race - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes Sala, The Arab Spring issue as Foreign Policy is also the soul food of ITU ITR discussions. The paranoia surrounding the Arab Spring across the globe is just unbelievably indigestible. Fouad Bajwa On Aug 5, 2012 1:01 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> >> http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/in-interview-romney-brings-arab-spring-into-presidential-race/ >> >> This is going to be soul food for the Arab IGF I suppose. >> > Having being at a recent Pacific Broadband Forum organised by the ITU in > Fiji which followed the APT meeting. I was surprised to hear the Republic > of Marshall Islands (RMI) talk about how the Arab Spring affected ICT > development in RMI. ;) (chuckling) > >> Fouad >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 4 16:07:27 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:07:27 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Congreso del Peru puede aprobar ley contra el #internetlibre by E.Iriarte In-Reply-To: References: <99FCE172-08AF-4FB3-8247-3CCC924655DC@alfa-redi.org> Message-ID: This is the English Translation on Google of what Erick sent: Peru Congress can pass laws against the # internetlibre by E.Iriarte "The ax used to cut heads, but also use it to cut trees and build houses with wood. You must learn to realize how much good in the bad and very bad it can be good. The sweet sugar can harm us Castor and disgusting we can heal. " Don Cesar Echague by Jose Marllorquí The Opinion of the Committee on Justice and Human Rights awarded to 034/2011-CR Bills, 307/2011 -CR and 1136/2011-CR with alternative text proposed by the Law of Crime, published dated 20 July Despite the adoption of the June 26 as recorded in the transcript of the meeting of that date) seeks to address a phenomenon known by the legislature in the best way they can: developing a text based on its knowledge and belief, despite the fact that when we gave him some information to better understand the phenomenon [see: http :/ / iriartelaw.com / comments-Project-of-Law-of-Crimes-Informaticos] No doubt a laudable effort and remarkable by the legislator and his advisors (who had to weather criticism about the originality of the text of the background [see http://www.blawyer.org/2012/07/02/congreso -crime-computer-hacking /] , when faced with a difficult subject such as cybercrime. The bill has passed the House where the "debate" promptly, including among others the following: "It is within the scope of the secrecy of communications information regarding the identity of the mobile phone holders, the registration numbers customer telephone line and equipment, call traffic numbers and Internet Protocol (IP numbers). Therefore, companies that provide telephone and internet services must provide the above information together with information identifying the holder of the appropriate service, the National Police of Peru or the Attorney General within forty-eight hours received the request, under the responsibility, when these institutions are acting in the performance of their duties. "More amazing than the text itself are the arguments to keep the same expressed by Committee Chairman, Congressman Beingolea, which indicates that these issues" that believe that constitutional coverage does not reach these ", ie as if the information of IP numbers that are personal (Although the law on protection of personal data says," art.2.4 personal information means information about an individual that identifies it or makes it identifiable through means that can be reasonably used "). Among those who have seen the danger of privacy and those who perceived a threat to freedom of expression, we have more than enough reasons to fear for what would this project (almost as much as the lack of regulations for the protection law data, leaving in limbo items such as those intended to regulate the present law). It is then unnecessary computer crime law?, Certainly not unnecessary and should be able to regulate a series of events using ICT and affecting the legal right information in a clear and direct. We are one of the earliest countries adopted a regulation in issue of crime (crimes affecting the legal right information) with the addition of Articles 207A, 207B and 207C, focused on computer intrusion and cracking. Then we develop legislation to strengthen the fight against child pornography, we gave prosecutors powers to intervene in communications (including digital communication) but did not give him to criminal issues through ICT, and several projects have been proposed for adecuadar existing criminal types, but not completed. It is therefore necessary to an international instrument such as the Cybercrime Convention, which allows us to insert ourselves in the international efforts and not be like an island unregulated. The Convention has been signed separately by European countries, USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand among others, present in the region to Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic and Mexico that have signed or are in process of ratification of agreement. While other countries already in the process of signing the agreement. Provides tools for regulatory adaptation to international cooperation and opens the door for the development of regulations on computer forensics tool needed to give the police and prosecutors to prosecute the crime. Being relevant to the development of Information Society and thereby create a regulatory framework conducive to the development of the ICT industry but above all for social development, the question to ask is: What about when Peru signed and ratified the Agreement of cybercrime, or do we want to be an island where crime is used with impunity to commit a crime? Taking the above story, the law intends to adopt the parliament, taking into account that has been with good intention, rather than benefit and protect ends up being a tool that can violate the rights they have earned with hard work such as protection of personal data, added to which must ascribe to the Budapest Convention (which curiously during the debate in the Commission mentioned as a source for the "definitions" is not taken as normative source for the articles). We face a debate over whether good or bad law, we are faced with "the sweetest sugar causes tooth decay" and this law is intended to help, ends up affecting. This is not to invent new things, when many international law, because this is a transboundary phenomenon has already been advanced and developed in the Agreement on cybercrime, you have to sign it, as has been said by government officials and private the past 10 years. Passing this law will not be an advance, is it a real throwback and sensitive development of the Information Society in Peru and thus affect a lot of developments and rights that have earned this important tool. Time to get out to claim, we can not be one more of those making the number of connected. Require tools to prosecute crimes such as Budapest Agreement of cybercrime, which to date has not been signed, but also require that the instruments defend the rights of individuals. Internet is a lawless world but certainly not a place to act in cold blood. # NOLeydelitosinformaticos Peru Congress can pass laws against the # internetlibre by E.Iriarte "The ax used to cut heads, but also use it to cut trees and build houses with wood. You must learn to realize how much good in the bad and very bad it can be good. The sweet sugar can harm us Castor and disgusting we can heal. " Don Cesar Echague by Jose Marllorquí The Opinion of the Committee on Justice and Human Rights awarded to 034/2011-CR Bills, 307/2011 -CR and 1136/2011-CR with alternative text proposed by the Law of Crime, published dated 20 July Despite the adoption of the June 26 as recorded in the transcript of the meeting of that date) seeks to address a phenomenon known by the legislature in the best way they can: developing a text based on its knowledge and belief, despite the fact that when we gave him some information to better understand the phenomenon [see: http :/ / iriartelaw.com / comments-Project-of-Law-of-Crimes-Informaticos] No doubt a laudable effort and remarkable by the legislator and his advisors (who had to weather criticism about the originality of the text of the background [see http://www.blawyer.org/2012/07/02/congreso -crime-computer-hacking /] , when faced with a difficult subject such as cybercrime. The bill has passed the House where the "debate" promptly, including among others the following: "It is within the scope of the secrecy of communications information regarding the identity of the mobile phone holders, the registration numbers customer telephone line and equipment, call traffic numbers and Internet Protocol (IP numbers). Therefore, companies that provide telephone and internet services must provide the above information together with information identifying the holder of the appropriate service, the National Police of Peru or the Attorney General within forty-eight hours received the request, under the responsibility, when these institutions are acting in the performance of their duties. "More amazing than the text itself are the arguments to keep the same expressed by Committee Chairman, Congressman Beingolea, which indicates that these issues" that believe that constitutional coverage does not reach these ", ie as if the information of IP numbers that are personal (Although the law on protection of personal data says," art.2.4 personal information means information about an individual that identifies it or makes it identifiable through means that can be reasonably used "). Among those who have seen the danger of privacy and those who perceived a threat to freedom of expression, we have more than enough reasons to fear for what would this project (almost as much as the lack of regulations for the protection law data, leaving in limbo items such as those intended to regulate the present law). It is then unnecessary computer crime law?, Certainly not unnecessary and should be able to regulate a series of events using ICT and affecting the legal right information in a clear and direct. We are one of the earliest countries adopted a regulation in issue of crime (crimes affecting the legal right information) with the addition of Articles 207A, 207B and 207C, focused on computer intrusion and cracking. Then we develop legislation to strengthen the fight against child pornography, we gave prosecutors powers to intervene in communications (including digital communication) but did not give him to criminal issues through ICT, and several projects have been proposed for adecuadar existing criminal types, but not completed. It is therefore necessary to an international instrument such as the Cybercrime Convention, which allows us to insert ourselves in the international efforts and not be like an island unregulated. The Convention has been signed separately by European countries, USA, Japan, Australia, New Zealand among others, present in the region to Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic and Mexico that have signed or are in process of ratification of agreement. While other countries already in the process of signing the agreement. Provides tools for regulatory adaptation to international cooperation and opens the door for the development of regulations on computer forensics tool needed to give the police and prosecutors to prosecute the crime. Being relevant to the development of Information Society and thereby create a regulatory framework conducive to the development of the ICT industry but above all for social development, the question to ask is: What about when Peru signed and ratified the Agreement of cybercrime, or do we want to be an island where crime is used with impunity to commit a crime? Taking the above story, the law intends to adopt the parliament, taking into account that has been with good intention, rather than benefit and protect ends up being a tool that can violate the rights they have earned with hard work such as protection of personal data, added to which must ascribe to the Budapest Convention (which curiously during the debate in the Commission mentioned as a source for the "definitions" is not taken as normative source for the articles). We face a debate over whether good or bad law, we are faced with "the sweetest sugar causes tooth decay" and this law is intended to help, ends up affecting. This is not to invent new things, when many international law, because this is a transboundary phenomenon has already been advanced and developed in the Agreement on cybercrime, you have to sign it, as has been said by government officials and private the past 10 years. Passing this law will not be an advance, is it a real throwback and sensitive development of the Information Society in Peru and thus affect a lot of developments and rights that have earned this important tool. Time to get out to claim, we can not be one more of those making the number of connected. Require tools to prosecute crimes such as Budapest Agreement of cybercrime, which to date has not been signed, but also require that the instruments defend the rights of individuals. Internet is a lawless world but certainly not a place to act in cold blood. # NOLeydelitosinformaticos 2012/8/5 Erick Iriarte Ahon > FYI > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > *De: *Erick Iriarte Ahon > *Fecha: *3 de agosto de 2012 17:54:31 GMT-05:00 > *Para: *"Peru Digital: Espacio de Dialogo para un Peru Digital" < > peru-digital at dgroups.org>, "Foro de Derecho Informático." < > derecho-informatico at dgroups.org> > *Cc: *LatinoamerICANN LatinoamerICANN > *Asunto: **Congreso del Peru puede aprobar ley contra el #internetlibre > by E.Iriarte* > > Fuente: > http://lexdigitalis.lamula.pe/2012/08/03/congreso-del-peru-puede-aprobar-ley-contra-el-internetlibre-by-e-iriarte/lexdigitalis > > Congreso del Peru puede aprobar ley contra el #internetlibre by E.Iriarte > > "El hacha sirve para cortar cabezas; pero también la utilizamos para > cortar árboles y hacer casas con su madera. Has de aprender a descubrir lo > mucho bueno que hay en lo malo y lo malísimo que puede resultar lo bueno. > El dulce azúcar puede hacernos daño y el asqueroso ricino nos puede curar." > Don Cesar de Echague by Jose Marllorquí > > El Dictamen de la Comisión de Justicia y Derechos Humanos recaído en los > Proyectos de Ley 034/2011-CR, 307/2011-CR y 1136/2011-CR con un texto > sustitutorio por el que se propone la Ley de los delitos informáticos, > publicado con fecha 20 de Julio [ver: > http://www2.congreso.gob.pe/Sicr/ApoyComisiones/comision2011.nsf/DictamenesFuturo/A720FCB4E0B6048A05257A4600510861/$FILE/JUSTICIA.34.307.1136-2011-CR.May.Txt.Sust..pdf](a pesar de haberse aprobado el 26 de Junio tal como consta en la > transcripción de la sesión de dicha fecha) [ > http://lexdigitalis.lamula.pe/2012/07/10/transcripcion-de-la-comision-de-justicia-26-06-12-dictamen-delitos-informaticos/lexdigitalis] > busca enfrentar un fenómeno poco conocido por el legislador de la mejor > manera que pueden: desarrollando un texto en base a su buen saber y > entender, a pesar de que cuando pudimos le dimos un poco de información > para poder comprender mejor el fenómeno [ver: > http://iriartelaw.com/comentarios-Proyecto-de-Ley-de-Delitos-Informaticos] > > Sin duda un esfuerzo loable y notable por parte del legislador y de sus > asesores (que tuvieron que capear criticas sobre la originalidad de los > textos de los antecedentes [ver: > http://www.blawyer.org/2012/07/02/congreso-delitos-informaticos-pirateo/], > al enfrentarse a un difícil tema como es el cybercrimen. > > El proyecto ha pasado al Pleno donde se “debatirá” prontamente, incluyendo > entre otros el siguiente texto: “No se encuentra dentro del alcance del > secreto de las comunicaciones la información relacionada con la identidad > de los titulares de telefonía móvil; los números de registro del cliente, > de la línea telefónica y del equipo; el tráfico de llamadas y los números > de protocolo de internet (números IP). Por lo tanto, las empresas > proveedoras de servicios de telefonía e internet debe proporcionar la > información antes señalada conjuntamente con los datos de identificación > del titular del servicio que corresponda, a la Policía Nacional del Perú o > al Ministerio Público dentro de las cuarenta y ocho horas de recibido el > requerimiento, bajo responsabilidad, cuando estas instituciones actúen en > el cumplimiento de sus funciones.” Mas asombroso que el texto mismo son los > argumentos para mantenerlo expresados por el mismo presidente de la > Comisión, Congresista Beingolea, quien indica que no estos temas "que creo > que la cobertura constitucional no alcanza a estos", es decir como si la > información de números IP que son datos personales (A pesar que la ley de > protección de datos personales dice: "art.2.4 dato personal: toda > información sobre una persona natural que la identifica o la hace > identificable a través de medios que pueden ser razonablemente utilizados"). > > Entre los que hemos visto el peligro de la privacidad y los que han > percibido un peligro a la libertad de expresión, tenemos razones mas que > suficientes para temer por lo que implicaría este proyecto (casi tanto como > la falta de reglamento de la ley de protección de datos, que deja en un > limbo jurídico temas como los que pretende regular la presente ley). > > Es entonces innecesaria una ley de Delitos Informaticos?, ciertamente no > es innecesaria y debe poder regular una serie de actos utilizando TICs y > que afecten al bien jurídico información de una manera clara y directa. > Somos unos de los países que mas tempranamente adoptaron una regulación en > tema de delitos informáticos (delitos que afectan al bien jurídico > información) con la incorporación de los artículos 207A, 207B y 207C, > enfocados en el intrusismo informático y en el cracking. Luego > desarrollamos una legislación para fortalecer el combate contra la > pornografía infantil, le dimos potestades a los fiscales para poder > intervenir en comunicaciones (incluyendo comunicaciones digitales) pero no > le dimos para temas de delitos por medio de TICs, y se han planteado > diversos proyectos para adecuadar los tipos penales existentes, pero no se > han completado. > > Es pues necesario un instrumento internacional, como el Convenio de > Cybercrimen, que nos permita insertarnos en los esfuerzos internacionales y > no quedar como una isla no regulada. El Convenio aparte de haber sido > firmado por los países europeos, USA, Japon, Australia, Nueva Zelandia > entre otros, presenta de la región a Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, > Republica Dominicana y Mexico que han firmado o ya están en proceso de > ratificación del acuerdo. Mientras que otros países ya se encuentran en > proceso de firmar el acuerdo. > > Da instrumentos para adecuación normativa, para cooperación internacional > y abre las puertas para el desarrollo de normativa sobre informática > forense, necesaria para darle instrumento a la Policia y la Fiscalia para > la persecución del delito. > > Siendo de relevancia para el desarrollo de la Sociedad de la Informacion y > con ello crear un marco normativo favorable al desarrollo de la industria > TIC pero sobre todo para el desarrollo social, la pregunta a hacerse es: ¿Y > el Peru cuando firmara y ratificara el Acuerdo de Cybercrimen, o es que > deseamos ser una isla donde impunemente se utilice la delincuencia para > delinquir? > > Tomando en cuento lo anterior, la ley que pretende aprobar el parlamento, > tomando en cuenta que ha sido con buena intención, en lugar de beneficiar y > proteger, termina siendo un instrumento que puede vulnerar los derechos que > se han ganado con ardua labor como son los de protección de datos > personales, sumado a que debiendo adscribirnos al Convenio de Budapest (que > curiosamente durante el debate en la Comisión se menciona como fuente para > las "definiciones" no se toma como fuente para el articulado normativo). > > No nos enfrentamos a un debate sobre si es buena o mala una ley, nos > enfrentamos a que "el dulcísimo azúcar produce caries" y esta ley que > pretende ayudar, termina afectando. No se trata de inventar cosas nuevas, > cuando mucha legislación a nivel internacional, porque esto es un fenómeno > transfronterizo, ya ha sido avanzada y desarrollada en el Acuerdo de > Cybercrimen, que hay que suscribirlo, tal como se ha dicho por funcionarios > públicos y privados en los pasados 10 años. > > Aprobar esta ley no será un avance, será quizás un retroceso real y > sensible en el desarrollo de la Sociedad de la Información en el Perú y por > ende afectara mucho de los desarrollos y derechos que se han ganado con > esta importante herramienta. > > Es hora de salir a reclamar, no podemos ser uno mas de los que hacen la > cifra de los conectados. Requerimos instrumentos para perseguir los delitos > como el Acuerdo de Budapest de Cybercrimen, que a la fecha no se ha > firmado; pero tambien requerimos que los instrumentos defiendan los > derechos de los individuos. Internet no es un mundo sin ley pero sin duda > tampoco un sitio de actuar a mansalva. #NOLeydelitosinformaticos > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 4 16:09:31 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:09:31 +1200 Subject: [governance] In Interview, Romney Brings Arab Spring Into Presidential Race - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Yes Sala, > > The Arab Spring issue as Foreign Policy is also the soul food of ITU ITR > discussions. The paranoia surrounding the Arab Spring across the globe is > just unbelievably indigestible. > The RMI context was that the ICT company that was engaged to roll out Universal Service had to bail out under "Force Majeure" because they were a Libyan company. > Fouad Bajwa > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 16:12:17 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 01:12:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Is it possible that someone with the right kind of legal backing and financial strength can drag ICANN to court and get an injunction at any point on both of the .xxx and new gtld go ahead to limit further activities on both? Fouad Bajwa On Aug 5, 2012 12:52 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Slight edits: > > Fahd: What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their > capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective > employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past > board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere > (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). > > Sal: Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of > "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled > down to personal integrity and ethics as there was nothing in writing > concerning that specific situation. This was of course addressed through > rigorous consultations with the global community so that it never happens > again. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sat Aug 4 16:35:59 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 20:35:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AAA2C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Fahd, I'll try to be brief and objective in replying: Desde: Fahd A. Batayneh [fahd.batayneh at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 13:13 Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch CC: IG Caucus Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal Alejandro, while I have no negative stance against the ICANN board or any board member in particular, there remains two unanswered questions for me: 1. How did the board approve .xxx while the community was against it. The Board I served on rejected it. The decision-review process which .xxx won leaves very little room to do other than allowing .xxx to go forward. What do you think would have been a worse outcry against ICANN? for going forward following its established rules, or for going against them? 1. How did the board approve the New gTLD program while many answers and concerns were unanswered. Even after the program was launched, the "TAS glitch" caused lots of controversy. Even worst, ICANN is talking about the next New gTLD round (initially planed for 2013) when current issues have not been resolved yet. What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. AP: this blank statement is wrong. A number of people who would have been in that situation recused themselves from voting and even discussing the decisions of the new gTLD program that would have meant a benefit for them or their employers. Even more, some past board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). AP: strictly I can only guess and say that there is at least one prominent instance which I have deplored deeply. Sala has already pointed to the strong community reaction and how it's causing better conflict of interest rules to be enacted, and a higher level of community vigilance to appear. You know conflict of interest and duties towards the organization vary a lot cross-culturally. I am in favor of great clarity so people know where Directors etc. stand when they vote, and when they shape a decision. The argument has been made that certain stricter rules "are US-centric" and should not apply, say, to French nationals. Maybe someone in this list can explore that further. I don't really buy it and find the argument disgraceful. Hope this is useful. Alejandro Pisanty After all, shouldn't the board work in the best of the "Public Interest"? Fahd On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > wrote: Riaz, I can tell you from my eight years tenure in the ICANN Board that once the sustainability of the organization was achieved, the terms of contracts like the ones with Verisign were analyzed by the Board on a very principled basis. Their budgetary impact for ICANN itself was never a primary consideration. >From knowledge of present Directors I tend to presume mostly a similar trend. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 02:07 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fouad Bajwa Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal This can be understood in terms of path dependency as well as Public Choice theory... at some level of abstraction. On 2012/08/03 02:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > The financial aspect and opportunities will always be there because at > the end of the day, we see a lot of stuff that inclines towards > benefiting the domain industry. > > Best > > Fouad > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh > > wrote: >> http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal >> >> I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in >> favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks >> within the ICANN community. >> >> Fahd >> >> _______________________________________________ >> list mailing list >> list at igfarab.org >> http://mail.igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sat Aug 4 16:38:45 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 20:38:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AAA38@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Fouad, that can only be tested in practice. Someone (or many "ones") must have already had this idea and studied the case. If it hasn't yet been attempted it may be that these "ones" concluded that the risk of not having a case they could win was too high for the cost-benefit ratio they were looking after. But we'll never know until it happens or some as-yet unknown stories are told. Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 15:12 Hasta: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org CC: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal Is it possible that someone with the right kind of legal backing and financial strength can drag ICANN to court and get an injunction at any point on both of the .xxx and new gtld go ahead to limit further activities on both? Fouad Bajwa On Aug 5, 2012 12:52 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > wrote: Slight edits: Fahd: What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). Sal: Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled down to personal integrity and ethics as there was nothing in writing concerning that specific situation. This was of course addressed through rigorous consultations with the global community so that it never happens again. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 4 17:35:41 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 02:35:41 +0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AAA38@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AAA38@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Actually this is one important aspect of ICANN in the IG discourse. One common belief among some people I the GAC that I know was that with the .xxx approval could provide them a simpler ground for banning, blocking, filtering and censorship just based on a simple "anything + .xxx" blanket block and for some others it wasn't a bad idea either. For the people in the porn industry, well they have their own story which is not the issue here but I know a lot of people in the SF ICANN meeting that displayed the We Support .XXX GTLD badge just to be on the blocking side of the table. On the other discussion of legality, ICANN subject to US based California laws can face injunctions, petitions and cases against its judgements. This may actually come more into play when the new GTLD approvals go forward. There might be resulting anger and counter attempts to stop parties from launching their new gtlds but yes it is yet unforeseen. I see new gtld stakeholder parties outside the US less capable to do it unless they have branches in the US and can file and pursue the cases. Its still a very US centric game field. Best Fouad On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Fouad, > > that can only be tested in practice. Someone (or many "ones") must have > already had this idea and studied the case. If it hasn't yet been attempted > it may be that these "ones" concluded that the risk of not having a case > they could win was too high for the cost-benefit ratio they were looking > after. > > But we'll never know until it happens or some as-yet unknown stories are > told. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________ > Desde: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 15:12 > Hasta: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > CC: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > > Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from > New .com Deal > > Is it possible that someone with the right kind of legal backing and > financial strength can drag ICANN to court and get an injunction at any > point on both of the .xxx and new gtld go ahead to limit further activities > on both? > > Fouad Bajwa > > On Aug 5, 2012 12:52 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > wrote: >> >> Slight edits: >> >> Fahd: What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their >> capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective >> employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past >> board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere (and >> I am sure you know what I exactly mean). >> >> Sal: Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of >> "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled down >> to personal integrity and ethics as there was nothing in writing concerning >> that specific situation. This was of course addressed through rigorous >> consultations with the global community so that it never happens again. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 4 18:03:18 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 00:03:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA725@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <4682BA4E-6821-4B55-9508-16475C18DEEA@istaff.org>,<501CCE50.1070503@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA725@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <501D9C26.8080001@gmail.com> Doctor Thanks for the note on tenor of discussions on this list. And I am adequately chastised. That said (there seems to always be a but with someone like me... so please don't take it in the wrong way...), But if you look at some of the discussions there is a need for those who raise challenges under the banner of legitimacy one can easily discern that the courtesy you talk about is not a two way street. And I for one have no problems with robust discussions if reason is not the first casualty. In point of fact, I appreciate it when people come right out and support American Exceptionalism - because at least, as they say, it goes with the territory of being a global power. I do wish you would level similar critiques at those who characterise the legitimacy issue (of CIR) as*"internet propaganda"* (when propaganda about a single root was technically sound for many, many a year - and anyone who crit it was like those who crit Mortgage Backed Security derivatives: simply out of the fold!) which is about as crude and vulgar as you can get. I trust that you will also weigh in when Parminder et al put out views that are subject to similar arguments, i.e. "A assumes that B is X just because a part of his/her positions are like some of X, sound like part of X, or are conflated in the reader's minds to be like X" - examples in bold for your edification. Not only have peoples views been belittled on this list, but they are also marginalised and put to higher standards of "proof". Sure it is not precisely the same bunch of people - but the arguments are repetitive and go round in circles, often with ICANN defenders against a few lonely voices on this list. Even on recent threads, the argument is that *we are back to 2003/4*. As if progress has been made on*legitimacy*. So, if one expects reasonableness then it must be with an even hand - which I trust will come forth with your guiding hand as for some of us the legitimacy issue remains unsatisfactorily resolved - and there is continued engagement. And lest there be no doubt. I do not mind nationalism, or favouring market based, or self supervision or even 'if ain't broke don't fix it' arguments - it is when there is a posse of people who support these sentiments and make claims to universal application - when in fact these are claims of universalism that rather do violence to difference. Parminder has raised concerns for instance about *MSG as a format*. These were discussed but not taken seriously - and now that Companies have a coalition whereas public interest civil society is rather weaker, it seems like Parminder's concerns have borne fruit (i.e. more analytically valid in poeisis) as compared to others, at least from my point of view. Further, it is fine to take a values based position (eg on*freedom of expression*) regarding China, but it would be wrong to then sublate that critique into mute when it comes to rich country democracies. It is not reasonable to expect others to tolerate these double standards - even if the proponents of such views can manage these contradictions. That is the kind of party invite one can refuse. But you are correct issues of tone could be better and I hope that your critique can be taken /collectively/ rather than merely for those who question MSG, ICANN legitimacy etc. Its a party we can all go to : ) Let's be optimistic about your invite, and I am happy to play my marginal role - but not in the face of provocation unfortunately... Riaz On 2012/08/04 07:34 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Riaz, > > it is interesting that in the same breath in which you call a number > of people a "coarse and vulgar bunch", in ways that make it difficult > to separate those you mean to debase from those you don't, you choose > to characterize some subset of people as "more Catholic than the > Pope", "coarse and vulgar", and other terms which you may guess some > might find between inadequate and offensive. > > Where there may be a flaw in your argumentation is, interestingly, > where opportunity for real dialog lies. > > You may imagine that positions like the ones you often present, and > their delivery, are equally alienating to others. > > One of them - and this one may cut both ways - is the creation of a > Feindbild, in which A assumes that B is X just because a part of > his/her positions are like some of X, sound like part of X, or are > conflated in the reader's minds to be like X. > > When that happens each of us may be "seeing red" and not noticing > important parts of the conversation, such as people being equally > committed to build a system and to fix its faults. One instance would > be people trying to carry on the task of building ICANN, yet keeping > it within size and mission, and trying their best to solve the flaws > of asymmetric USG power. > > Tell me what I may be seeing wrong, in a similar way, in your > position, that can open up a dialogue and throw down or at least > soften the walls of the tunnel situation in which we land again and > again. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Desde:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob > [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] > *Enviado el:* sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 02:25 > *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; John Curran > *Asunto:* [governance] Re: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? > > > On 2012/08/03 03:30 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:28 PM, Sivasubramanian M > > wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 3, 2012 6:29 AM, "John Curran" >> > wrote: >>> >>> > After all, the USG has seen the transition from top-down formal >>> contracting for these >>> > functions to a more open bottom-up multi-stakeholder management of >>> critical Internet >>> > resources, including the decentralization of IP address management >>> to the RIRs, the >>> > formation of ICANN, and replacement of the JPA with the >>> Affirmation of Commitments. >>> >>> Who knows this? Who understands this? How many people know that it >>> takes no more than $3k to mirror the ICANN root server? A few among >>> the few thousand ICANN / IG / RIR / ISOC participants. In a world of >>> sensational headlines on unilateral control of the root, all these >>> positive goodness is buried in fine print. The gestures I have >>> talked about would be a visible, graphic answer to the bad headlines. >>> >> If you are suggesting the USG needs some help in doing PR with >> regards to its positive >> steps in Internet Governance over the last two decades, I would not >> argue with that... > > PR is one thing. Disinterested discourse in civil society is quite > another. There are many who take an ICANN line, defending the "faith" > - and are try to be more Catholic than the pope. Effectiveness > arguments are INSUFFICIENT regarding claims of legitimacy. And of > course in civil society ICANN "loyalists" (paid hacks or genuine > believers) are overal IMHO rather coarse and vulgar bunch (needs be > said). So there PR is one thing, and civil society engagement (based > on reason - which is not too high a standard to cope with diversity) > another. > > > >>> > None of the above would have been possible coming from "a posture >>> of total unwillingness"... >>> >>> So it appears to the common man, or made to appear to the common man >>> in a carefully archestrated propaganda of misleading 'headlines' >>> that appears to me to be a psychological campaign with carefully >>> calculated omissions. >>> >> Indeed. I believe that some actively obscure or misrepresent the USG >> track record in >> facilitating decentralization of Internet Governance since inception >> of the Internet. Like >> many things in this world, it is not perfect, but I do believe that >> has been an enabler of >> discussion of open and transparent multi-stakeholder governance which >> might easily not >> have otherwise occurred. > > Ah but one cannot just take a single type of approach to this. > Dialectically (in the Hegelian sense) MSG has been seen by some as a > good alternative to actually doing something about the legitimacy > issue. Name calling (anti-Internet propaganda sounds so similar to > "there can be only one root") has been the forte of the coarse and > vulgar, and ab initio takes the wind out of the sails of any genuine > engagement/arguments. > >>> >> As an answer to all these undesirable distractions, why not offer >>> a glimpse of what is to come 10 years or less or more later ? >>> > >>> > >>> > Why should we presume that such a roadmap should come from the >>> USG, as opposed >>> > the Internet community itself? >>> >>> :-) >>> >> Thanks for raising this important topic! > > The issue is that the combined might (i.e. power) of USG, ICANN > (employees, hacks & believers & wannabe's) in an MSG institutional > setting (where scant regard is given for corporate domination - > perhaps because of the "quaint" definition of "private sector" in the > US that includes both non-profit and for-profit) kinda makes it hard > to have a civilised reasonable discussion about these topics. > > Yeah, people engage up to a point... so this needs to be said - just > so that there is no doubt: if one does not conflate technical > (effectiveness) with social then the legitimacy argument has and > continues to have merit. And issues of where is your evidence or > technical precision, are often (not always) raised, but NOT as a means > to deal with the issue - but to fob it off. Now some on this list may > present themselves as playing the game (because that is how the game > is played)... not all are convinced by that wonderful alleged Bushism > (elected 2x btw;), you can fool some of the people some of the time > and those are the ones you should concentrate on. > > While some/few (in case there are others of my persuasion - but > speaking for myself only) of us know our relative powerless, and very > aware of the sophisticated hounding of our views, _we do believe in > the reality of choice_, and engagement to bring about changes in an > evolutionary way... so the real test will be weather these > communication of technical details can actually stand up to being > "neutral" in terms of legitimacy... after all Cassandra did warn about > the Trojan Horse... > >> /John >> >> Disclaimers: My views alone. Email written at higher altitudes may >> lack coherence; >> use at your own risk. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Aug 4 21:15:22 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 18:15:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal Message-ID: <1344129322.30721.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web125101.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Sponsors of the Porn Industry and xxx community is given Special Privilege by the GAC. Even they claim that it is technically easy to block root level TLD comparing to filtering database, they did not given any action statement 'to block such type of domains / contents from other TLD', and yet not asked anyone 'to move current porn/xxx sites/contents from other TLDs to their sponsored gTLD'. Even when some one has capability to block root level access to xxx TLD, they will have support from human right and even through IG for openness, accessibility and Internet for everyone. Practically, when you provide them space to rule as independent state, that does not mean you are reducing their influence and accessibility/ and confined. We should not hesitate to accept that worst this also happen and one wrong decision has taken favorable to accept xxx sTLD. Imran ------------------------------ On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 2:35 AM PKT Fouad Bajwa wrote: >Actually this is one important aspect of ICANN in the IG discourse. >One common belief among some people I the GAC that I know was that >with the .xxx approval could provide them a simpler ground for >banning, blocking, filtering and censorship just based on a simple >"anything + .xxx" blanket block and for some others it wasn't a bad >idea either. For the people in the porn industry, well they have their >own story which is not the issue here but I know a lot of people in >the SF ICANN meeting that displayed the We Support .XXX GTLD badge >just to be on the blocking side of the table. > >On the other discussion of legality, ICANN subject to US based >California laws can face injunctions, petitions and cases against its >judgements. This may actually come more into play when the new GTLD >approvals go forward. There might be resulting anger and counter >attempts to stop parties from launching their new gtlds but yes it is >yet unforeseen. I see new gtld stakeholder parties outside the US less >capable to do it unless they have branches in the US and can file and >pursue the cases. > >Its still a very US centric game field. > >Best > >Fouad > >On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > wrote: >> Fouad, >> >> that can only be tested in practice. Someone (or many "ones") must have >> already had this idea and studied the case. If it hasn't yet been attempted >> it may be that these "ones" concluded that the risk of not having a case >> they could win was too high for the cost-benefit ratio they were looking >> after. >> >> But we'll never know until it happens or some as-yet unknown stories are >> told. >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> >> ! !! !!! !!!! >> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >> >> >> >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO >> >> SMS +525541444475 >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, >> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ----> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> ________________________________ >> Desde: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] >> Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 15:12 >> Hasta: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> CC: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch >> >> Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from >> New .com Deal >> >> Is it possible that someone with the right kind of legal backing and >> financial strength can drag ICANN to court and get an injunction at any >> point on both of the .xxx and new gtld go ahead to limit further activities >> on both? >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> On Aug 5, 2012 12:52 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> wrote: >> >> Slight edits: >> >> Fahd: What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their >> capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective >> employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past >> board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere (and >> I am sure you know what I exactly mean). >> >> Sal: Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of >> "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled down >> to personal integrity and ethics as there was nothing in writing concerning >> that specific situation. This was of course addressed through rigorous >> consultations with the global community so that it never happens again. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 4 23:50:27 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 03:50:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DD066@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> 1. How did the board approve .xxx while the community was against it. [Milton L Mueller] That's easy. First, there was no unified view on .xxx. The term "the community" should never be used, certainly not with a definite article, because there is never unanimity in a global constituency. It is like asking whether "the community" is Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist or Atheist. The answer is Yes. And if you want to avoid the kind of religious warfare and repression that devastated Europe for two centuries and which still haunts the middle east, you will avoid the whole notion that there is a homogeneous community that can impose its will on all of us. That leads to the second point. New TLDs are a form of expression and no community, no matter how large the majority, has the right to censor them unless their use violates some other human right or breaks some law. If you don't like the kinds of things that might be registered under .xxx, don't go to the websites. Simple as that. 1. How did the board approve the New gTLD program while many answers and concerns were unanswered. [Milton L Mueller] This is an unrealistic perspective. There will always be uncertainty and opposition when anything important is involved. If governments or businesses were not allowed to make a move unless all uncertainties were removed and no one had any "concerns," then no one would be able to do anything. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 4 23:56:22 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 03:56:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DD080@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> On conflict of interest, I think you are overstating the problem. One board member - who had been an advocate of new gTLDs for literally TWELVE YEARS before the decision was made - joined a new TLD company AFTER he stepped down as Board chair. I think it is false to suggest that this person supported the policy simply because of business opportunities that were presented to him later. I will admit that the optics were bad and that ICANN should have a "time out" policy regarding its Board members in the future, but I also am tired of the idea that the whole new gTLD program can be attributed to a sleazy conflict of interest. This issue has been discussed and debated interminably since 1996. There would have been stronger accusations of massive conflicts of interest had ICANN _not_ approved a new gTLD program (protecting the monopolies of existing players). From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 3:52 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fahd A. Batayneh Cc: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal Slight edits: Fahd: What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). Sal: Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled down to personal integrity and ethics as there was nothing in writing concerning that specific situation. This was of course addressed through rigorous consultations with the global community so that it never happens again. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 00:00:31 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 04:00:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DD0A2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Is it possible that someone with the right kind of legal backing and financial strength can drag ICANN to court and get an injunction at any point on both of the .xxx and new gtld go ahead to limit further activities on both? [Milton L Mueller] No. And even if it were possible you do not want that to happen. The next TLD held up by an injunction may be your own. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 01:38:55 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:08:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> Message-ID: <501E06EF.80201@itforchange.net> One thing in the news item on the renewal of .com agreement interested me a lot. "The deal is currently under review by the US Department of Commerce and Bidzos said he expects it to be approved before November 30, when the current contract expires." I did not know that US government exercised review over ICANN's routine contract renewals. So much for the claims that US hardly exercises any 'real' or 'in effect' oversight role over ICANN./*Can anyone provide us a list of what all decisions of ICANN are subject to US gov's review and confirmation*/, /*and in what manner.*/ This will help one form a good view of what really is the oversight role with US at present, something which has always been so much in the eye of the storm. I direct this question especially at those who seem so awfully disappointed that despite the best efforts of ICANN/ technical community, most outsiders, especially those with pathological political sensitivities, simply are not able to understand much :). Pl note that the above is a simple and direct question, and should be able to have a clear and direct response. I am sure ICANN insiders would know the answer. parminder On Saturday 04 August 2012 12:37 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > This can be understood in terms of path dependency as well as Public > Choice theory... at some level of abstraction. > > > On 2012/08/03 02:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> The financial aspect and opportunities will always be there because at >> the end of the day, we see a lot of stuff that inclines towards >> benefiting the domain industry. >> >> Best >> >> Fouad >> >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh >> wrote: >>> http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal >>> >>> >>> I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in >>> favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks >>> within the ICANN community. >>> >>> Fahd >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> list mailing list >>> list at igfarab.org >>> http://mail.igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list >>> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 02:18:19 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:18:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] GAC Advice Register In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message , at 05:38:42 on Sat, 4 Aug 2012, Fouad Bajwa writes >On a desperate and separate note, some countries nearer to my part of the >world have quietly put in policies quietly through non public directives >for censorship, filtering, blocking and DPI surveillance wahay before they >announced preparation for WCIT/ITRs. > >For us from this part of the world, the real threat is no more the WCIT/ITR >recommendations but what are countries doing prior to influence and >ascertain their positions and proposals. > >We can rant about IGF's lack of outcomes, IBSA, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, UN >Centric Internet Control and Policing, ITU and WCIT/ITRs, educating >ministers, unilateral propaganda behind a limited IG issue but the reality >is that Internet Access Denied is happening behind the curtains, a >submarine cable termination points on to the national trunks, US and >Canadian companies are selling heaps of surveillance software and hardware >for DPI in the name of cyber security but we are engrossed in gacs and lack >of routing knowledge. There are many different issues that Internet users might be concerned about. State surveillance is just one of them. It's not advisable, to concentrate on just one at the exclusion of all others - even if it were possible to agree on just one issue, which I'm sure it isn't. However, it's very helpful when tackling any of the issues to understand the basic concepts of the Internet, whether those are architectural or policy based. The root name server system is one of the most fundamental (but nevertheless still only one of many). An interesting question to ask is: "If nations are convinced that all traffic flows through the root servers, why not attach your state surveillance equipment there. It would seem to be a very economical solution". But we don't hear debates about whether that would be a good or bad thing (either technically or politically), nor do we hear arguments raging about the Dutch Government handing data siphoned off from RIPE NCC's root server to less friendly governments. Many users are more worried about spam than surveillance, and the mythical flow through the root servers would be a good place to install filters for that. But we aren't exposed to debates about what anti-spam rules to install in Netnod's root server. So something's not quite right with the model (that all the traffic flows through 13 hot-spots), and putting that right is an important bit of "human capacity building" before discussions about other aspects can take place in a sensible fashion. ps. Another misconception I've heard is that all emails are sent to every user in the world, and when you set up your email client with your particular email address the job it does is ignore all the emails apart from the ones addressed to you. And hence spam is mainly a result of that filtering process breaking in some way - so you get lots of emails that weren't really intended for you. Lots wrong with that picture too, of course. Although it's not that far off the way ethernet works on a local segment, so perhaps that's how the misconception arose in that person's mind. > >When do we set our concerns straight? Who is "we"? Anyone can start immediately if they wish. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 02:28:22 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:28:22 +0100 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunderstandin?= =?UTF-8?Q?g_=28still=E2=80=A6=29=29?= In-Reply-To: <1ADD48F6-FFA6-48ED-8992-4AA4B5C6932E@istaff.org> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1ADD48F6-FFA6-48ED-8992-4AA4B5C6932E@istaff.org> Message-ID: In message <1ADD48F6-FFA6-48ED-8992-4AA4B5C6932E at istaff.org>, at 19:40:00 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, John Curran writes >Milton - > > I don't see the USG making policy for DNS names or IP address management, > and yet setting such policy was definitely done in long past by folks operating > under USG contracts. Policy development is now undertaken by multi-stakeholder > participants in the community. Are you aware of critical Internet resource policy > being set by USG via its unique IANA contract relationship? There are several policy issues encapsulated in the IANA contract, that have not been through ICANN's traditional PDP. The most obvious being that IANA should be on US soil, but here are several others of that ilk. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 02:42:33 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:42:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: In message , at 08:27:05 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, David Conrad writes >> Or when they ask "why" do they really mean "why was any limit at all >>designed in?" Perhaps I'll look into that as well - maybe the answer >>is "because we never expected there ever to be more than 13". > >I believe the 512 byte limit was a more-or-less arbitrary selection >that fit within what was deemed to be the maximum that could reasonably >be supported in the typical infrastructure of the day (circa mid-80s). >It also corresponded roughly with a similar arbitrary limit specified >in an earlier core protocol, TCP. A 512 byte limit per packet is understandable, but the queries could have been designed to cope with multiple packets. >Originally, I believe there were only 2 root servers. When those 2 >began to get overloaded, Postel asked some Usual Suspects to host more >(in the late 80s, I was working at the University of Maryland Computer >Science Center when TERP.UMD.EDU (now known as D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET) was >set up). The last of the 13 weren't assigned until the mid- to late-90s). Interesting that it was load, rather than a desire for more resilience that triggered the roll-out. Of course, in those days most Internet connectivity really did go to the USA and back (if not to the root servers and back) so a predominance of root servers in the USA was architecturally desirable, as well as potentially being just a historical accident. >However, back when Mockapetris was finalizing the DNS specifications, I >suspect the idea that root servers would become political footballs >and/or viewed as a critical component of Internet governance would have >been seen as laughable, so the idea of supporting more root servers for >non-technical reasons wouldn't even have come up. I was at a CSTD meeting a couple of years ago, and there was a complaint that Africa had no root servers, but it was easy to point out there were four in Johannesburg, let alone other parts of the continent. Obviously, these are anycast instances, so the existence of these needs to be better advertised to the relevant parties (as I've written about a few days ago). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 03:09:28 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 09:09:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] UN & Information Security References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD094@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://ict4peace.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Eneken-GGE-2012-Brief.pdf wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 03:12:17 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 08:12:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8+oWNHbRzhHQFAHj@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 00:06:42 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, Ivar A. M. Hartmann writes >The problem is that free markets are increasingly hostile to free speech: >when companies control the online fora and are left to discriminate speech >at will we have a scenario that's arguably just as bad as an ITU-controlled >internet. >Sadly, because the prevailing notion in American law and politics is that >only the state can violate human rights, such a problem will never get the >proper framing. Perhaps you are talking about the Human Right to freedom of expression? There are several other Human Rights (eg life, freedom from slavery) which are clearly applicable to non-state actors, and even the right to privacy is generally extended to acts by persons and companies, as well as the state (see for example the EU's Data Protection Directive, which applies to all). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 05:55:17 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:55:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] CensorFree References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD094@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD096@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pouwelse-censorfree-scenarios-01 FYI wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Aug 5 06:28:49 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 06:28:49 -0400 Subject: IANA and what is to come 10 years hence? (was: Re: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?India=27s_communications_minister_-_root_server_misunder?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?standing_=28still=85=29=29?= In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483A61A7@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9A1FAF6A-447F-42FF-B55A-5D3E803F4793@virtualized.org> <547D8828-5F31-4D75-80E6-BACFB8BC2DA7@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC994@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <1ADD48F6-FFA6-48ED-8992-4AA4B5C6932E@istaff.org> Message-ID: <3FB78F2E-A025-4F29-9AD2-E2DB1B896128@istaff.org> On Aug 5, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <1ADD48F6-FFA6-48ED-8992-4AA4B5C6932E at istaff.org>, at 19:40:00 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, John Curran writes >> Milton - >> >> I don't see the USG making policy for DNS names or IP address management, >> and yet setting such policy was definitely done in long past by folks operating >> under USG contracts. Policy development is now undertaken by multi-stakeholder >> participants in the community. Are you aware of critical Internet resource policy >> being set by USG via its unique IANA contract relationship? > > There are several policy issues encapsulated in the IANA contract, that have not been through ICANN's traditional PDP. The most obvious being that IANA should be on US soil, but here are several others of that ilk. Roland - Indeed, and there were even more such policy issues encapsulated back when the JPA was also operative. Note, however, that these sorts of policy dictates via contract have been reduced over the 20-plus year transition from direct contracting for these services to the more multi-stakeholder-based mechanisms for setting policy. The point was that this reduction in USG-directed policy would not have been possible if USG held to "a posture of total unwillingness"; I did not mean to imply that there was not more work to be done, only that we should not shy away from considering how IANA should evolve under some misapprehension that the views of the global Internet community cannot have any impact in this matter. /John Disclaimer: My views alone. No fiscal union is created by this email message, and the value of this message may widely fluctuate over time. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 07:47:00 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:17:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> On Friday 03 August 2012 02:36 AM, David Conrad wrote: > (snip) > While I personally believe existence and an ability to perform a function does imply some level of legitimacy (perhaps this comes from sitting through too many presentations describing the wonders of unreleased software :-)), I don't think this is particularly relevant to how the technical community can improve the understanding of the technological underpinnings of the Internet. My question isn't about how ICANN can justify what it does, it's about how we in the technical community can get those outside that community to understand "this is how the Internet works". David, Since you (and, perhaps, some others) have sincerely asked what can the 'technical community' do to make others, chiefly, policy makers, understand 'this is how the Internet works', let me try to respond with all sincerity, as I really see it. I think you are quite wrong here, that 'legitimacy' or 'how ICANN can justify what it does' has nothing to do with how the proposed understanding of 'how the Internet works' is conveyed. My contention is that these issues are very basically connected. Riaz has made this point quite well, and often rather eloquently, in a few of his recent emails, but let me summarise. The basic problem here is that the so called 'technical community' is indeed largely what may in fact be called as the ICANN/ISOC community. It does not consist of all the people who have sound technical knowledge about the subject, it systematically attracts, encourages and organises (even, variously, incentivizes) those who can largely defend a certain techno-political status quo around the Internet. And it equally, discourages, distances, dis-incentivizes, and disables possibilities of organising of those technically- knowledgeable people who could offer 'neutral' or factual views, and, certainly, those who could advocate techno- political alternatives. As a result, what we have as the most visible, active etc 'technical community' is indeed, often, directly or indirectly, aggressively or more subtly, found as trying to 'justify what ICANN does'. Here 'what ICANN does' becomes a place-holder for the current techno-political paradigm around the Internet. (Apart from how we are mostly faced with actors with some degree of closeness if not embeddedness into the ICANN/ISOC system, there indeed is the factor of 'Californian ideology ' political proclivities of a certain dominant and ascendant techie group, in general. This later point admits of somewhat different political analysis which i wont go into here.) Now, there is nothing wrong in holding a techno-political outlook and philosophy. Indeed, my organisation and I do. However, and this is my main point, there is everything wrong in holding such a outlook, and professing that one does not, and behaving as one is merely providing 'neutral' technical details. I have found very few people on this list, if any, merely provide technical facts, in that sense. Everything has been thoroughly wrapped in a certain techno -political viewpoint, in fact, mostly, in quite a strong techno-social viewpoint. A 'technical community' committed to such specific and clear 'techno-political' viewpoint can do very little to improve the understanding of political actors, who could have different base political positions, or at least would want to keep alternatives open. It is my view that this is '/the/' key issue at the bottom of what we see here often as the display of disappointment/ dismay by many of the 'technical community' or close-about on this list about what seems to them as such poor understanding of political actors, and their pious statements of desire to do something about to improve it. regards parminder > > Regards, > -drc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 08:40:19 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:10:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> On Sunday 05 August 2012 05:17 PM, parminder wrote: > (snip) > > A 'technical community' committed to such specific and clear > 'techno-political' viewpoint can do very little to improve the > understanding of political actors, who could have different base > political positions, or at least would want to keep alternatives open. > It is my view that this is '/the/' key issue at the bottom of what we > see here often as the display of disappointment/ dismay by many of the > 'technical community' or close-about on this list about what seems to > them as such poor understanding of political actors, and their pious > statements of desire to do something about to improve it. Let me illustrate my point by referring to the case under discussion, of root servers and geopolitical IG inequity. There has been a lengthy discussion on this subject on this list, but I remain unclear about some of the most important 'facts' with regard to the statement of the problem being 'what is the connection between the root server architecture and geopolitical IG equity or inequity'. Can we first agree that this is indeed the main question that we are addressing? Let me proceed with the assumption that we do agree on this. Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k usd . What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the difference. This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual neutral/ technical information. The political motivation is to defend the techno- political status, which in this case is best defended by 'showing' that power is indeed already distributed and not centralised. Such a motivation has clearly led to, and I repeat, overplay of the non- difference among the three root server layers and underplay of the difference, which has left most of us technically mis-informed. I am making the point that the fault here is not necessarily on the side receiving technical wisdom. In an earlier long discussion on US oversight role, a few weeks back, we went back and forth on how the 13 root servers could, and likely would, act independently of the authoritative root server with Verisign...... I felt that those professing technical knowledge clearly were more interested in demonstrating one side of the view rather than the other, which focusses on the hierarchy (and difference) between the two root server layers ....... The present discussion has focussed more on the difference/ non-difference between the 13 root servers and their numerous anycast mirrors. So much indeed has been said as if there is really no difference, to the extent ridiculing the African minister, who seems to have said at some meeting that there are no root servers in Africa, through a retort that there are two in J'berg itself, where the meeting seem to have taken place. Is it indeed that there is absolutely no difference between root servers and their mirrors, and if there is, indeed, what is it? This question requires a non politically motivated response, of which there has been a great dearth of in the present discussion. Is the difference so less that the African minister could be ridiculed in this manner? And if indeed, there is no or ittle difference why stick to this 1-13-others hierarchy. Why not go to 1-all others system (since I understand that 'one authoritative root' is an issue of a different level). We read in the discussions that the limit of 13 no longer is meaningful. So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the world happy. Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of these root servers. Is it really true? Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to what goes in and from the authoritative root server. If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 root server operators, so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not physical location points. Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to an Indian Institute of Technology. Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the present debate. Any answers? Also better clarity will be useful about the process of setting up anycast mirrors. Are they to seek a relationship with a specific root server or can they be set up just like that.... Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. If this is the base political question, then let us discuss it as the main political question. Parminder > > regards > parminder > >> Regards, >> -drc >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 09:11:04 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:41:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <501E70E8.90609@itforchange.net> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: > (snip) > > Also better clarity will be useful about the process of setting up > anycast mirrors. Are they to seek a relationship with a specific root > server or can they be set up just like that.... I read from http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2003-September/001075.html that anycast root mirrors can be under very tight control of the root server operator, so much so that ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast operator to his own anycast server. Well!! This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? Is this the kind of informing the un-informed one seeks to do, that has been much spoken of here. The un-informed are rightly cautious of 'being informed', i'd say. parminder > > Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is > opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers (as > the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will skew > the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US > centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. If this is > the base political question, then let us discuss it as the main > political question. > > Parminder > >> >> regards >> parminder >> >>> Regards, >>> -drc >>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Aug 5 10:48:58 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 07:48:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: <501E06EF.80201@itforchange.net> References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <501E06EF.80201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Aug 4, 2012, at 10:38 PM, parminder wrote: > I did not know that US government exercised review over ICANN's routine contract renewals. It doesn't (AFAIK). I believe .COM/.NET are special because the USG has a contractual (cooperative agreemental?) relationship with Verisign related to the management of those zones that predates ICANN. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 12:19:22 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 17:19:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501E70E8.90609@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <501E70E8.90609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4BuniKHK0pHQFAkd@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <501E70E8.90609 at itforchange.net>, at 18:41:04 on Sun, 5 Aug 2012, parminder writes > >I read from >http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2003-September/001075.html  >that anycast root mirrors can be under very tight control of the root >server operator, so much so that ' administrative access will not be >available' to the anycast operator to his own anycast server. Well!! >This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got >from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest on >this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and kind >of anyone can set up and operate root servers. Anyone can host such a server (and the local community gets the main benefit); but I don't think there's ever been a suggestion they would control it (other than being able to switch it off). The control is decentralised because there are several independent operators amongst the 13. We've seen how the "13" is limited because of a historical accident when the system was originally designed, but how many do you think would make things "better"? It's the same order of magnitude as the number of operators of gTLDs (until mid 2013, anyway). Are there many ccTLDs with more than one operator for its name servers (most have more than one hosted mirror, that doesn't count for this purpose). It's one thing to have lots of instances of root name servers around the world, but how many instances of (eg) .org or .com servers are there outside Europe/USA - they are just as vital, if anything more vital, to resolving DNS queries as the root servers. >Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? Each were wrong, but in different ways. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Aug 5 12:22:50 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 19:22:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Looking at the ICANN website at http://www.icann.org/en/about/welcome, the term "*coordinate*" is used. However, as one reads on, it is mentioned that "*The world broadly accepts ICANN as the place to work out Internet governance policies*". I think this phrase is larger than ICANN's true size. Fahd On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message Q at mail.gmail.com >, at 14:11:03 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, > Fahd A. Batayneh writes > > The article mentions "Also at WCIT, Russia, China and other countries may >> push for the ITU to take Internet governance away from the Internet >> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and other organizations" >> >> Another misconception! Since when did "ICANN and other Organizations" >> govern the Internet >> > > They appear to me to govern the processes of issuing new TLDs and address > space, and policing some (but not all) kinds of abusive registration. So, > as ever, it depends what you mean by IG, and what others think they want to > 'take away' from existing stewards. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Aug 5 13:10:14 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:10:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> Parminder, On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder wrote: > Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k usd . No. There is a "distribution master". This is a machine that allows for zone transfer of the root zone data maintained by the "root management partners" (ICANN, Verisign, U.S. Dept. of Commerce NTIA) by anyone that holds the private root zone TSIG key (password). It is not publicly accessible and does not (I believe) respond to any DNS query other that "AXFR" (zone transfer), "IXFR" (incremental zone transfer), and "SOA" (start of authority, used to figure out if a server needs to do a zone transfer). As such, it is not a "root server". There are "root servers". These are devices that are numbered with one of 13 IP(v4) addresses listed in http://www.internic.net/domain/named.root to which the root zone is transferred and which respond to all DNS queries with referrals to top-level domains (exceptions being for queries for data in the root-servers.net and arpa zones which are co-resident with the root zone on 12 of the root servers). That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. The devices that make up the root servers vary from single machines in one geographical location (this describes "B" and "D") to clusters of machines either localized or spread out geographically using "anycast" (this describes all the other root servers). Within the latter, there are different distribution models primarily to limit the load on the "distribution master". In many cases (particularly for the root servers that have many machines), there is an "internal distribution master" that fetches the zone from the "real" distribution master and makes it available to all the other machines for that root server. In other cases, each individual machine that makes up the root server fetches the root zone from the "real" distribution master directly. I should probably note that any resolver operator can (assuming their resolver is capable of it which most are) mirror the root zone into their resolver, but this doesn't make that resolver a root server since it doesn't have one of the 13 IP(v4) addresses. > What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the difference. As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. > This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual neutral/ technical information. Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to communicate. As you have assumed conspiracy, I suspect trying to explain further is pointless since presumably I and anyone else who tries to disabuse you of your beliefs would obviously be part of the conspiracy. I will, however, continue trying since http://www.xkcd.com/386/. > We read in the discussions that the limit of 13 no longer is meaningful. You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. > So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the world happy. Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own root server would make the people of the world happy. > Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? > I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of these root servers. Is it really true? Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". > Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to what goes in and from the authoritative root server. Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is distributed. > If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner the zone transfer password. Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. > I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 root server operators, Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). > so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not physical location points. In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. > Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to an Indian Institute of Technology. Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of hardware being shipped into the country (see http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). > Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the present debate. Any answers? Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that decision. > Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. Merging a subsequent note: On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: > ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast operator to his own anycast server. Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. > This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. > Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? Yes. Really. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Aug 5 13:50:24 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 10:50:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1F93AC16-DA23-4B21-A7B0-C57FCE2F116B@virtualized.org> Parminder, On Aug 5, 2012, at 4:47 AM, parminder wrote: >> While I personally believe existence and an ability to perform a function does imply some level of legitimacy (perhaps this comes from sitting through too many presentations describing the wonders of unreleased software :-)), I don't think this is particularly relevant to how the technical community can improve the understanding of the technological underpinnings of the Internet. My question isn't about how ICANN can justify what it does, it's about how we in the technical community can get those outside that community to understand "this is how the Internet works". > > David, Since you (and, perhaps, some others) have sincerely asked what can the 'technical community' do to make others, chiefly, policy makers, understand 'this is how the Internet works', let me try to respond with all sincerity, as I really see it. Thanks! > The basic problem here is that the so called 'technical community' is indeed largely what may in fact be called as the ICANN/ISOC community. It does not consist of all the people who have sound technical knowledge about the subject, it systematically attracts, encourages and organises (even, variously, incentivizes) those who can largely defend a certain techno-political status quo around the Internet. And it equally, discourages, distances, dis-incentivizes, and disables possibilities of organising of those technically- knowledgeable people who could offer 'neutral' or factual views, and, certainly, those who could advocate techno- political alternatives. I note you imply that "the ICANN/ISOC community" does/can not offer neutral or factual views. An interesting bias. > As a result, what we have as the most visible, active etc 'technical community' is indeed, often, directly or indirectly, aggressively or more subtly, found as trying to 'justify what ICANN does'. Here 'what ICANN does' becomes a place-holder for the current techno-political paradigm around the Internet. Alternatively, one could view the comments of the 'technical community' as trying to describe the on-the-ground technical reality of the Internet as it is now and the historical/pragmatic justifications for that reality. This does not necessarily imply that there are no alternative ways things can be done in the future or even that the way things are being done is the best way, rather it is simply a description of the way things are now. > Now, there is nothing wrong in holding a techno-political outlook and philosophy. Indeed, my organisation and I do. However, and this is my main point, there is everything wrong in holding such a outlook, and professing that one does not, and behaving as one is merely providing 'neutral' technical details. I have found very few people on this list, if any, merely provide technical facts, in that sense. Everything has been thoroughly wrapped in a certain techno -political viewpoint, in fact, mostly, in quite a strong techno-social viewpoint. Can you provide examples of things that are 'thoroughly wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint"? > A 'technical community' committed to such specific and clear 'techno-political' viewpoint can do very little to improve the understanding of political actors, who could have different base political positions, or at least would want to keep alternatives open. It is my view that this is 'the' key issue at the bottom of what we see here often as the display of disappointment/ dismay by many of the 'technical community' or close-about on this list about what seems to them as such poor understanding of political actors, and their pious statements of desire to do something about to improve it. When someone makes a statement like "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers.", there can be no techno-political viewpoint regarding the current Internet in which this is accurate. It is simply and plainly wrong. It is equivalent to stating "1+1=3". When that person is responsible for communications infrastructure/policy within a country, I personally find this distressing and my engineering background causes me to ask how I can help fix it. Now, if you are saying that politicians voluntarily choose to ignore reality in order to drive a particular agenda, I can understand that (after all, I live in a country where stuff like http://news.yahoo.com/law-north-carolina-bans-latest-scientific-predictions-sea-165416121--abc-news-topstories.html happens), however this has nothing to do with the "techno-political status quo", rather it is simply sticking ones head in the sand and should draw universal condemnation. Regards -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Aug 5 14:49:39 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 15:49:39 -0300 Subject: RES: [governance] CensorFree In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD096@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD094@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD096@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <00ae01cd733b$14e35580$3eaa0080$@uol.com.br> Thank you for sharing Wolfgang! All the best. Vanda scartezini -----Mensagem original----- De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Enviada em: domingo, 5 de agosto de 2012 06:55 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: [governance] CensorFree http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pouwelse-censorfree-scenarios-01 FYI wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 15:12:52 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 00:42:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, On Aug 5, 2012 6:10 PM, "parminder" wrote: > > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 05:17 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> (snip) >> >> >> A 'technical community' committed to such specific and clear 'techno-political' viewpoint can do very little to improve the understanding of political actors, who could have different base political positions, or at least would want to keep alternatives open. It is my view that this is 'the' key issue at the bottom of what we see here often as the display of disappointment/ dismay by many of the 'technical community' or close-about on this list about what seems to them as such poor understanding of political actors, and their pious statements of desire to do something about to improve it. > > > Let me illustrate my point by referring to the case under discussion, of root servers and geopolitical IG inequity. There has been a lengthy discussion on this subject on this list, but I remain unclear about some of the most important 'facts' with regard to the statement of the problem being 'what is the connection between the root server architecture and geopolitical IG equity or inequity'. Can we first agree that this is indeed the main question that we are addressing? Let me proceed with the assumption that we do agree on this. > > Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k usd . > > What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the difference. This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual neutral/ technical information. The political motivation is to defend the techno- political status, which in this case is best defended by 'showing' that power is indeed already distributed and not centralised. Such a motivation has clearly led to, and I repeat, overplay of the non- difference among the three root server layers and underplay of the difference, which has left most of us technically mis-informed. I am making the point that the fault here is not necessarily on the side receiving technical wisdom. > > In an earlier long discussion on US oversight role, a few weeks back, we went back and forth on how the 13 root servers could, and likely would, act independently of the authoritative root server with Verisign...... I felt that those professing technical knowledge clearly were more interested in demonstrating one side of the view rather than the other, which focusses on the hierarchy (and difference) between the two root server layers ....... > > The present discussion has focussed more on the difference/ non-difference between the 13 root servers and their numerous anycast mirrors. So much indeed has been said as if there is really no difference, to the extent ridiculing the African minister, who seems to have said at some meeting that there are no root servers in Africa, through a retort that there are two in J'berg itself, where the meeting seem to have taken place. > > Is it indeed that there is absolutely no difference between root servers and their mirrors, and if there is, indeed, what is it? This question requires a non politically motivated response, of which there has been a great dearth of in the present discussion. Is the difference so less that the African minister could be ridiculed in this manner? And if indeed, there is no or ittle difference why stick to this 1-13-others hierarchy. Why not go to 1-all others system (since I understand that 'one authoritative root' is an issue of a different level). > > We read in the discussions that the limit of 13 no longer is meaningful. So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the world happy. Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. > > I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of these root servers. Is it really true? Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to what goes in and from the authoritative root server. If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? > > I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 root server operators, so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not physical location points. Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to an Indian Institute of Technology Thank you for mentioning my name in reference to what I have written earlier on this and another thread. I did mention the Indian Institute of Technology but in one of the paragraphs above you said - BEGIN QUOTE - Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested - END QUOTE - That is not the language I used. The same idea with your argument and rationale?, -expressed with your convenient distortions- becomes destructive. While David Conrad has subsequently corrected you on the technical flaws of your assumption, I will sit and pray that your flawed eloquent verbosity on policy aspects does not impress anyone in our Government this time. Sivasubramanian M. Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the present debate. Any answers? > > Also better clarity will be useful about the process of setting up anycast mirrors. Are they to seek a relationship with a specific root server or can they be set up just like that.... > > Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. If this is the base political question, then let us discuss it as the main political question. > > Parminder > >> >> regards >> parminder >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> -drc >>> >>> >>> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 17:10:39 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:10:39 +1200 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Looking at the ICANN website at http://www.icann.org/en/about/welcome, > the term "*coordinate*" is used. However, as one reads on, it is > mentioned that "*The world broadly accepts ICANN as the place to work out > Internet governance policies*". I think this phrase is larger than > ICANN's true size. > You are right. The Internet Universe (note I am not using the ISOC term of Internet Ecosystem to appease critics of ISOC on the list - as far as I know this was coined by the South Koreans) has an entire host of players and stakeholders that look after various policy areas and spaces. The work of mapping Internet Governance done through the sponsorship of Consumers International and Norbert Bollow highlights this important work see: http://idgovmap.org/ What appears to be missing is how all stakeholders can work together as netizens for the betterment of all - what is acceptable behaviour, what does transparency look like. I think one of the things that is causing nations and people to jump up and down is para 15 of the WGIG document which reads *Unilateral control by the United States Government.* Governments around the world have more power over their Registrars and Resellers and can enforce things like mandatory Whois data. ICANN is *limited* in the scope, see below. ICANN does not govern the Internet. It is not the place to work out Internet governance policies as it only looks after a few of the policy areas identified in the WGIG 2005 Report [http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf see pages 5-8] It says so too within the ICANN Articles of Incorporation, see excerpts below: In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, *owned by no single nation*, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv). 4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and applicable international conventions and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the *Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international organizations*. > > > Fahd > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Roland Perry < > roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > >> In message > Q at mail.gmail.com >, at 14:11:03 on Fri, 3 Aug 2012, >> Fahd A. Batayneh writes >> >> The article mentions "Also at WCIT, Russia, China and other countries >>> may push for the ITU to take Internet governance away from the Internet >>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and other organizations" >>> >>> Another misconception! Since when did "ICANN and other Organizations" >>> govern the Internet >>> >> >> They appear to me to govern the processes of issuing new TLDs and address >> space, and policing some (but not all) kinds of abusive registration. So, >> as ever, it depends what you mean by IG, and what others think they want to >> 'take away' from existing stewards. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 17:12:03 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:12:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Correction Governments around the world have more power over their Registrars and Resellers and can enforce things like mandatory "accuracy" of Whois data. On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Looking at the ICANN website at http://www.icann.org/en/about/welcome, >> the term "*coordinate*" is used. However, as one reads on, it is >> mentioned that "*The world broadly accepts ICANN as the place to work >> out Internet governance policies*". I think this phrase is larger than >> ICANN's true size. >> > > You are right. The Internet Universe (note I am not using the ISOC term > of Internet Ecosystem to appease critics of ISOC on the list - as far as I > know this was coined by the South Koreans) has an entire host of players > and stakeholders that look after various policy areas and spaces. The work > of mapping Internet Governance done through the sponsorship of Consumers > International and Norbert Bollow highlights this important work see: > http://idgovmap.org/ > > What appears to be missing is how all stakeholders can work together as > netizens for the betterment of all - what is acceptable behaviour, what > does transparency look like. I think one of the things that is causing > nations and people to jump up and down is para 15 of the WGIG document > which reads *Unilateral control by the United States Government.* > > Governments around the world have more power over their Registrars and > Resellers and can enforce things like mandatory Whois data. > > ICANN is *limited* in the scope, see below. ICANN does not govern the > Internet. It is not the place to work out Internet governance policies as > it only looks after a few of the policy areas identified in the WGIG 2005 > Report [http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf see pages 5-8] It says so > too within the ICANN Articles of Incorporation, see excerpts below: > > In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact > that the Internet is an international network of networks, *owned by no > single nation*, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except > as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes > of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public > interest in the operational stability of the Internet by > > (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed > to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; > > (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of > the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; > > (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of > the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of > policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level > domains are added to the DNS root system; > > (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server > system; and > > (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items > (i) through (iv). > 4. The Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community > as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant > principles of international law and applicable international conventions > and local law and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with these > Articles and its Bylaws, through open and transparent processes that enable > competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. To this effect, the > *Corporation shall cooperate as appropriate with relevant international > organizations*. > >> >> >> Fahd >> >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Roland Perry < >> roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: >> >>> In message >> Q at mail.gmail.com >, at 14:11:03 on Fri, 3 Aug >>> 2012, Fahd A. Batayneh writes >>> >>> The article mentions "Also at WCIT, Russia, China and other countries >>>> may push for the ITU to take Internet governance away from the Internet >>>> Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and other organizations" >>>> >>>> Another misconception! Since when did "ICANN and other Organizations" >>>> govern the Internet >>>> >>> >>> They appear to me to govern the processes of issuing new TLDs and >>> address space, and policing some (but not all) kinds of abusive >>> registration. So, as ever, it depends what you mean by IG, and what others >>> think they want to 'take away' from existing stewards. >>> -- >>> Roland Perry >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 5 23:46:50 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2012 23:46:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501E70E8.90609@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <501E70E8.90609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 9:11 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: > > (snip) > > > Also better clarity will be useful about the process of setting up anycast > mirrors. Are they to seek a relationship with a specific root server or can > they be set up just like that.... > > > I read from > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/2003-September/001075.html > that anycast root mirrors can be under very tight control of the root server > operator, yes, this is how it should be. If you were a root-op, and it was your responsibility to ensure that all queries to your nameservers were given consistent answers, then you would not allow anyone else to admin those nameservers. so much so that ' administrative access will not be available' to > the anycast operator to his own anycast server. Well!! This is a pretty > centralised control, not at all the picture one got from all the technically > well informed insiders who seem to suggest on this list that everything is > open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and kind of anyone can set up and operate > root servers. I think DRC has answered all of your other points, but I would like to clarify one point. The org I work for now (ISC) spends a lot of money (although probably less than some other rootops) on running rootservices, and so folk who would like "F" servers are asked to pitch in a bit to help defray costs. If you can come up with an annual 6 figure amount in USD to operate a root server network, perhaps you could convince the DoD or NASA or UofMd to relinquish theirs. If you really want one that is, but I suspect you would rather complain about the status quo more than anything. What would be a a geographically "equitable manner" in which to distribute 13 rootserver functions across the globe in your opinion? >Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian > minister? deeply wrong > > Is this the kind of informing the un-informed one seeks to do, that has been > much spoken of here. The un-informed are rightly cautious of 'being > informed', i'd say. as others have pointed out, it's not the informing, but the listening that is the problem in this thread! -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 6 04:36:16 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:36:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <501F8200.6050400@gmail.com> David Thanks for the clarification. Parminder, Time to go to Karl's cavebear and dig out some of the issues he raised, like single point of failure, the misconception that the internet is merely a collection of nets etc... such a long time ago and such a boring escapade... and I share some sentiments that we are right back in 2003... But perhaps it is just as well I am an amateur (and an idiotic marginal one at that) that I can perhaps converse directly with Parminder's views *as if others were not around* - which is how this issue is dealt with by many others on this list - as if legitimacy was not an issue... so instead of talking at cross purposes let me converse with like-minded people like Parminder so they and others can see where we are coming from (although I am not speaking for Parminder, and it may sound like it, you specify where you are ad idem if necessary... this a horrible sarcastic caricature ... ) for others edification just to show them that there is an alternate conception of things out there (not better, not worse, just different... and perhaps if disinterested judgement is applied, PERHAPS a more reasonable in approach)... So Parminder, what I understand is that the system is designed in a particular way, has incorporated a number of changes, and is rather flexible - given certain constraints. Apparently the sense is that it should be alright now, at the technical level, to solve the legitimacy issues. There remains the socio-political issue of "control" (or to give Curran credence - participation) raised inaccurately and "deeply wrong" (which is a vice for Southerners but Northerners who talk about a single root are free from such aspersions - go figure) technically, but otherwise (socio-politically) remains in tact because neither GAC nor IGF deals with the issue to their satisfaction. Now conspiracy theories abound (unless of course one listened to commie Cuba or how Iraq was treated before the illegal invasion of Al Qaeeda infested Iraq -- if I recall correctly on both counts as I am not trawling through the web to find those references as it is tangential to my main point), but if there is no real problem with the architecture as it is, then why can governance structures not be changed in a way that maintains technical fidelity? See it is nice when we too ask questions (and to anticipate the droll responses - it is absolutely OK to have NO idea about the future shape, but to know that current arrangements are not ok, and others are invited to be pragmatic... see comments on evolution below). On the technical level, I think "autonomous internet" and "single root", these can be worked out and they are not so much of a problem as I read this stuff - techies are cool and love engineering around problems - ... and I am happy to be wrong and guided... On the socio-political level the argument made by those who "support" (said guardedly, with all necessary caveats) ICANN ask what do the likes of you/us want? I think this has been clear - *no technical administration without representation* - to paraphrase a famous tea party (although I do not want to confuse that one with modern adherents, the likes of whom seem to be on this list in large order - but that may just be my own jaundiced eye, but it is a pre-existing condition so well... ). So the more these fellows argue that "everything is alright" the more I get the sense that these arguments work adequately well for the other side (if the technical is so flexible, then it can work in a myriad of governance arrangement just so long as integrity (system and people) and testing is safeguarded - except for the actual shape of things to come. From a _truly_ evolutionary perspective this is not a problem. I suspect, however, that this argument is used to resist change so that the destination (proposed shape of arrangements) can be criticised as too sunny or cold as a substitute for setting upon the path of accepting a directionality to change (and here they are right we ARE STILL in 2003). The evolutionary spirit is that of *variety creation* (experimentation) leading to (natural iow political here) selection of what works - and this is the test of the pudding in the evolutionary system. Now if ICANN is more open to change than some civil society people here then it is unavoidable that one /reasonably/ can conclude they fall in as "true believers" or astroturfers without becoming a conspiracy theorist. Now it is ridiculous to assert (unless one is of John Bolton predisposition, or the Heritage Foundation - decidedly anti-UN) that one can handle matters of war and peace in the imperfect UN (or a really supercharged GAC, if one is open to change and take the Chinese proposal to heart as righteous and pious believers in the single root should - although I am not a confessor) but can't deal with this... /perhaps it is time to help them decolonise the evolutionary imagination... / You see because for single rooters, whose belief - and it is a belief - the Chinese proposal should be scary. Instead of beating the same drum they have been for ages - they do need to be keenly aware of how they_indict_ themselves in the socio-political realm (if one is disinterested). Talking as if they were not listening (to be clear because this is laden with assumptions that others could dispute, but I do not expect much from you), they should be scrambling for a solution because China may not be as powerful as the US but it has been patient and has a strong vested interest in maintaining control as it understands its political equations (if they misunderestimate this then well there is no helping them). When they don't scramble then it puts paid to all the (technical) bunkum that we had to deal with SINCE 2003 - statements and actions must match, and they were so dedicated to this view point. The indictment is the lack of depth or absence of discussion from a believers pov on this list (for "believers" it indicates that 'the way they believe what they believe' is as much of a problem as 'what is believed' - but perhaps I am too esoteric here). This is not so much of a problem for those who genuinely "buy" the ICANN-ish type line (recognising that they are more flexible than some in civil society) as they can self correct, but more of one for those "astro-turfers" (so to speak, based on genuince concerns about the Chinese proposal for single root rather than platitudes) - because the question is that when the contradictions become so glaringly obvious the "handlers" need to ask is "where can one find good help these days?" leading to the inevitable, "how dispensable are you?" For me 'dime a dozen' springs to mind, although there are some long haulers also - but for them the experience has brought less, rather than more, sophistication into civil society engagements imho. You see, because I am chastised for name-calling (which in the IT community I thought was par for the course, eg generally previous discussions on IETF modalities, and particularly on this list) when I was genuinely under the impression that this is the acceptable tenor of robust engagement (perhaps I am not that good at induction)... I hope to see some sincerity in those wishing to set the tone on this list to be even handed. Now I am under no impression that this will be done, but one must be optimistic. And because I come from a Third World Nationalist perspective (which is/one of many/ TW perspectives), let me put it like this, the issue of 'no technical administration with representation' is something that may seem irrational for those with the civilising mission. But self-determination and other issues (like sitting in the back of the bus) became mainstream nevertheless. That said, Third World countries have lots of problems, and corruption is certainly one of them - and especially as raised on this list needs to dealt with head on (I hope that this can be taken up and that the allegation is not left hanging as it so frequently is in our countries). But some perspective is in order, compared with Mortgage Backed Securities, Libor or the sum of issues that make up the Great Recession (we can't call it a depression, because well...) makes TWers look like petty thieves (and the rich countries always score highly on Transparency International's list - just look at Iceland's score in 2006!)... ...but more germane to the issues here is the serious violations that have occurred in the US and the rich countries (including expropriation of domain names by trade mark holders in the name of laws that were made up as things went along, violations of privacy, PATRIOTIC legislation. etc). See with this "wild west"/can do/"we the best" kind of attitude it makes it hard to have a decent conversation... (and I drip with sarcasm because I just do not like the pot calling the kettle black - I am odd like that I know, just can shake it though, but will try) ... it may come as a surprise to some, but what passes for progressive in some quarters would not pass muster elsewhere... I recall raising issues of conflict of interest once at a consultation, and was lambasted. This is NORMAL in these fora - if upstarts even question ICANN they must get their cumuppence. And boy do we get it and take it. But I why should I let a self-righteous tone kick me down? That we will be kicked down is a CERTAINTY, and we engage that knowing that while maintain faith in reason and the reality of choice - such hopeless romantics (sigh :) So let me be absolutely clear, better 'a might is right' than supposed ideological neutrality posing as universal. I can respect Avri when she expresses a preference for US over others (and it is understandable - at least the issue is contestable, if expensive, and there are some checks and balances. This candour of techies is appreciated - then we can have a real conversation and accept differences and work out stuff... taking into account relative power differences, values of equality which are put in practice (not some sublime impractical liberal assumption of formal equality) etc... But candour should not be confused with bullying and domination. Here at least people express themselves and are clear, instead of the constraining political correctness that bedogs other lists... And I am sorry if I have to dispel the petty illusions that some on this list seem to want to maintain (it is VERY important for them apparently). From a marginal,amateurish perspective there is not an iota of even handedness in many of the discussions, and the single rooters and obsequious ICANNers in civil society stand on notions that are threadbare (iow its time to up the game). If those who now want to make points about namecalling and do not want to be coarse, then they should step in with an even hand, and I will be first to admit that I am a muppet... but like peanut butter, it needs to be spread fairly... Riaz On 2012/08/05 07:10 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder > wrote: >> Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the >> authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file >> vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of >> mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k usd . > > No. > > There is a "distribution master". This is a machine that allows for > zone transfer of the root zone data maintained by the "root management > partners" (ICANN, Verisign, U.S. Dept. of Commerce NTIA) by anyone > that holds the private root zone TSIG key (password). It is not > publicly accessible and does not (I believe) respond to any DNS query > other that "AXFR" (zone transfer), "IXFR" (incremental zone transfer), > and "SOA" (start of authority, used to figure out if a server needs to > do a zone transfer). As such, it is not a "root server". > > There are "root servers". These are devices that are numbered with > one of 13 IP(v4) addresses listed in > http://www.internic.net/domain/named.root to which the root zone is > transferred and which respond to all DNS queries with referrals to > top-level domains (exceptions being for queries for data in the > root-servers.net and arpa zones which are > co-resident with the root zone on 12 of the root servers). > > That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true > root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. > The devices that make up the root servers vary from single machines in > one geographical location (this describes "B" and "D") to clusters of > machines either localized or spread out geographically using "anycast" > (this describes all the other root servers). Within the latter, there > are different distribution models primarily to limit the load on the > "distribution master". In many cases (particularly for the root > servers that have many machines), there is an "internal distribution > master" that fetches the zone from the "real" distribution master and > makes it available to all the other machines for that root server. In > other cases, each individual machine that makes up the root server > fetches the root zone from the "real" distribution master directly. > > I should probably note that any resolver operator can (assuming their > resolver is capable of it which most are) mirror the root zone into > their resolver, but this doesn't make that resolver a root server > since it doesn't have one of the 13 IP(v4) addresses. > >> What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very >> significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root >> servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come >> across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the >> difference. > > As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. > >> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >> neutral/ technical information. > > Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to > communicate. > > As you have assumed conspiracy, I suspect trying to explain further is > pointless since presumably I and anyone else who tries to disabuse you > of your beliefs would obviously be part of the conspiracy. I will, > however, continue trying since http://www.xkcd.com/386/. > >> We read in the discussions that the limit of 13 no longer is meaningful. > > You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default > maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways > around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS > specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, > cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. > >> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >> world happy. > > Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own > root server would make the people of the world happy. > >> Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a >> geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, >> especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why >> not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. > > As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are > independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with > the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit > each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How > root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their > decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient > justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute > their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". > > With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" > (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to > give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the > ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? > >> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >> these root servers. Is it really true? > > Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is > seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". > >> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. > > Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is > distributed. > >> If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way >> tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? > > In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to > transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner > the zone transfer password. > > Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server > "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person > to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the > assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by > another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either > require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root > server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would > have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. > >> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >> root server operators, > > Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). > >> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >> physical location points. > > In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 > organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. > >> Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a >> geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to >> an Indian Institute of Technology. > > Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide > infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the > same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in > India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of > hardware being shipped into the country (see > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). > >> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >> present debate. Any answers? > > Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is > no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you > will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about > this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in > their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative > control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to > Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that > decision. > >> Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is >> opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers >> (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will >> skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US >> centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. > > No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. > Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing > root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network > disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server > allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much > anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to > abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. > > Merging a subsequent note: > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >> operator to his own anycast server. > > Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you > will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can > gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate > the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. > >> This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got >> from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest >> on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and >> kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. > > I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not > what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested > "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is > considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone > asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. > Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? > > As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root > servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. > >> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? > > Yes. Really. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 6 08:39:55 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 12:39:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DD4EE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Fair questions, Parminder. .Com and Verisign are “special” in that .com still operates under an ancient (199x) “Cooperative Agreement” that started with the National Science Foundation and then moved to the Commerce Department in 1997. For a list of amendments to that contract (it is looooong), see this: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/domainname/nsi.htm In that technical-legal minutiae you will find whatever “review” capabilities exist. Basically the battle over the establishment of ICANN was not really complete until Verisign, which has de facto operational control of the root zone and, with its control of .com, accounted for over half of the domain name market back then, accepted ICANN and agreed to play ball with it. Litigation between Versign and ICANN over the terms of the .com agreement was settled in 2005, I think (people closer to this issue such as Bret Fausett will correct me if I am off) and because of the competition policy/monopoly implications of the settlement, and the existence of the cooperative agreement, the USG had the authority to approve it. This 2006 press release from the US DoC explains in a nutshell what happened with that initial settlement and USG review: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/ntiahome/press/2006/icanncom_113006.htm Other than things pertaining to the specific terms of the IANA contract, I cannot think of any other areas where ICANN decisions would be subject to USG review. As an advocate of government regulation of big business, however, I am sure you are pleased to learn that the US government is looking out for you when it comes to Verisign. ;-) From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 1:39 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal One thing in the news item on the renewal of .com agreement interested me a lot. "The deal is currently under review by the US Department of Commerce and Bidzos said he expects it to be approved before November 30, when the current contract expires." I did not know that US government exercised review over ICANN's routine contract renewals. So much for the claims that US hardly exercises any 'real' or 'in effect' oversight role over ICANN. Can anyone provide us a list of what all decisions of ICANN are subject to US gov's review and confirmation, and in what manner. This will help one form a good view of what really is the oversight role with US at present, something which has always been so much in the eye of the storm. I direct this question especially at those who seem so awfully disappointed that despite the best efforts of ICANN/ technical community, most outsiders, especially those with pathological political sensitivities, simply are not able to understand much :). Pl note that the above is a simple and direct question, and should be able to have a clear and direct response. I am sure ICANN insiders would know the answer. parminder On Saturday 04 August 2012 12:37 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: This can be understood in terms of path dependency as well as Public Choice theory... at some level of abstraction. On 2012/08/03 02:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: The financial aspect and opportunities will always be there because at the end of the day, we see a lot of stuff that inclines towards benefiting the domain industry. Best Fouad On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks within the ICANN community. Fahd _______________________________________________ list mailing list list at igfarab.org http://mail.igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 6 10:39:31 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 10:39:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] US will push for open markets, free expression at ITU meeting | ITworld In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:10 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > ICANN is limited in the scope, see below. ICANN does not govern the Internet. It is not the place to work out Internet governance policies as it only looks after a few of the policy areas identified in the WGIG 2005 Report [http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf see pages 5-8] It says so too within the ICANN Articles of Incorporation, see excerpts below: > In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall, except as limited by Article 5 hereof, pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by > (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; > > (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; > > (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; > > (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and > > (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv). > > ... Salanieta - You are correct; ICANN was envisioned to perform the very clearly defined task of coordination of technical parameters needed to keep the Internet running, including overseeing the development of related policies for the coordination of these parameters. The recording of this intent can also be found in the formative Green and White papers which were developed to describe the need and structure for the new organization. I think it is true to say that ICANN is a part of the governance system of the Internet, but that does not equate with it being "_the_ place to work out to work out Internet governance policies" (emphasis added), implying the sole place to do so, since there could easily be needed Internet governance policies which have nothing to do with the coordination of the technical parameters of the Internet. Furthermore, coordination of technical parameters (and the policies needed for same) does not necessarily imply validity to define global consensus on any public policy issue that happens to impact the Internet. For example, freedom of expression is a concept far greater than the Internet, so it would not be reasonable for the global reference consensus statement on "Freedom of expression as a basic human right" to be worked out solely by ICANN. Last month, I noted the challenge we face with respect to the scope of "Internet Governance" policies; it is very easily to define that scope to be far greater than the scope of the present institutions working in the Internet ecosystem (see attached email). FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Depend on my present location, email responses may be 13.8 late minutes as a result of propagation delay. Begin forwarded message: > From: John Curran > Subject: Re: [governance] Oversight > Date: July 1, 2012 12:20:14 PM EDT > To: parminder > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org, John Curran > ... > Let's recall one key statement from ICANN's core values: > > "11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations." > > Taking such recommendations into account _requires_ that there > is either a single consensus input received or indeed a high degree > of commonality among all of the recommendations received. I do > believe that ICANN must respect the guidance in these cases, but > from what I can determine it is not in ICANN's mission to bring about > consensus in social and public policy matters where none exists today. > (and If ICANN had such amazing abilities, then we should have it work > on world hunger and conflict before worrying about Internet matters...) > ... > If the public policy considerations that you reference are areas where we > have commonly accepted and documented societal norms, then those > documents should be formally submitted into the policy development > processes and ICANN should be held accountable, per its core values, > for taking them into consideration in setting policies for technical identifier > coordination and management for the Internet. > > If the public policy considerations that you reference are areas where we > lack commonly accepted and documented societal norms, I would think > that bringing governments, civil society, and businesses together on these > matters first would be a high priority, and a task much larger in scope that > ICANN's mission. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 6 11:02:58 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 11:02:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access Message-ID: http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/itu-signs-deal-to-build-180-base-stations-in-africa-to-expand-broadband-access/ Interesting development. I wonder if they are becoming a provider themselves, or subsidising telcos in the region...surely the latter!!?? -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Mon Aug 6 11:37:45 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 15:37:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501F8200.6050400@gmail.com> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org>,<501F8200.6050400@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AD8DA@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Riaz, thanks for spelling out clearly some of the difficulties in the present discussion. Here's a take that might interest you: A number of us fromm developing countries and imbued with different levels of discomfort with "northern" domination of world economy and politics decided many years ago to separate the system in layers, as it is architected, and act within it in differentiated ways. I'll spare you a lot of details to summarize saying that we found far more opportunity for our developing-country views to be taken into account, and far more to contribute to our countries and societies, by acting directly in the construction and evolution of the global Internet Governance mechanisms than in waiting for our governments to do so for us - with the risk, proven true, that they would do it in an ill-informed and misguided way. Doing so does not ignore questions of legitimacy, asymmetry of power, definitions of democracy, etc. It builds on it instead of waiting for Mommy or Daddy Government and renounces the view of the UN as a world government which is implicit in some of your views. We do not take an anti-UN stance BTW, nor even an anti-ITU as it would seem. Engineers, mathematicians and computer scientists from India, Pakistan, and many other countries arrive with views like yours to try to change the architecture at the technical level as well and work in the IETF. Experimentation, to which you dedicate a paragraph, takes place constantly. And in the spirit of good science, a number of experiments which have been undertaken and whose results are known, are not repeated endlessly, esp. not at the core of a working infrastructure whose architecture and evolability have proven themselves. >From that group's point of view, your position is seen as reactionary... it is seen as resisting change, ongoing and provable change, a veritable revolution in human affairs... can you picture that?? If you can, we are beginning to be able to engage in a more fruitful conversation. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 06 de agosto de 2012 03:36 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) David Thanks for the clarification. Parminder, Time to go to Karl's cavebear and dig out some of the issues he raised, like single point of failure, the misconception that the internet is merely a collection of nets etc... such a long time ago and such a boring escapade... and I share some sentiments that we are right back in 2003... But perhaps it is just as well I am an amateur (and an idiotic marginal one at that) that I can perhaps converse directly with Parminder's views as if others were not around - which is how this issue is dealt with by many others on this list - as if legitimacy was not an issue... so instead of talking at cross purposes let me converse with like-minded people like Parminder so they and others can see where we are coming from (although I am not speaking for Parminder, and it may sound like it, you specify where you are ad idem if necessary... this a horrible sarcastic caricature ... ) for others edification just to show them that there is an alternate conception of things out there (not better, not worse, just different... and perhaps if disinterested judgement is applied, PERHAPS a more reasonable in approach)... So Parminder, what I understand is that the system is designed in a particular way, has incorporated a number of changes, and is rather flexible - given certain constraints. Apparently the sense is that it should be alright now, at the technical level, to solve the legitimacy issues. There remains the socio-political issue of "control" (or to give Curran credence - participation) raised inaccurately and "deeply wrong" (which is a vice for Southerners but Northerners who talk about a single root are free from such aspersions - go figure) technically, but otherwise (socio-politically) remains in tact because neither GAC nor IGF deals with the issue to their satisfaction. Now conspiracy theories abound (unless of course one listened to commie Cuba or how Iraq was treated before the illegal invasion of Al Qaeeda infested Iraq -- if I recall correctly on both counts as I am not trawling through the web to find those references as it is tangential to my main point), but if there is no real problem with the architecture as it is, then why can governance structures not be changed in a way that maintains technical fidelity? See it is nice when we too ask questions (and to anticipate the droll responses - it is absolutely OK to have NO idea about the future shape, but to know that current arrangements are not ok, and others are invited to be pragmatic... see comments on evolution below). On the technical level, I think "autonomous internet" and "single root", these can be worked out and they are not so much of a problem as I read this stuff - techies are cool and love engineering around problems - ... and I am happy to be wrong and guided... On the socio-political level the argument made by those who "support" (said guardedly, with all necessary caveats) ICANN ask what do the likes of you/us want? I think this has been clear - no technical administration without representation - to paraphrase a famous tea party (although I do not want to confuse that one with modern adherents, the likes of whom seem to be on this list in large order - but that may just be my own jaundiced eye, but it is a pre-existing condition so well... ). So the more these fellows argue that "everything is alright" the more I get the sense that these arguments work adequately well for the other side (if the technical is so flexible, then it can work in a myriad of governance arrangement just so long as integrity (system and people) and testing is safeguarded - except for the actual shape of things to come. From a truly evolutionary perspective this is not a problem. I suspect, however, that this argument is used to resist change so that the destination (proposed shape of arrangements) can be criticised as too sunny or cold as a substitute for setting upon the path of accepting a directionality to change (and here they are right we ARE STILL in 2003). The evolutionary spirit is that of variety creation (experimentation) leading to (natural iow political here) selection of what works - and this is the test of the pudding in the evolutionary system. Now if ICANN is more open to change than some civil society people here then it is unavoidable that one reasonably can conclude they fall in as "true believers" or astroturfers without becoming a conspiracy theorist. Now it is ridiculous to assert (unless one is of John Bolton predisposition, or the Heritage Foundation - decidedly anti-UN) that one can handle matters of war and peace in the imperfect UN (or a really supercharged GAC, if one is open to change and take the Chinese proposal to heart as righteous and pious believers in the single root should - although I am not a confessor) but can't deal with this... perhaps it is time to help them decolonise the evolutionary imagination... You see because for single rooters, whose belief - and it is a belief - the Chinese proposal should be scary. Instead of beating the same drum they have been for ages - they do need to be keenly aware of how they indict themselves in the socio-political realm (if one is disinterested). Talking as if they were not listening (to be clear because this is laden with assumptions that others could dispute, but I do not expect much from you), they should be scrambling for a solution because China may not be as powerful as the US but it has been patient and has a strong vested interest in maintaining control as it understands its political equations (if they misunderestimate this then well there is no helping them). When they don't scramble then it puts paid to all the (technical) bunkum that we had to deal with SINCE 2003 - statements and actions must match, and they were so dedicated to this view point. The indictment is the lack of depth or absence of discussion from a believers pov on this list (for "believers" it indicates that 'the way they believe what they believe' is as much of a problem as 'what is believed' - but perhaps I am too esoteric here). This is not so much of a problem for those who genuinely "buy" the ICANN-ish type line (recognising that they are more flexible than some in civil society) as they can self correct, but more of one for those "astro-turfers" (so to speak, based on genuince concerns about the Chinese proposal for single root rather than platitudes) - because the question is that when the contradictions become so glaringly obvious the "handlers" need to ask is "where can one find good help these days?" leading to the inevitable, "how dispensable are you?" For me 'dime a dozen' springs to mind, although there are some long haulers also - but for them the experience has brought less, rather than more, sophistication into civil society engagements imho. You see, because I am chastised for name-calling (which in the IT community I thought was par for the course, eg generally previous discussions on IETF modalities, and particularly on this list) when I was genuinely under the impression that this is the acceptable tenor of robust engagement (perhaps I am not that good at induction)... I hope to see some sincerity in those wishing to set the tone on this list to be even handed. Now I am under no impression that this will be done, but one must be optimistic. And because I come from a Third World Nationalist perspective (which is one of many TW perspectives), let me put it like this, the issue of 'no technical administration with representation' is something that may seem irrational for those with the civilising mission. But self-determination and other issues (like sitting in the back of the bus) became mainstream nevertheless. That said, Third World countries have lots of problems, and corruption is certainly one of them - and especially as raised on this list needs to dealt with head on (I hope that this can be taken up and that the allegation is not left hanging as it so frequently is in our countries). But some perspective is in order, compared with Mortgage Backed Securities, Libor or the sum of issues that make up the Great Recession (we can't call it a depression, because well...) makes TWers look like petty thieves (and the rich countries always score highly on Transparency International's list - just look at Iceland's score in 2006!)... ...but more germane to the issues here is the serious violations that have occurred in the US and the rich countries (including expropriation of domain names by trade mark holders in the name of laws that were made up as things went along, violations of privacy, PATRIOTIC legislation. etc). See with this "wild west"/can do/"we the best" kind of attitude it makes it hard to have a decent conversation... (and I drip with sarcasm because I just do not like the pot calling the kettle black - I am odd like that I know, just can shake it though, but will try) ... it may come as a surprise to some, but what passes for progressive in some quarters would not pass muster elsewhere... I recall raising issues of conflict of interest once at a consultation, and was lambasted. This is NORMAL in these fora - if upstarts even question ICANN they must get their cumuppence. And boy do we get it and take it. But I why should I let a self-righteous tone kick me down? That we will be kicked down is a CERTAINTY, and we engage that knowing that while maintain faith in reason and the reality of choice - such hopeless romantics (sigh :) So let me be absolutely clear, better 'a might is right' than supposed ideological neutrality posing as universal. I can respect Avri when she expresses a preference for US over others (and it is understandable - at least the issue is contestable, if expensive, and there are some checks and balances. This candour of techies is appreciated - then we can have a real conversation and accept differences and work out stuff... taking into account relative power differences, values of equality which are put in practice (not some sublime impractical liberal assumption of formal equality) etc... But candour should not be confused with bullying and domination. Here at least people express themselves and are clear, instead of the constraining political correctness that bedogs other lists... And I am sorry if I have to dispel the petty illusions that some on this list seem to want to maintain (it is VERY important for them apparently). From a marginal,amateurish perspective there is not an iota of even handedness in many of the discussions, and the single rooters and obsequious ICANNers in civil society stand on notions that are threadbare (iow its time to up the game). If those who now want to make points about namecalling and do not want to be coarse, then they should step in with an even hand, and I will be first to admit that I am a muppet... but like peanut butter, it needs to be spread fairly... Riaz On 2012/08/05 07:10 PM, David Conrad wrote: Parminder, On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder > wrote: Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k usd . No. There is a "distribution master". This is a machine that allows for zone transfer of the root zone data maintained by the "root management partners" (ICANN, Verisign, U.S. Dept. of Commerce NTIA) by anyone that holds the private root zone TSIG key (password). It is not publicly accessible and does not (I believe) respond to any DNS query other that "AXFR" (zone transfer), "IXFR" (incremental zone transfer), and "SOA" (start of authority, used to figure out if a server needs to do a zone transfer). As such, it is not a "root server". There are "root servers". These are devices that are numbered with one of 13 IP(v4) addresses listed in http://www.internic.net/domain/named.root to which the root zone is transferred and which respond to all DNS queries with referrals to top-level domains (exceptions being for queries for data in the root-servers.net and arpa zones which are co-resident with the root zone on 12 of the root servers). That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. The devices that make up the root servers vary from single machines in one geographical location (this describes "B" and "D") to clusters of machines either localized or spread out geographically using "anycast" (this describes all the other root servers). Within the latter, there are different distribution models primarily to limit the load on the "distribution master". In many cases (particularly for the root servers that have many machines), there is an "internal distribution master" that fetches the zone from the "real" distribution master and makes it available to all the other machines for that root server. In other cases, each individual machine that makes up the root server fetches the root zone from the "real" distribution master directly. I should probably note that any resolver operator can (assuming their resolver is capable of it which most are) mirror the root zone into their resolver, but this doesn't make that resolver a root server since it doesn't have one of the 13 IP(v4) addresses. What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the difference. As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual neutral/ technical information. Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to communicate. As you have assumed conspiracy, I suspect trying to explain further is pointless since presumably I and anyone else who tries to disabuse you of your beliefs would obviously be part of the conspiracy. I will, however, continue trying since http://www.xkcd.com/386/. We read in the discussions that the limit of 13 no longer is meaningful. You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the world happy. Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own root server would make the people of the world happy. Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of these root servers. Is it really true? Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to what goes in and from the authoritative root server. Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is distributed. If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner the zone transfer password. Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 root server operators, Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not physical location points. In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to an Indian Institute of Technology. Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of hardware being shipped into the country (see http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the present debate. Any answers? Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that decision. Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. Merging a subsequent note: On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast operator to his own anycast server. Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? Yes. Really. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Mon Aug 6 12:09:55 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 09:09:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <501F8200.6050400@gmail.com> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <501F8200.6050400@gmail.com> Message-ID: <42E95478-76E0-4075-AD6B-E5298183EC7F@virtualized.org> Riaz, On Aug 6, 2012, at 1:36 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > David Thanks for the clarification. I hope it was helpful. > Parminder, ... Not to intrude on your discussion with Parminder, but could you clarify: > no technical administration without representation In the context of ICANN, the following technical resources are coordinated: - Protocol parameters (protocol identifiers, service identifiers, etc.) - IP numbers (IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, Autonomous System numbers) - Domain names (top-level domains, root management) Out of honest curiosity, in your view, which of these are administered without representation? (I have my own list but am interested in yours) Also, just for clarification: > You see because for single rooters, whose belief - and it is a belief - the Chinese proposal should be scary. What do you think the right answer should be when an application (like a web browser) looks up "www.gmail.com"? In my view, the right answer would be the IP addresses Google has assigned to the web servers for "www.gmail.com". In the "Chinese" proposal (by which I presume you mean http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-diao-aip-dns-01), the answer would depend on whether "www.gmail.com" resolves in the "local" root. If it doesn't, a box on the edge of the national network would append a suffix (e.g., "www.gmail.com.A") and submit that query to the "global" root for resolution. The proposal implies that there could be any number of suffixes, presumably corresponding to countries (perhaps they could use ISO-3166 strings?), but does not specify how the box on the edge of the national network is supposed to figure out which suffix to use. One could imagine an implementation that orders suffixes based on politics, e.g., country "A" is more friendly to us than country "B", so we'll query their names first, etc. While I can see the attraction of such an approach for folks who want to exert control of what is accessible (by domain name) to the people within the tightly controlled national network or who wish to penalize sites in other countries they don't like, it raises a myriad of technical implementation issues (resiliency, latency, caching, etc). Oh, and I think there might be a few issues related to freedom of expression, but I acknowledge that I might have some non-technical biases in that area. As such, the "Chinese" proposal isn't really scary, rather it yet another reiteration of the "same old stuff" (I think I first heard a proposal similar to this back in the late 80s) and one that isn't particularly well specified or actually even implementable. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 14:22:19 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 21:22:19 +0300 Subject: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I wonder if this is another ITU approach to have a piece of the big telco pie now that the Internet control is most probably far from reach. Fahd On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:02 PM, McTim wrote: > > http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/itu-signs-deal-to-build-180-base-stations-in-africa-to-expand-broadband-access/ > > Interesting development. I wonder if they are becoming a provider > themselves, or subsidising telcos in the region...surely the > latter!!?? > > -- > 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Mon Aug 6 15:09:25 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 19:09:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483ADDAB@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Fahd, I've been trying to find out what this program means as to ITU involvement. There may be some precedent in the collaboration with Cisco that the ITU has held for a number of years. Under shared ITU-Cisco branding, they have established a number of Cisco Networking Academies which are called Internet Training Centers (yes, there may be one close to you.) These centers are Cisco schools, offering brand-oriented training and access to certification. The money comes form everywhere but the ITU as far as I know - from Cisco and from the country where they are established. The ITU's coordinating role may be signficant in some countries, unnecessary in others. >From my experience: the unit I directed as academic CIO of the National University of Mexico (which has 324,000 students) entered a partnership with Cisco for an Academy, and we never actually got to do much because the training had to be totally Cisco-oriented. The deal eventually died because our institution cannot be held to such commercial constraints. (Do take note that this was not an ITU-related deal, but we do know that the ITC's are CNA's in program and equipment.) Can the present deal with Nexpedience be similar? or is the million dollars mentioned in the news provided by the donors of the ITU? I have not been able to find any details about the deal in the ITU's website, nor in Nexpedience's. (Nexpedience is basically a manufacturer of radios, i.e. base stations, formerly a divisio of Nokia, so a lot of information about the deal is still necessary - like, who will build towers, install, operate, etc.) Glad to be corrected by someone better informed. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Fahd A. Batayneh [fahd.batayneh at gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 06 de agosto de 2012 13:22 Hasta: IG Caucus Asunto: Re: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access I wonder if this is another ITU approach to have a piece of the big telco pie now that the Internet control is most probably far from reach. Fahd On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:02 PM, McTim > wrote: http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/itu-signs-deal-to-build-180-base-stations-in-africa-to-expand-broadband-access/ Interesting development. I wonder if they are becoming a provider themselves, or subsidising telcos in the region...surely the latter!!?? -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 15:27:27 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 22:27:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483ADDAB@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483ADDAB@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Thank you for the valuable insight Alejandro. >From my exposure to ITU activities, I can conclude that the ITU tend to tap countries that are low on ICT resources, and this is how they win votes when requested by their 194 members states, and this is - for example - what is making many of us worried about the outcomes of the WCIT meeting in Dubai year end. While I have no negative stance against the ITU or any of its staff members, I would like to see a cleaner approach towards ICT development in developing and least-developed countries when they tend to help rather than using the "Help me to help you" approach currently used. Fahd On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan at unam.mx> wrote: > Fahd, > > I've been trying to find out what this program means as to ITU > involvement. > > There may be some precedent in the collaboration with Cisco that the ITU > has held for a number of years. Under shared ITU-Cisco branding, they have > established a number of Cisco Networking Academies which are called > Internet Training Centers (yes, there may be one close to you.) > > These centers are Cisco schools, offering brand-oriented training and > access to certification. The money comes form everywhere but the ITU as far > as I know - from Cisco and from the country where they are established. The > ITU's coordinating role may be signficant in some countries, unnecessary in > others. > > From my experience: the unit I directed as academic CIO of the National > University of Mexico (which has 324,000 students) entered a partnership > with Cisco for an Academy, and we never actually got to do much because the > training had to be totally Cisco-oriented. The deal eventually died because > our institution cannot be held to such commercial constraints. (Do take > note that this was not an ITU-related deal, but we do know that the ITC's > are CNA's in program and equipment.) > > Can the present deal with Nexpedience be similar? or is the million > dollars mentioned in the news provided by the donors of the ITU? I have not > been able to find any details about the deal in the ITU's website, nor in > Nexpedience's. (Nexpedience is basically a manufacturer of radios, i.e. > base stations, formerly a divisio of Nokia, so a lot of information about > the deal is still necessary - like, who will build towers, install, > operate, etc.) > > Glad to be corrected by someone better informed. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > ------------------------------ > *Desde:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Fahd A. Batayneh [ > fahd.batayneh at gmail.com] > *Enviado el:* lunes, 06 de agosto de 2012 13:22 > *Hasta:* IG Caucus > *Asunto:* Re: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in > Africa to expand broadband access > > I wonder if this is another ITU approach to have a piece of the big > telco pie now that the Internet control is most probably far from reach. > > Fahd > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 6:02 PM, McTim wrote: > >> >> http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/itu-signs-deal-to-build-180-base-stations-in-africa-to-expand-broadband-access/ >> >> Interesting development. I wonder if they are becoming a provider >> themselves, or subsidising telcos in the region...surely the >> latter!!?? >> >> -- >> 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.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 6 16:08:22 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:08:22 +1200 Subject: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483ADDAB@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: > > > > From my exposure to ITU activities, I can conclude that the ITU tend to > tap countries that are low on ICT resources, > If one looks at the statistics on penetration rates via http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/index.html you will see that for most of the developing countries have extremely low penetration rates. In a separate thread on Ethiopia, I had attempted to show some of the variables that exist that one could call significant deterrents to rolling out infrastructure. You see the reality is that Telcos will only pump money into CAPEX projects if they know they will get a Return on Investment (RoI). A consistent trend for most Telcos involved in Broadband infrastructure is that they are realising that it takes at least 15 years to recover that RoI. Also consider the IDI ranking which measures a host of things including accessibility, affordability etc, and you will find (not suprisingly) alot of developing countries at the bottom of the rung. Whilst there are numerous studies that show the linkages between broadband deployment/investment with economic growth, there are other factors that put a dampener on basic things like "access". I can only assume that Africa has numerous forums where access challenges would be discussed. I think that sometimes people forget that part of living in an "ecosystem" (apologies to those who despise the term) is that everything has its place. Just as when a species or genus becomes extinct it eventually affects the environment so too in the internet ecosystem. The ITU only steps in when countries through their governments make a request for assistance. As an advocate for development, I think that this should be applauded. One of the Internet Governance policy areas identified in the WGIG 2005 includes high interconnection costs. At some point it would be interesting to see a review of the WGIG Report and its findings. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Aug 6 16:50:17 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 23:50:17 +0300 Subject: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483ADDAB@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Salanieta, while I would never disagree on your insight, and while I agree that it is a win-win case for both the ITU and developing/least-developed countries, I think the ITU should start approaching these countries differently. While I also agree that the ITU provides training and consultancy services based on requests from members, who does that? *Governments*. When governments start to rely heavily on bodies such as the ITU (but not limited to), they neglect the learning aspects and just follow blindly. This is what makes them followers rather than trying to be innovators and leaders. Fahd On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> From my exposure to ITU activities, I can conclude that the ITU tend to >> tap countries that are low on ICT resources, >> > > If one looks at the statistics on penetration rates via > http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/index.html you will see that for > most of the developing countries have extremely low penetration rates. In a > separate thread on Ethiopia, I had attempted to show some of the variables > that exist that one could call significant deterrents to rolling out > infrastructure. You see the reality is that Telcos will only pump money > into CAPEX projects if they know they will get a Return on Investment > (RoI). A consistent trend for most Telcos involved in Broadband > infrastructure is that they are realising that it takes at least 15 years > to recover that RoI. > > Also consider the IDI ranking which measures a host of things including > accessibility, affordability etc, and you will find (not suprisingly) alot > of developing countries at the bottom of the rung. Whilst there are > numerous studies that show the linkages between broadband > deployment/investment with economic growth, there are other factors that > put a dampener on basic things like "access". I can only assume that Africa > has numerous forums where access challenges would be discussed. I think > that sometimes people forget that part of living in an "ecosystem" > (apologies to those who despise the term) is that everything has its place. > Just as when a species or genus becomes extinct it eventually affects the > environment so too in the internet ecosystem. > > The ITU only steps in when countries through their governments make a > request for assistance. As an advocate for development, I think that this > should be applauded. One of the Internet Governance policy areas identified > in the WGIG 2005 includes high interconnection costs. At some point it > would be interesting to see a review of the WGIG Report and its findings. > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 6 23:24:37 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 00:24:37 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for support - Brazilian civil rights framework in Congress Message-ID: On behalf of Joana Varon, from CTS-FGV Dear Colleagues, Please find attached a letter of support for the Civil Rights Framework for Internet in Brazil, drafted in partnership with the following Brazilian civil society organizations: Institute of Consumers Defense - IDEC; Intervozes and the Center for Technology and Society - CTS/FGV, but with growing support from a list of others. *Next Wednesday, August 8th, the bill shall be voted at a Special Committee of National **Congress*. It would be the first step in the creation of a legal text that goes in the opposite direction to the trend of criminalization and imposing intermediary liability on the web. As you might already know, we had expected it to be voted a month ago, but it did not happen due to lack of quorum. And nowadays, though it is the product of a highly democratic process, approval of the text is not guaranteed. We believe international support can help us put pressure on Congress for approval. So, if you agree, I would kindly ask your institution to sign this letter. Sorry for not having being able to propose it as a document to be edited in partnership, but we are in a rush, as the idea is to have a version with institutional signatures of international civil society organizations by tomorrow to deliver it to the Special Commission on *Wednesday*. Signatures can be sent directly to my email (*joana at varonferraz.com*), preferably indicating the link to the website of the supporting institution. ps. sorry for any eventual cross-posting Kind regards, Joana -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/ www.freenetfilm.org @joana_varon -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SupportMarcoCivil_06ago12.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 44683 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 7 01:17:45 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:47:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> David, On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder > wrote: >> Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the >> authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file >> vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of >> mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k usd . > > No. > > There is a "distribution master". So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep technical training like Daniel said is a recent email; "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. Each of these is an actual root server." Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. An actual root server is a shorthand for an actual root server operator, who exercises control (at least potentially) over the root zone file that he publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions with you on the IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems rather better informed than 'technical experts' here on this particular issue. He seems to know better which is a true or actual root server and which is not. Quote from the same interview where he quite wrongly said that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers). "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without mechanisms of control and intervention." Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt it obvious! In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide examples of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are ''thoroughly wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above example, I will try and find others in your email below :) > (snip) > > That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true > root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', so why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than create strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days ago "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " (David) Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It is about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real issue, and it was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African ministers the latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to availability of root server mirrors - a very different issue. Similarly, this current discussion is continuously pulled towards the convenient description of geographic extensions through mirrors of root servers, away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against distribution) of power to change root file or resist changes to root file that is with the root server operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators. It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case was based on how the root server operators are really independent (which is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the insurance against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, now when we are discussing the power of root server operators, which is geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone can set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root servers (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well enough are merely stupid! How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I mean by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a sociological 'fact'. > (snip) >> What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very >> significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root >> servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come >> across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the >> difference. > > As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root zone operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the very basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the root file layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between these two latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision to speak about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite another, or at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the issue of 'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving queries. > >> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >> neutral/ technical information. > > Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to > communicate. :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical community has - its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to ) see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult! > > (snip) > > You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default > maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways > around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS > specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, > cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance. > >> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >> world happy. > > Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own > root server would make the people of the world happy. This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any justification at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to reallocate / redistribute them in a manner that is politically more justifiable and thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. regards parminder > >> Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a >> geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, >> especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why >> not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. > > As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are > independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with > the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit > each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How > root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their > decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient > justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute > their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". > > With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" > (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to > give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the > ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? > >> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >> these root servers. Is it really true? > > Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is > seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". > >> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. > > Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is > distributed. > >> If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way >> tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? > > In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to > transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner > the zone transfer password. > > Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server > "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person > to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the > assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by > another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either > require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root > server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would > have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. > >> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >> root server operators, > > Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). > >> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >> physical location points. > > In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 > organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. > >> Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a >> geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to >> an Indian Institute of Technology. > > Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide > infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the > same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in > India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of > hardware being shipped into the country (see > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). > >> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >> present debate. Any answers? > > Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is > no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you > will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about > this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in > their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative > control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to > Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that > decision. > >> Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is >> opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers >> (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will >> skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US >> centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. > > No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. > Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing > root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network > disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server > allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much > anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to > abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. > > Merging a subsequent note: > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >> operator to his own anycast server. > > Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you > will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can > gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate > the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. > >> This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got >> from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest >> on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and >> kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. > > I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not > what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested > "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is > considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone > asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. > Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? > > As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root > servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. > >> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? > > Yes. Really. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Tue Aug 7 01:51:07 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 05:51:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org>,<5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AEAF1@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Parminder, let's assume you may be right. Then, do as engineers do: design and test. The easiest way to support your view that " the number 13 [root servers] can be expanded without much difficulty " is to get the best engineer in ITForChange and start participating in the IETF with a proposal. Better if it takes into account previous explorations of the subject. All techno-political framing clouds will dispel. Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Enviado el: martes, 07 de agosto de 2012 00:17 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Conrad Asunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) David, On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: Parminder, On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder > wrote: Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k usd . No. There is a "distribution master". So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep technical training like Daniel said is a recent email; "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. Each of these is an actual root server." Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. An actual root server is a shorthand for an actual root server operator, who exercises control (at least potentially) over the root zone file that he publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions with you on the IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems rather better informed than 'technical experts' here on this particular issue. He seems to know better which is a true or actual root server and which is not. Quote from the same interview where he quite wrongly said that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers). "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without mechanisms of control and intervention." Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt it obvious! In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide examples of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are ''thoroughly wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above example, I will try and find others in your email below :) (snip) That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', so why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than create strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days ago "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " (David) Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It is about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real issue, and it was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African ministers the latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to availability of root server mirrors - a very different issue. Similarly, this current discussion is continuously pulled towards the convenient description of geographic extensions through mirrors of root servers, away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against distribution) of power to change root file or resist changes to root file that is with the root server operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators. It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case was based on how the root server operators are really independent (which is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the insurance against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, now when we are discussing the power of root server operators, which is geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone can set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root servers (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well enough are merely stupid! How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I mean by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a sociological 'fact'. (snip) What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the difference. As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root zone operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the very basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the root file layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between these two latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision to speak about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite another, or at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the issue of 'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving queries. This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual neutral/ technical information. Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to communicate. :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical community has - its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to ) see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult! (snip) You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance. So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the world happy. Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own root server would make the people of the world happy. This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any justification at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to reallocate / redistribute them in a manner that is politically more justifiable and thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. regards parminder Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of these root servers. Is it really true? Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to what goes in and from the authoritative root server. Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is distributed. If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner the zone transfer password. Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 root server operators, Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not physical location points. In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to an Indian Institute of Technology. Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of hardware being shipped into the country (see http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the present debate. Any answers? Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that decision. Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. Merging a subsequent note: On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast operator to his own anycast server. Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? Yes. Really. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 7 02:23:04 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:53:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <5020B448.9060407@itforchange.net> David, On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Snip) > >> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >> world happy. > > Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own > root server would make the people of the world happy. A good issue, and in the present circumstances, the right issue, to explore. I understand that you and the technical community agree that, in the first instance, the root servers were distributed among different agencies primarily to avoid capture. Right! To make sure we agree on this, I quote you from your email below "The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture"." (David) And I quote an ISOC document, as something that could represent the viewpoint of technical community in general. "......the root name servers that publish this zone file are organised in a distributed and diverse fashion. No single entity has authority or control over the operation of these servers. This diversity and the distributed authority has been a key element of the reliability of the root name service. Therefore this diversity should be maintained in the face of increasing pressure for more hierarchical "Internet Governance". http://www.isoc.org/briefings/019/ Again, what is being suggested is that distribution of 'power' over different entities running root servers helps avoid 'capture'. Very well! Now we should see that this is clearly political territory, talk of capture and distribution of power. Somebody rightly decided that if root server operations are distributed among different agencies and not subject to any 'single entity having authority or control over the operation of these servers' it will be good for the Internet, users etc. I understand that we agree up to this point. Now, it is obvious that the decision to do the above was a political decision, including the choice of which all agencies should operation of root servers be distributed over. It was basically a US decision - take or give something from a compact of US gov - other US entities. Now a few years down the line, the Internet globally being what it is, some people think that this political decision is not quite adequate to the current circumstances, and want a 'political' review of it. They are not satisfied that the 'capture' possibility has been adequately accounted for. (Let us not lose sight of the fact that the idea and possiblity of 'capture' is not an invention of their conspiratorial minds. As above it is a prior issue central to current design of root server ownership.) The logic of 'no single entity having the authority or control over operation of root server' does not stand close geo-political scrutiny, esp in today's world. 9 of the 12 root server operators are in the US and directly and full subject to US executive's emergency authority (believe me, they very surely are, and if we want to argue this point, lets argue it separately, so that we dont dilute the chain of logic here). Three root servers are outside in US friendly OECD countries, that routinely cooperate with the US closely in all kinds of strategic, including military and criminal, matters. Hounding of CEO of megauploads and wikileaks come easily to mind as instances of close cooperation in cross border Internet manners of the kind that are not so palatable to the rest of the world. Through OECD and other plurilateral pacts these countires are configuring an ever closer relationship vis a vis the global Internet. On global military and security matters, and the term 'capture' relates to exceptional but plausible global scenarios, these countries always coordinate closely, and largely follow US diktats, esp on real 'global' emergencies. Now, would you fault someone if he were to reason that the present strategy against 'capture' vis a vis the operation or the root/ DNS system of the Internet, while laudable in its initial intentions, is not quite adequate, and is not in keeping with times. A simple and direct political formulation. What do you say to it? This is crucial point for us to cross, and if need be, argue and come to some common conclusion on. This requires clear political views, not technical, and I think we will agree to this fact. One can suggest that given the current situation of the Internet, the very same laudable intention of avoiding capture that informed the present root server system, when it was instituted, requires us to change the system. Is it really all that illegitimate a political demand. What is your response to this question? No, this is not an aside. This is the only question that the Indian and African minister really brought to the table, something which triggered and underlies the present discussion. One side cant conveniently turn the discussion around to what it wants to discuss, and calling the 'allocation of root servers' issue as a red herring as you do in your email. Such allocation and possible reallocation is 'the' issue we want to discuss. Of course there are other issues that you may want to bring to the table, and sure enough, we should discuss them too. But we cant just unilaterally pooh-pooh issues that are considered very important by others. especially when, as shown above, it take the very logic of 'capture' that you propose to its logical political consideration. This brings us to the key, in fact, the original question, rescued from under the labyrinth of all kinds of obfuscations; why cant we either increase the number of root servers (operators) and allocate new ones to new agencies in a manner that is globally better distributed and more just or, if that is not possible, reallocate the existing root servers from too many agencies in a single country to those in others, esp in the South. This will require an examination of the following questions (1) whether the number 13 can be breached, and more root server operators created, and/or (2) the existing root server operations can be reallocated. I believe both options are possible (but surely, at least one is possible which serves as well), but we can discuss the technical and political issues involved. This is the political demand from the South which cannot just be pooh poohed by describing its ministers as ill-informed or stupid. We seek full engagement of the civil society and other actors with this political demand. parminder > >> Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a >> geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, >> especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why >> not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. > > As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are > independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with > the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit > each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How > root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their > decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient > justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute > their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". > > With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" > (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to > give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the > ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? > >> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >> these root servers. Is it really true? > > Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is > seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". > >> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. > > Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is > distributed. > >> If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way >> tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? > > In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to > transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner > the zone transfer password. > > Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server > "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person > to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the > assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by > another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either > require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root > server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would > have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. > >> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >> root server operators, > > Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). > >> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >> physical location points. > > In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 > organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. > >> Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a >> geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to >> an Indian Institute of Technology. > > Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide > infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the > same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in > India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of > hardware being shipped into the country (see > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). > >> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >> present debate. Any answers? > > Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is > no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you > will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about > this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in > their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative > control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to > Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that > decision. > >> Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is >> opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers >> (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will >> skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US >> centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. > > No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. > Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing > root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network > disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server > allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much > anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to > abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. > > Merging a subsequent note: > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >> operator to his own anycast server. > > Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you > will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can > gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate > the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. > >> This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got >> from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest >> on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and >> kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. > > I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not > what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested > "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is > considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone > asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. > Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? > > As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root > servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. > >> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? > > Yes. Really. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 7 02:54:31 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 12:24:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AEAF1@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org>,<5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AEAF1@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <5020BBA7.7070303@itforchange.net> Alejandro, First of all, many thanks for your unusually even tempered response to my email :) . On Tuesday 07 August 2012 11:21 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Parminder, > > let's assume you may be right. Then, do as engineers do: design and test. I know you would consider it a fatal flaw, but unfortunately I must admit openly that I am not an engineer, and never ever had any kind of technical education whatsoever. May god save me! > > The easiest way to support your view that " the number 13 [root > servers] can be expanded without much difficulty " is to get the best > engineer in ITForChange I know you would consider this even more unbelievable, but there simply isnt any engineer here at IT for Change :( > and start participating in the IETF with a proposal. Better if it > takes into account previous explorations of the subject. Happy to be apprised of them. And as mentioned, if this indeed cant work (though David suggested that it isnt that difficult) the other option remains, reallocate at least 7 out of the 10 current root servers in the US to entities outside the US in a geographically and geo-political even/ just way. As a start, to keep from away from the spectre of strengthening statist controls, allocate them to the 4 RIRs in Asia-Pacific, Africa, LA and Europe. After all RIPE, the RIR of North America, already runs a root server. Let others feel a bit equal too. And in this way the political demand of many Southern actors get assuaged to some extent. You are from Mexico, why shouldnt LACNIC, where your countrymen have some legitimate standing and say, run a root server, when RIPE does, and many private businesses do. What do you say to this proposal. parminder > > All techno-political framing clouds will dispel. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Desde:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder > [parminder at itforchange.net] > *Enviado el:* martes, 07 de agosto de 2012 00:17 > *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Conrad > *Asunto:* Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root > server misunderstanding (still...) > > David, > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >> Parminder, >> >> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder > > wrote: >>> Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the >>> authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root >>> file vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number >>> of mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of >>> 3k usd . >> >> No. >> >> There is a "distribution master". > > So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest > level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the > highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your > chastising may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep > technical training like Daniel said is a recent email; > > "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server > instances. Each of these is an actual root server." > > Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are > mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The > hundreds of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root > servers'. An actual root server is a shorthand for an actual root > server operator, who exercises control (at least potentially) over the > root zone file that he publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier > discussions with you on the IANA authority and the US.) The > 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems rather better informed than > 'technical experts' here on this particular issue. He seems to know > better which is a true or actual root server and which is not. Quote > from the same interview where he quite wrongly said that Internet > traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have said, internet > traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers). > > > "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without > mechanisms of control and intervention." > > Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress > (or forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. > Isnt it obvious! > > In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide > examples of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are > ''thoroughly wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart > from the above example, I will try and find others in your email below :) > >> (snip) >> >> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. > Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is > not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', > so why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than > create strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days > ago > > "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of > those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 > are US-based. " (David) > > Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network > latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It > is about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is > loosely used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real > issue, and it was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African > ministers the latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to > in terms to availability of root server mirrors - a very different > issue. Similarly, this current discussion is continuously pulled > towards the convenient description of geographic extensions through > mirrors of root servers, away from the real issue of 'concentration' > (against distribution) of power to change root file or resist changes > to root file that is with the root server operators and none at all > with anycast mirror operators. > > It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, > David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case > was based on how the root server operators are really independent > (which is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the > insurance against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, > now when we are discussing the power of root server operators, which > is geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the > root server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely > evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone > can set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root > servers (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well > enough are merely stupid! > > How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different > manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I > mean by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political > viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a > sociological 'fact'. > >> (snip) >>> What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very >>> significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root >>> servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come >>> across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the >>> difference. >> >> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. > > Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did > understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of > concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is > in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is > obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root > zone operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the > very basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily > and conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the > root file layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between > these two latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision > to speak about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite > another, or at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the > issue of 'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving > queries. > >> >>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>> neutral/ technical information. >> >> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >> communicate. > > :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a > group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical > community has - its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call > it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to ) > see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single > political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is > further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult! >> >> (snip) >> >> You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default >> maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways >> around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS >> specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, >> cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. > No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number > 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too > interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political > proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also > considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. > Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and > exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US > centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with > some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance. > >> >>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>> world happy. >> >> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >> root server would make the people of the world happy. > This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any > justification at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to > reallocate / redistribute them in a manner that is politically more > justifiable and thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. > > regards > parminder > >> >>> Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a >>> geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, >>> especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why >>> not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. >> >> As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers >> are independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract >> with the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), >> albeit each of these operators deal with their root servers >> differently). How root server operators distribute their instances is >> entirely their decision. To date, there has apparently been >> insufficient justification for those root server operators to decide >> to distribute their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". >> >> With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" >> (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to >> give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the >> ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? >> >>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>> these root servers. Is it really true? >> >> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >> >>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >> >> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >> distributed. >> >>> If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way >>> tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? >> >> In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to >> transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner >> the zone transfer password. >> >> Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server >> "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person >> to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) >> the assets of the organization running the root server were acquired >> by another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would >> either require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving >> the root server IP address to a different organization or that IP >> address would have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. >> >>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but >>> 13 root server operators, >> >> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >> >>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>> physical location points. >> >> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by >> 12 organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >> >>> Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a >>> geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to >>> an Indian Institute of Technology. >> >> Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide >> infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit >> the same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server >> operator) in India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than >> the value of hardware being shipped into the country (see >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >> >>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>> present debate. Any answers? >> >> Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There >> is no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators >> "you will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care >> about this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would >> be in their corporate best interests for them to relocate >> administrative control of one of their root servers to India, but it >> would be up to Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its >> shareholders) to make that decision. >> >>> Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is >>> opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers >>> (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which >>> will skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than >>> its US centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. >> >> No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. >> Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing >> root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network >> disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server >> allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much >> anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to >> abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. >> >> Merging a subsequent note: >> >> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>> operator to his own anycast server. >> >> Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you >> will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can >> gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate >> the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. >> >>> This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got >>> from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest >>> on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory >>> and kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. >> >> I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not >> what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested >> "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is >> considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone >> asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. >> Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? >> >> As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root >> servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. >> >>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >> >> Yes. Really. >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Aug 7 02:56:51 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 23:56:51 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3FD80E83-82D0-4BD2-AC22-D2793A4AEE9B@virtualized.org> Parminder, I was going to respond point by point to your message, but decided it is a waste of time: it would appear clear your mind is made up and further attempts at explaining technical reality is unlikely to be helpful. Instead, I'll just summarize: - Regardless of how you choose to arbitrarily redefine accepted technical terminology or what insults/innuendo you choose cast, there are a set of 12 root server operators who run a set of machines that respond to DNS queries sent to 13 IPv4 addresses with referrals to TLDs. The function those machines serve are indistinguishable at a protocol level -- contrary to your assertions, there is no 3-layer hierarchy in root servers. - Several root server operators are happy to deploy copies of those machines in order to improve latency/resiliency, however those root server operators maintain administrative control over the services those machines provide (as much as they can). - Contrary to the statement made by the Indian minister of communications and IT, Internet traffic does not pass through 13 machines (2 in Western Europe and 2 in Japan). Your efforts to redefine what that minister said are ... interesting but his statements would appear to stand on their own merits. - As evidenced by that minister's comments (which are unfortunately not unique), I believe there is a lack of understanding of how the Internet actually works within some government ministries/departments/etc, perhaps aided and abetted by some interested in changing the status quo to address their own political agendas. To paraphrase a US politician, everyone is entitled to pursue their own political agendas, they are not entitled to their own facts. I am interested in understanding how actual facts (which by definition (and contrary to how you appear to view them) are without political spin) can be provided to try to raise the level of discussion. - I won't bother going into the technical details as to why exactly the number 13 is what it is and is hard to change since it is clear you will choose not to listen. I will simply note that there would be tremendous commercial advantage to the company that came up with how to solve this particular issue in a backwards compatible manner and I know of number of VCs here in Silicon Valley who would undoubtedly be willing to throw large barrels of money at the company. I'll be happy to make introductions. Regards, -drc P.S. Having been involved in multilingual DNS since the mid-90s as well as in deploying the first IDN TLDs, it actually was and is "a bit difficult to rely upon" (and I personally think the solution the IETF came up with is broken, but at least a solution was chosen). On Aug 6, 2012, at 10:17 PM, parminder wrote: > David, > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >> Parminder, >> >> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder wrote: >>> Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k usd . >> >> No. >> >> There is a "distribution master". > > So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep technical training like Daniel said is a recent email; > "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. Each of these is an actual root server." > Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. An actual root server is a shorthand for an actual root server operator, who exercises control (at least potentially) over the root zone file that he publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions with you on the IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems rather better informed than 'technical experts' here on this particular issue. He seems to know better which is a true or actual root server and which is not. Quote from the same interview where he quite wrongly said that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers). > > "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without mechanisms of control and intervention." > > Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt it obvious! > > In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide examples of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are ''thoroughly wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above example, I will try and find others in your email below :) > >> (snip) >> >> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. > Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', so why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than create strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days ago > > "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " (David) > > Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It is about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real issue, and it was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African ministers the latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to availability of root server mirrors - a very different issue. Similarly, this current discussion is continuously pulled towards the convenient description of geographic extensions through mirrors of root servers, away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against distribution) of power to change root file or resist changes to root file that is with the root server operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators. > > It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case was based on how the root server operators are really independent (which is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the insurance against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, now when we are discussing the power of root server operators, which is geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone can set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root servers (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well enough are merely stupid! > > How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I mean by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a sociological 'fact'. > >> (snip) >>> What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the difference. >> >> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. > > Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root zone operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the very basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the root file layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between these two latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision to speak about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite another, or at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the issue of 'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving queries. > >> >>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual neutral/ technical information. >> >> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to communicate. > > :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical community has - its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to ) see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult! >> >> (snip) >> >> You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. > No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance. > >> >>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the world happy. >> >> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own root server would make the people of the world happy. > This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any justification at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to reallocate / redistribute them in a manner that is politically more justifiable and thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. > > regards > parminder > >> >>> Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. >> >> As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". >> >> With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? >> >>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of these root servers. Is it really true? >> >> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >> >>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >> >> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is distributed. >> >>> If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? >> >> In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner the zone transfer password. >> >> Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. >> >>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 root server operators, >> >> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >> >>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not physical location points. >> >> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >> >>> Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to an Indian Institute of Technology. >> >> Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of hardware being shipped into the country (see http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >> >>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the present debate. Any answers? >> >> Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that decision. >> >>> Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. >> >> No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. >> >> Merging a subsequent note: >> >> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast operator to his own anycast server. >> >> Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. >> >>> This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. >> >> I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? >> >> As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. >> >>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >> >> Yes. Really. >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 7 03:40:19 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 13:10:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <3FD80E83-82D0-4BD2-AC22-D2793A4AEE9B@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <3FD80E83-82D0-4BD2-AC22-D2793A4AEE9B@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <5020C663.8050100@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 07 August 2012 12:26 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > I was going to respond point by point to your message, but decided it > is a waste of time: it would appear clear your mind is made up and > further attempts at explaining technical reality is unlikely to be > helpful. > snip > - I won't bother going into the technical details as to why exactly > the number 13 is what it is and is hard to change since it is clear > you will choose not to listen. I will simply note that there would be > tremendous commercial advantage to the company that came up with how > to solve this particular issue in a backwards compatible manner and I > know of number of VCs here in Silicon Valley who would undoubtedly be > willing to throw large barrels of money at the company. I'll be happy > to make introductions. This is getting into a extreme 'cant be done' or at least 'is extremely difficult to do' position. However let me quote what you said in your email of Aug 3 responding to Siva. The answer to "why?" is quite simple: the original DNS specification limited the guaranteed supported size of a DNS message to 512 bytes and 13 IP(v4) addresses is all you can fit in a message of that size. While the DNS specifications have evolved to support larger messages, it turns out a surprisingly (at least to me) large percentage of the infrastructure refuses to allow those larger messages (the refusals being largely due to old software, broken implementations, or security policy that mistakenly assumes DNS messages must be less than or equal to 512 bytes in length). It does not at all sound as an unfixable problem to me. And these above are your own words! Now whether we get down to trying and solving it simply depends on how badly we feel the political necessity, which I understand we feel differently about. I hear that changes to DNS message specifications have been done to accommodate the security requirements of DNSEC application, am I right? Just different political priorities then! I am indeed listening to you, proven by fact of the above quote coming back to my mind.... In any case, for me the issue is geopolitically just distribution of root server management, and if new servers are difficult, we should reallocate the current ones. Is there any unsurmountable technical problem there? snip > > P.S. Having been involved in multilingual DNS since the mid-90s as > well as in deploying the first IDN TLDs, it actually was and is "a bit > difficult to rely upon" (and I personally think the solution the IETF > came up with is broken, but at least a solution was chosen). That is the point I am making; when we need to , we do come up with a solution. Similarly we can find the technical solution with regard to root server management issue. Because the original 'capture' logic for a distributed root management system requires a different system response now. regards, parminder > > On Aug 6, 2012, at 10:17 PM, parminder > wrote: > >> David, >> >> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>> Parminder, >>> >>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >>>> Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the >>>> authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root >>>> file vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any >>>> number of mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an >>>> investment of 3k usd . >>> >>> No. >>> >>> There is a "distribution master". >> >> So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the >> highest level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said >> 'the highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your >> chastising may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep >> technical training like Daniel said is a recent email; >> >> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server >> instances. Each of these is an actual root server." >> >> Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are >> mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The >> hundreds of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root >> servers'. An actual root server is a shorthand for an actual root >> server operator, who exercises control (at least potentially) over >> the root zone file that he publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier >> discussions with you on the IANA authority and the US.) The >> 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems rather better informed than >> 'technical experts' here on this particular issue. He seems to know >> better which is a true or actual root server and which is not. Quote >> from the same interview where he quite wrongly said that Internet >> traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have said, internet >> traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers). >> >> >> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >> mechanisms of control and intervention." >> >> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress >> (or forget to mention) depends on their techno-political >> proclivities. Isnt it obvious! >> >> In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide >> examples of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are >> ''thoroughly wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart >> from the above example, I will try and find others in your email >> below :) >> >>> (snip) >>> >>> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >> Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument >> is not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server >> operators', so why dont we stick to the real point of contestation >> rather than create strawmen and defend against them. From your email >> of a few days ago >> >> "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of >> those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which >> 9 are US-based. " (David) >> >> Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network >> latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It >> is about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is >> loosely used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real >> issue, and it was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African >> ministers the latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to >> in terms to availability of root server mirrors - a very different >> issue. Similarly, this current discussion is continuously pulled >> towards the convenient description of geographic extensions through >> mirrors of root servers, away from the real issue of 'concentration' >> (against distribution) of power to change root file or resist changes >> to root file that is with the root server operators and none at all >> with anycast mirror operators. >> >> It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, >> David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case >> was based on how the root server operators are really independent >> (which is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the >> insurance against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, >> now when we are discussing the power of root server operators, which >> is geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the >> root server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be >> completely evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to >> how anyone can set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 >> root servers (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed >> well enough are merely stupid! >> >> How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different >> manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I >> mean by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political >> viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a >> sociological 'fact'. >> >>> (snip) >>>> What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very >>>> significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root >>>> servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have >>>> come across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly >>>> underplay the difference. >>> >>> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >> >> Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you >> did understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of >> concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is >> in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is >> obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root >> zone operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the >> very basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have >> easily and conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between >> the root file layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp >> between these two latter layers . This is done through a unilateral >> decision to speak about one thing when the other party is speaking >> about quite another, or at least another aspect of the issue - which >> here is the issue of 'control' rather than availability of root file >> for resolving queries. >> >>> >>>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>> neutral/ technical information. >>> >>> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>> communicate. >> >> :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when >> a group has strong political inclinations - as the so called >> technical community has - its technical advice gets accordingly >> wrapped... Call it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. >> But also (try to ) see how the technical community sees deep >> conspiracies in every single political utterance from the South. >> Worse its conspiracy theory is further compounded by a 'stupidity >> theory'. Double insult! >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>> You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default >>> maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways >>> around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS >>> specification), these ways are not universally supported and as >>> such, cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. >> No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the >> number 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not >> too interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political >> proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also >> considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. >> Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary >> and exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the >> US centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment >> with some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance. >> >>> >>>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>> world happy. >>> >>> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their >>> own root server would make the people of the world happy. >> This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any >> justification at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to >> reallocate / redistribute them in a manner that is politically more >> justifiable and thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. >> >> regards >> parminder >> >>> >>>> Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a >>>> geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, >>>> especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. >>>> Why not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. >>> >>> As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers >>> are independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract >>> with the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), >>> albeit each of these operators deal with their root servers >>> differently). How root server operators distribute their instances >>> is entirely their decision. To date, there has apparently been >>> insufficient justification for those root server operators to decide >>> to distribute their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". >>> >>> With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" >>> (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to >>> give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the >>> ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? >>> >>>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 >>>> of these root servers. Is it really true? >>> >>> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control >>> is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>> >>>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>> >>> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>> distributed. >>> >>>> If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way >>>> tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? >>> >>> In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down >>> to transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new >>> owner the zone transfer password. >>> >>> Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server >>> "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person >>> to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) >>> the assets of the organization running the root server were acquired >>> by another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would >>> either require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving >>> the root server IP address to a different organization or that IP >>> address would have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. >>> >>>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but >>>> 13 root server operators, >>> >>> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>> >>>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>> physical location points. >>> >>> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by >>> 12 organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >>> >>>> Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a >>>> geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to >>>> an Indian Institute of Technology. >>> >>> Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide >>> infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit >>> the same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server >>> operator) in India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than >>> the value of hardware being shipped into the country (see >>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>> >>>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>> present debate. Any answers? >>> >>> Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There >>> is no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators >>> "you will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care >>> about this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would >>> be in their corporate best interests for them to relocate >>> administrative control of one of their root servers to India, but it >>> would be up to Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its >>> shareholders) to make that decision. >>> >>>> Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is >>>> opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers >>>> (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which >>>> will skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than >>>> its US centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. >>> >>> No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. >>> Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in >>> reducing root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of >>> network disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root >>> server allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty >>> much anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are >>> willing to abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root >>> server. >>> >>> Merging a subsequent note: >>> >>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>> operator to his own anycast server. >>> >>> Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you >>> will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can >>> gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate >>> the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. >>> >>>> This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one >>>> got from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to >>>> suggest on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and >>>> hunky-dory and kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. >>> >>> I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, >>> not what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has >>> suggested "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root >>> service is considered critical infrastructure and is treated as >>> such, so anyone asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be >>> confused at best. Can you provide a reference to anyone making this >>> suggestion? >>> >>> As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root >>> servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. >>> >>>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>> >>> Yes. Really. >>> >>> Regards, >>> -drc >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Aug 7 04:00:35 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 01:00:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020B448.9060407@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020B448.9060407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <875CBC93-DF65-4E0D-B6CC-DBE0AD912FE5@virtualized.org> On Aug 6, 2012, at 11:23 PM, parminder wrote: > Now, it is obvious that the decision to do the above was a political decision, including the choice of which all agencies should operation of root servers be distributed over. It was basically a US decision As a point of historical information, it was actually a decision made (for good or ill) by Jon Postel. He probably informed USG agencies (e.g., NSF or DARPA) of the later ones (probably after the fact) but knowing Jon, I do not believe the USG played a large role in any of the decisions. > The logic of 'no single entity having the authority or control over operation of root server' does not stand close geo-political scrutiny, esp in today's world. I suspect the root server operators would disagree with this statement (strongly), but I am not them so I will not comment. > Now, would you fault someone if he were to reason that the present strategy against 'capture' vis a vis the operation or the root/ DNS system of the Internet, while laudable in its initial intentions, is not quite adequate, and is not in keeping with times. I wouldn't, no. (the irony is great here for those that know my relationship with the root server operators :-)) > One can suggest that given the current situation of the Internet, the very same laudable intention of avoiding capture that informed the present root server system, when it was instituted, requires us to change the system. Is it really all that illegitimate a political demand. What is your response to this question? Illegitimate? No. I've actually made similar arguments myself on numerous occasions, sometimes in colorful terminology I'm told. However, you seem to be missing/ignoring a core concept: there is no central control of the root servers. I realize this is hard for folks inculcated with the ITU/monopoly PTT worldview to fully grasp (I've had the discussion about how the root system works with government official many times and invariably get "you're kidding" in response) but it is reality. Given this, to whom will you make your demand, regardless of its legitimacy? > No, this is not an aside. This is the only question that the Indian and African minister really brought to the table, something which triggered and underlies the present discussion. Actually, I believe what triggered the underlying discussion is a simple desire for control and a simple lack of understanding of what they were demanding control of. Your dressing up of this simple desire and lack of understanding in the political rhetoric of North/South conflict does not turn the pig's ear into a silk purse. What I am primarily interested in is addressing the lack of understanding. I have an undoubtedly naive hope that if people actually understand what it is they're after, it will moderate their desire to control it. For example: I believe that if people actually understood the role of the root servers and the implications of gaining control over one, they'd realize it isn't "the droids they're looking for". What I believe they _really_ want is control over the data the root servers serve. If that is not what they want then their desires should be addressed by getting an anycast root server instance (mirror). > This will require an examination of the following questions > > (1) whether the number 13 can be breached, and more root server operators created, and/or As I said in my previous message, I won't bother explaining why this isn't really an option as I doubt you'll listen. However, to avoid your accusations that I'm withholding information for political purposes, I will note that extension mechanisms in the DNS protocol have been defined that allow for more than 13 addresses and that extension is now mandatory for all DNS servers (it is necessary to support IPv6). Unfortunately, the existing Internet infrastructure (in particular, the cheap customer routers at the edge of the network and the myriad of broken firewall policies that think DNS messages larger than 512 bytes are attacks) has proven to be too brittle for that extension (known as EDNS0) to be relied upon for root service. This will presumably change over time, but I'm not holding my breath. > (2) the existing root server operations can be reallocated. As mentioned in a previous note, this is also possible and has, in fact been done in the past. All you need to do is convince one of the existing root server operators to give up their root server. Oh, and I imagine there will be a bit of a political food fight if the world finds out a root server is available. After all, obviously deserves a root server for ! Should be quite interesting to watch (in the slow motion train wreck kind of way). > This is the political demand from the South which cannot just be pooh poohed by describing its ministers as ill-informed or stupid. We seek full engagement of the civil society and other actors with this political demand. I don't recall calling anyone "stupid". It seems to me that one of the fundamental impedance mismatches that is occurring is the implicit assumption that there is an overarching entity to which these sorts of political demands can be made and which will act upon those demands. From an Internet technologist's point of view, this assumption is false: the Internet is composed of a multitude of privately operated autonomous networks and systems that agree amongst themselves on a set of parameters to ensure the networks interoperate. There simply is no central authority. The venues in which the operators of those networks and systems come to agreement on those parameters are places like ICANN, the IETF, and the RIRs, however those bodies aren't in control -- they merely implement the agreements (formal or informal) that are made in their respective venues. I know this doesn't fit with how governments want to view the Internet. So it goes. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chrisb at ripe.net Tue Aug 7 04:29:45 2012 From: chrisb at ripe.net (Chris Buckridge) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:29:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020BBA7.7070303@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org>,<5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AEAF1@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5020BBA7.7070303@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <37A89BEE-17F9-4F7F-97B5-4C75A5A67BF4@ripe.net> On Aug 7, 2012, at 8:54 AM, parminder wrote: > As a start, to keep from away from the spectre of strengthening statist controls, allocate them to the 4 RIRs in Asia-Pacific, Africa, LA and Europe. After all RIPE, the RIR of North America, already runs a root server. Hello Parminder, all, I suspect this was a temporary misstatement on your part, Parminder, but I think it is worth correcting the record given the context of this (very interesting) exchange. RIPE NCC (which is secretariat of the open RIPE community and operator of K-root) is the RIR for Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia, not North America (ARIN serves as RIR for that region). http://k.root-servers.org/ Best regards, Chris Buckridge RIPE NCC -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 7 04:45:14 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:15:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <37A89BEE-17F9-4F7F-97B5-4C75A5A67BF4@ripe.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org>,<5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AEAF1@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <5020BBA7.7070303@itforchange.net> <37A89BEE-17F9-4F7F-97B5-4C75A5A67BF4@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5020D59A.3050608@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 07 August 2012 01:59 PM, Chris Buckridge wrote: > On Aug 7, 2012, at 8:54 AM, parminder wrote: > >> As a start, to keep from away from the spectre of strengthening statist controls, allocate them to the 4 RIRs in Asia-Pacific, Africa, LA and Europe. After all RIPE, the RIR of North America, already runs a root server. > Hello Parminder, all, > > I suspect this was a temporary misstatement on your part, Parminder, but I think it is worth correcting the record given the context of this (very interesting) exchange. RIPE NCC (which is secretariat of the open RIPE community and operator of K-root) is the RIR for Europe, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia, not North America (ARIN serves as RIR for that region). Thanks for correcting, Chris. Yes sorry a mis-statement. parminder > > http://k.root-servers.org/ > > Best regards, > > Chris Buckridge > RIPE NCC > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 7 05:04:08 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:04:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9LxGQt+IoNIQFAcX@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <5020A4F9.7030401 at itforchange.net>, at 10:47:45 on Tue, 7 Aug 2012, parminder writes >"As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >Each of these is an actual root server." > >Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are >mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds >of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. In the quotation above, "an actual root server" means a box which has been deployed to a physical location. The purpose of the mirrors (or "instances" as they are generally called) is to provide a server which is closer to its users and therefore [generally] more efficient and resilient in terms of Internet connectivity. 'Who provides the data for the servers' is indeed a different layer. I'm sure it would help if these two concepts were better understood to be separate; I'm working on that, as a simple factual exercise. >An actual root server is a shorthand for an actual root server >operator, who exercises control (at least potentially) over the root >zone file that he publishes Just as potentially, every ISP whose own DNS servers are queried by their customers could also exercise control over the results which are given. Sometimes that's by accident, but occasionally it's by design. It works like this: When I want my ISP to fetch some data from igcaucus.org, the first step is to ask my ISP to translate igcaucus.org into an IP address. The only role the root server has is to periodically remind my ISP of the location of .org's name servers/zone files - because the ISP caches the result. So that's the first stage completed: getting a list of .org's name servers. While knowing where the .org name servers are is fundamental, the second stage is much more important on a day to day basis: querying one of those .org name servers to find out where to obtain information on the location of igcaucus's server. And what the .org name server tells us is: where to find a name server run by the organisation chosen by igcausus to 'host' their domain[1]. And finally, that third name server delivers us the required IP address. > [the Indian Minister] quite wrongly said that Internet traffic flows >through 13 root servers (he should have said, internet traffic, in a >way, gets directed by 13 root servers) No. All that the root servers do is inform the world where to find the name servers[2] for each TLD. And even those TLD name servers don't have a role in directing traffic, they just help tell us where the end point is. A whole different set of technology [referred to as "Routing"] decides how to get from here to there, principally using a protocol called BGP. ps Remember the caching of the root zone file by the ISP? Well, all the other queries are cached as well. Which explains the delay when you move the hosting of a domain. It usually takes a while (often two days) for all the caching to expire, and for users to be directed to the new end point. [1] For those who are still with me, that information for igcaucus happens to be kept by Tucows, in a record administered by Avri. [2] Which host the zone files for... -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 7 05:21:34 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 14:51:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <875CBC93-DF65-4E0D-B6CC-DBE0AD912FE5@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020B448.9060407@itforchange.net> <875CBC93-DF65-4E0D-B6CC-DBE0AD912FE5@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <5020DE1E.4020609@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 07 August 2012 01:30 PM, David Conrad wrote: > snip >> One can suggest that given the current situation of the Internet, the >> very same laudable intention of avoiding capture that informed the >> present root server system, when it was instituted, requires us to >> change the system. Is it really all that illegitimate a political >> demand. What is your response to this question? > > Illegitimate? No. I've actually made similar arguments myself on > numerous occasions, sometimes in colorful terminology I'm told. > > However, you seem to be missing/ignoring a core concept: *there is no > central control of the root servers*. I realize this is hard for folks > inculcated with the ITU/monopoly PTT worldview to fully grasp (I've > had the discussion about how the root system works with government > official many times and invariably get "you're kidding" in response) > but it is reality. > > Given this, to whom will you make your demand, regardless of its > legitimacy? David, I understand that we agree that the current distribution of root server operators in not fine, and should be changed. However, the question is how to do so. I still think increasing the number is a feasible alternative to look into, and we must, but lets not discuss it for the present. Lets look at reallocation possibility alone, to which your response is that 'how do you do it' and 'to whom do you make the demand'. Ok, here I will need help with technical information again. Your main point is that "the Internet is composed of a multitude of privately operated autonomous networks and systems that agree amongst themselves on a set of parameters to ensure the networks interoperate. There simply is no central authority." However, we know that this is not fully true for everything about the Internet's architecture. There indeed is a single root, and single operative authority over it. And things do get changed in this apex system which are mandatory and applicable to the whole Internet. We did for instance have the Iraq' cctld re-delegated, apart from other more regular changes done all the time. So, my technical question is, is it not that the root server authority to 12/13 operators gets allocated in some way from a central point, IANA, in a way that if needed, it can be reallocated, like a cctld can be reallocated by appropriate changes in the root zone file. I read that private key etc issues are involved, but any such system is centrally managed, right. The original DNS message from the root may simply carry the 13 IP addresses of root servers that it wants to carry and not others, I see this a central lever that can help enforce a policy decision if taken at ICANN or whatever level. I can understand that downstream systems will be looking for specific IP addressed they know as to be the root servers, but still, is the whole changeover simply impossible, even if transiting in phases, building redundancy etc. If a political decision is takne at ICANN level (with its bottom up policy process and all) that this is the way we want it to be, I dont think most actors will simply refuse to comply, whereby still if one or two indeed do, the system should be able to work around it through the mentioned levers of control. If we indeed keep saying, the present system is as it is, and all players with all kinds of vested interests have to agree to all changes, well, we can keep saying it. It just gives proposals like the one from China for an autonomous Internet more political weight and traction. If we indeed want to resist such moves to cut the Internet along national boundaries we will have to stick our neck out, and do all we can do to address the legitimate demands of non US and Southern actors. And democraticising the distribution to root servers is one such legitimate demand. As I proposed we can start with allocating one each to all RIRs. Are we as a group, IGC, technical community etc ready to take an initiative in this direction. SNIP > > It seems to me that one of the fundamental impedance mismatches that > is occurring is the implicit assumption that there is an overarching > entity to which these sorts of political demands can be made and which > will act upon those demands. From an Internet technologist's point of > view, this assumption is false: If indeed legitimate political demands cannot be made and realised in the global Internet space than there is a serious gap in our political ecology here. This is not a natural condition for societies to exist in a just and sustainable way. So, if what you say is true, we should collectively take steps to fill this serious gap/ void... regards, parminder > the Internet is composed of a multitude of privately operated > autonomous networks and systems that agree amongst themselves on a set > of parameters to ensure the networks interoperate. There simply is no > central authority. The venues in which the operators of those > networks and systems come to agreement on those parameters are places > like ICANN, the IETF, and the RIRs, however those bodies aren't in > control -- they merely implement the agreements (formal or informal) > that are made in their respective venues. > > I know this doesn't fit with how governments want to view the > Internet. So it goes. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 7 09:20:14 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 10:20:14 -0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> >From the point of view of political control, given the current pyramidal architecture of the DNS, it really does not matter (except for technical questions of redundancy and DNS traffic optimization) how many replicators there are, there is only one server, the "distribution master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone file is stored and modified. This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of Commitments says. If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and corresponding hosting services. Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... frt rgds --c.a. On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: > David, > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >> Parminder, >> >> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder > > wrote: >>> Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the >>> authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file >>> vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of >>> mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k >>> usd . >> >> No. >> >> There is a "distribution master". > > So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest > level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the > highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising > may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep technical training > like Daniel said is a recent email; > > "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. > Each of these is an actual root server." > > Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are > mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds > of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. An actual > root server is a shorthand for an actual root server operator, who > exercises control (at least potentially) over the root zone file that he > publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions with you on the > IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems > rather better informed than 'technical experts' here on this particular > issue. He seems to know better which is a true or actual root server and > which is not. Quote from the same interview where he quite wrongly said > that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have > said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers). > > > "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without > mechanisms of control and intervention." > > Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or > forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt > it obvious! > > In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide examples > of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are ''thoroughly > wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above > example, I will try and find others in your email below :) > >> (snip) >> >> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. > Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is > not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', so > why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than create > strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days ago > > "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of > those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 > are US-based. " (David) > > Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network > latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It is > about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely > used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real issue, and it > was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African ministers the > latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to > availability of root server mirrors - a very different issue. Similarly, > this current discussion is continuously pulled towards the convenient > description of geographic extensions through mirrors of root servers, > away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against distribution) of > power to change root file or resist changes to root file that is with > the root server operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators. > > It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, > David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case > was based on how the root server operators are really independent (which > is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the insurance > against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, now when we > are discussing the power of root server operators, which is > geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root > server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely > evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone can > set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root servers > (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well enough are > merely stupid! > > How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different > manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I mean > by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political > viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a > sociological 'fact'. > >> (snip) >>> What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very >>> significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root >>> servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come >>> across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the >>> difference. >> >> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. > > Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did > understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of > concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is in > the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is > obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root zone > operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the very > basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and > conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the root file > layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between these two > latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision to speak > about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite another, or > at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the issue of > 'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving queries. > >> >>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>> neutral/ technical information. >> >> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >> communicate. > > :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a > group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical > community has - its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call > it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to ) > see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single > political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is > further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult! >> >> (snip) >> >> You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default >> maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways >> around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS >> specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, >> cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. > No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number > 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too > interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political > proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also > considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. > Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and > exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US > centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with > some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance. > >> >>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>> world happy. >> >> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >> root server would make the people of the world happy. > This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any justification > at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to reallocate / > redistribute them in a manner that is politically more justifiable and > thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. > > regards > parminder > >> >>> Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a >>> geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, >>> especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why >>> not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. >> >> As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are >> independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with >> the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit >> each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How >> root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their >> decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient >> justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute >> their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". >> >> With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" >> (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to >> give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the >> ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? >> >>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>> these root servers. Is it really true? >> >> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >> >>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >> >> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >> distributed. >> >>> If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way >>> tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? >> >> In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to >> transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner >> the zone transfer password. >> >> Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server >> "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person >> to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the >> assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by >> another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either >> require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root >> server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would >> have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. >> >>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>> root server operators, >> >> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >> >>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>> physical location points. >> >> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >> >>> Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a >>> geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to >>> an Indian Institute of Technology. >> >> Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide >> infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the >> same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in >> India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of >> hardware being shipped into the country (see >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >> >>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>> present debate. Any answers? >> >> Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is >> no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you >> will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about >> this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in >> their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative >> control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to >> Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that >> decision. >> >>> Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is >>> opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers >>> (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will >>> skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US >>> centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. >> >> No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. >> Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing >> root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network >> disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server >> allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much >> anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to >> abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. >> >> Merging a subsequent note: >> >> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>> operator to his own anycast server. >> >> Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you >> will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can >> gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate >> the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. >> >>> This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got >>> from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest >>> on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and >>> kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. >> >> I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not >> what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested >> "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is >> considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone >> asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. >> Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? >> >> As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root >> servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. >> >>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >> >> Yes. Really. >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Aug 7 10:16:00 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:16:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <69D57E7C-B59E-4E44-AF45-65A1FBFB1D82@uzh.ch> Hi Carlos On Aug 7, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > "mother of all > servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your > level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. Maybe next we could debate whether there's an underground tunnel? > But no more changes in the root, Virginia, > until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) Watch your language…is this a new swearword for IG geeks? BD -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 7 10:18:41 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 19:48:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <502123C1.8030309@itforchange.net> Dear Carlos Thanks for the simplification. So, you are saying that since the real control is at the IANA level vis a vis the root zone file, it is almost of no political importance who runs the 13 root servers. I understand that the real issue is about root zone file changes, but just thought that, in the first instance, if the root servers can be distributed to locations/ agencies that have great global trust and possible ownership, that would be a small step in the right direction. You dont think so? Keeping up a dialogue with the US is fine, but it seems to be going nowhere :). So perhaps nibbling around the current architectures in small ways may have some eventual cumulative effect. US may have problem with giving up the single point of control, and would extend that battle as much as it can. However, there is so much less justification not to share the root server operation around, because you give without losing anything/ much. For other countries, that perhaps just gives that much more backup security and resilience in the eventuality of any monkey business by the US with the root, like interfering with a cctld. I heard David etc go to great length in an earlier discussion on how a root server operator may refuse to publish the root zone file in case of improper changes. But for that, the operator has to be sufficiently away from US's friendly or other kinds of influence. I do understand that in extreme contingencies, that I am trying to account for here, any server, including anycast one, can be set up to work as a root server, but I would think it would greatly help stability if it is an existing root server. But you seem to feel that overall to reallocate root server operations may not be worth all the effort it will entail. Is it so? I will defer to your opinion on this. regards, parminder On Tuesday 07 August 2012 06:50 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >From the point of view of political control, given the current pyramidal > architecture of the DNS, it really does not matter (except for technical > questions of redundancy and DNS traffic optimization) how many > replicators there are, there is only one server, the "distribution > master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone > file is stored and modified. > > This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled > change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 > and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers > being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six > replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). > > A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the > "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all > servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your > level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. > NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing > ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of > Commitments says. > > If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is > actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? > No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet > continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, > until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) > > If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the > Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 > servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 > "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? > > Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep > a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of > the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many > millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of > websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and > corresponding hosting services. > > Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common > knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: >> David, >> >> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>> Parminder, >>> >>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >>>> Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the >>>> authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file >>>> vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of >>>> mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k >>>> usd . >>> No. >>> >>> There is a "distribution master". >> So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest >> level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the >> highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising >> may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep technical training >> like Daniel said is a recent email; >> >> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >> Each of these is an actual root server." >> >> Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are >> mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds >> of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. An actual >> root server is a shorthand for an actual root server operator, who >> exercises control (at least potentially) over the root zone file that he >> publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions with you on the >> IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems >> rather better informed than 'technical experts' here on this particular >> issue. He seems to know better which is a true or actual root server and >> which is not. Quote from the same interview where he quite wrongly said >> that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have >> said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers). >> >> >> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >> mechanisms of control and intervention." >> >> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or >> forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt >> it obvious! >> >> In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide examples >> of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are ''thoroughly >> wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above >> example, I will try and find others in your email below :) >> >>> (snip) >>> >>> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >> Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is >> not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', so >> why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than create >> strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days ago >> >> "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of >> those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 >> are US-based. " (David) >> >> Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network >> latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It is >> about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely >> used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real issue, and it >> was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African ministers the >> latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to >> availability of root server mirrors - a very different issue. Similarly, >> this current discussion is continuously pulled towards the convenient >> description of geographic extensions through mirrors of root servers, >> away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against distribution) of >> power to change root file or resist changes to root file that is with >> the root server operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators. >> >> It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, >> David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case >> was based on how the root server operators are really independent (which >> is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the insurance >> against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, now when we >> are discussing the power of root server operators, which is >> geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root >> server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely >> evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone can >> set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root servers >> (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well enough are >> merely stupid! >> >> How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different >> manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I mean >> by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political >> viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a >> sociological 'fact'. >> >>> (snip) >>>> What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very >>>> significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root >>>> servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come >>>> across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the >>>> difference. >>> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >> Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did >> understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of >> concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is in >> the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is >> obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root zone >> operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the very >> basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and >> conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the root file >> layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between these two >> latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision to speak >> about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite another, or >> at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the issue of >> 'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving queries. >> >>>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>> neutral/ technical information. >>> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>> communicate. >> :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a >> group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical >> community has - its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call >> it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to ) >> see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single >> political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is >> further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult! >>> (snip) >>> >>> You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default >>> maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways >>> around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS >>> specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, >>> cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. >> No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number >> 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too >> interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political >> proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also >> considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. >> Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and >> exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US >> centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with >> some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance. >> >>>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>> world happy. >>> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >>> root server would make the people of the world happy. >> This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any justification >> at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to reallocate / >> redistribute them in a manner that is politically more justifiable and >> thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. >> >> regards >> parminder >> >>>> Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a >>>> geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, >>>> especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why >>>> not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. >>> As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are >>> independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with >>> the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit >>> each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How >>> root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their >>> decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient >>> justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute >>> their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". >>> >>> With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" >>> (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to >>> give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the >>> ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? >>> >>>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>>> these root servers. Is it really true? >>> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >>> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>> >>>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>> distributed. >>> >>>> If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way >>>> tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? >>> In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to >>> transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner >>> the zone transfer password. >>> >>> Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server >>> "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person >>> to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the >>> assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by >>> another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either >>> require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root >>> server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would >>> have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. >>> >>>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>>> root server operators, >>> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>> >>>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>> physical location points. >>> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >>> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >>> >>>> Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a >>>> geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to >>>> an Indian Institute of Technology. >>> Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide >>> infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the >>> same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in >>> India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of >>> hardware being shipped into the country (see >>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>> >>>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>> present debate. Any answers? >>> Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is >>> no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you >>> will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about >>> this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in >>> their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative >>> control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to >>> Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that >>> decision. >>> >>>> Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is >>>> opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers >>>> (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will >>>> skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US >>>> centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. >>> No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. >>> Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing >>> root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network >>> disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server >>> allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much >>> anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to >>> abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. >>> >>> Merging a subsequent note: >>> >>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>> operator to his own anycast server. >>> Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you >>> will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can >>> gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate >>> the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. >>> >>>> This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got >>>> from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest >>>> on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and >>>> kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. >>> I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not >>> what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested >>> "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is >>> considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone >>> asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. >>> Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? >>> >>> As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root >>> servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. >>> >>>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>> Yes. Really. >>> >>> Regards, >>> -drc >>> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 7 10:23:41 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 15:23:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message <5021160E.4090209 at cafonso.ca>, at 10:20:14 on Tue, 7 Aug 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >there is only one server, the "distribution >master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone >file is stored and modified. Is it the same server as a.root-servers.net, or a relatively undisclosed non-public server? ... >If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is >actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? >No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet >continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, >until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) Or the root server operators could rapidly devise a new ad-hoc arrangement for distributing updates - that's one of the benefits of being an informal system. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 7 10:32:07 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:32:07 -0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <69D57E7C-B59E-4E44-AF45-65A1FBFB1D82@uzh.ch> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <69D57E7C-B59E-4E44-AF45-65A1FBFB1D82@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <502126E7.9040600@cafonso.ca> :) On 08/07/2012 11:16 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Carlos > > On Aug 7, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> "mother of all >> servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your >> level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. > > Maybe next we could debate whether there's an underground tunnel? > >> But no more changes in the root, Virginia, >> until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) > > Watch your language…is this a new swearword for IG geeks? > > BD > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 7 10:40:02 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:40:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <502123C1.8030309@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <502123C1.8030309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <502128C2.7030908@cafonso.ca> On 08/07/2012 11:18 AM, parminder wrote: > Dear Carlos > > Thanks for the simplification. > > So, you are saying that since the real control is at the IANA level vis > a vis the root zone file, it is almost of no political importance who > runs the 13 root servers. No, in terms of political control, there is a stellar difference between who runs the "A" server (and is authorized under strict NTIA supervision to change its DNS data file) and who runs all the other 12 servers. Also of political importance is the decision of authorizing Anycast servers to tie up to any of the 13 servers, but I do not think there is a relevant problem here -- I have seen no one complaining that they could not deploy Anycast because none of the 13 servers' operators agreed. My vision is, in summary: the political center in terms of DNS control is *who controls the "A" server and is authorized (by whom) to modify its DNS data file know as the "root zone file"*. If there are no political barriers to run Anycast anywhere, the issue of where the other 12 servers are located is irrelevant. frt rgds --c.a. > > I understand that the real issue is about root zone file changes, but > just thought that, in the first instance, if the root servers can be > distributed to locations/ agencies that have great global trust and > possible ownership, that would be a small step in the right direction. > You dont think so? > > Keeping up a dialogue with the US is fine, but it seems to be going > nowhere :). So perhaps nibbling around the current architectures in > small ways may have some eventual cumulative effect. > > US may have problem with giving up the single point of control, and > would extend that battle as much as it can. However, there is so much > less justification not to share the root server operation around, > because you give without losing anything/ much. For other countries, > that perhaps just gives that much more backup security and resilience in > the eventuality of any monkey business by the US with the root, like > interfering with a cctld. I heard David etc go to great length in an > earlier discussion on how a root server operator may refuse to publish > the root zone file in case of improper changes. But for that, the > operator has to be sufficiently away from US's friendly or other kinds > of influence. I do understand that in extreme contingencies, that I am > trying to account for here, any server, including anycast one, can be > set up to work as a root server, but I would think it would greatly help > stability if it is an existing root server. > > But you seem to feel that overall to reallocate root server operations > may not be worth all the effort it will entail. Is it so? I will defer > to your opinion on this. > > regards, parminder > > On Tuesday 07 August 2012 06:50 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >From the point of view of political control, given the current pyramidal >> architecture of the DNS, it really does not matter (except for technical >> questions of redundancy and DNS traffic optimization) how many >> replicators there are, there is only one server, the "distribution >> master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone >> file is stored and modified. >> >> This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled >> change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 >> and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers >> being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six >> replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). >> >> A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the >> "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all >> servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your >> level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. >> NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing >> ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of >> Commitments says. >> >> If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is >> actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? >> No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet >> continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, >> until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) >> >> If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the >> Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 >> servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 >> "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? >> >> Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep >> a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of >> the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many >> millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of >> websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and >> corresponding hosting services. >> >> Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common >> knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: >>> David, >>> >>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>>> Parminder, >>>> >>>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >>> > wrote: >>>>> Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the >>>>> authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file >>>>> vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of >>>>> mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k >>>>> usd . >>>> No. >>>> >>>> There is a "distribution master". >>> So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest >>> level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the >>> highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising >>> may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep technical training >>> like Daniel said is a recent email; >>> >>> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >>> Each of these is an actual root server." >>> >>> Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are >>> mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds >>> of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. An actual >>> root server is a shorthand for an actual root server operator, who >>> exercises control (at least potentially) over the root zone file that he >>> publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions with you on the >>> IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems >>> rather better informed than 'technical experts' here on this particular >>> issue. He seems to know better which is a true or actual root server and >>> which is not. Quote from the same interview where he quite wrongly said >>> that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have >>> said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers). >>> >>> >>> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >>> mechanisms of control and intervention." >>> >>> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or >>> forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt >>> it obvious! >>> >>> In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide examples >>> of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are ''thoroughly >>> wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above >>> example, I will try and find others in your email below :) >>> >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>>> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >>> Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is >>> not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', so >>> why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than create >>> strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days ago >>> >>> "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of >>> those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 >>> are US-based. " (David) >>> >>> Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network >>> latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It is >>> about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely >>> used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real issue, and it >>> was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African ministers the >>> latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to >>> availability of root server mirrors - a very different issue. Similarly, >>> this current discussion is continuously pulled towards the convenient >>> description of geographic extensions through mirrors of root servers, >>> away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against distribution) of >>> power to change root file or resist changes to root file that is with >>> the root server operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators. >>> >>> It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, >>> David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case >>> was based on how the root server operators are really independent (which >>> is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the insurance >>> against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, now when we >>> are discussing the power of root server operators, which is >>> geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root >>> server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely >>> evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone can >>> set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root servers >>> (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well enough are >>> merely stupid! >>> >>> How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different >>> manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I mean >>> by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political >>> viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a >>> sociological 'fact'. >>> >>>> (snip) >>>>> What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very >>>>> significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root >>>>> servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come >>>>> across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the >>>>> difference. >>>> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >>> Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did >>> understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of >>> concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is in >>> the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is >>> obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root zone >>> operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the very >>> basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and >>> conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the root file >>> layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between these two >>> latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision to speak >>> about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite another, or >>> at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the issue of >>> 'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving queries. >>> >>>>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>>> neutral/ technical information. >>>> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>>> communicate. >>> :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a >>> group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical >>> community has - its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call >>> it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to ) >>> see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single >>> political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is >>> further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult! >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default >>>> maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways >>>> around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS >>>> specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, >>>> cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. >>> No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number >>> 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too >>> interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political >>> proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also >>> considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. >>> Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and >>> exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US >>> centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with >>> some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance. >>> >>>>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>>> world happy. >>>> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >>>> root server would make the people of the world happy. >>> This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any justification >>> at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to reallocate / >>> redistribute them in a manner that is politically more justifiable and >>> thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. >>> >>> regards >>> parminder >>> >>>>> Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a >>>>> geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, >>>>> especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why >>>>> not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. >>>> As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are >>>> independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with >>>> the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit >>>> each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How >>>> root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their >>>> decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient >>>> justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute >>>> their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". >>>> >>>> With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" >>>> (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to >>>> give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the >>>> ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be >>>> happy? >>>> >>>>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>>>> these root servers. Is it really true? >>>> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >>>> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>>> >>>>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>>> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>>> distributed. >>>> >>>>> If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way >>>>> tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? >>>> In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to >>>> transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner >>>> the zone transfer password. >>>> >>>> Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server >>>> "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person >>>> to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the >>>> assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by >>>> another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either >>>> require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root >>>> server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would >>>> have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. >>>> >>>>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>>>> root server operators, >>>> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>>> >>>>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>>> physical location points. >>>> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >>>> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >>>> >>>>> Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a >>>>> geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to >>>>> an Indian Institute of Technology. >>>> Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide >>>> infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the >>>> same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in >>>> India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of >>>> hardware being shipped into the country (see >>>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>>> >>>>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>>> present debate. Any answers? >>>> Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is >>>> no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you >>>> will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about >>>> this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in >>>> their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative >>>> control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to >>>> Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that >>>> decision. >>>> >>>>> Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is >>>>> opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers >>>>> (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will >>>>> skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US >>>>> centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. >>>> No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. >>>> Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing >>>> root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network >>>> disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server >>>> allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much >>>> anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to >>>> abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. >>>> >>>> Merging a subsequent note: >>>> >>>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>>>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>>> operator to his own anycast server. >>>> Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you >>>> will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can >>>> gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate >>>> the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. >>>> >>>>> This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got >>>>> from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest >>>>> on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and >>>>> kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. >>>> I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not >>>> what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested >>>> "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is >>>> considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone >>>> asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. >>>> Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? >>>> >>>> As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root >>>> servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. >>>> >>>>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>>> Yes. Really. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> -drc >>>> >>> >>> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Aug 7 11:01:00 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 08:01:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <278B86E5-703E-40F6-A378-CD3F965E3E6B@virtualized.org> Carlos, On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:20 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > there is only one server, the "distribution > master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone > file is stored and modified. A clarification: a.root-servers.net, the machine(s) that resides at IP address 198.41.0.4, is NOT the distribution master. Long ago, it used to be, however now it is merely one of 13 and is different only in the number of queries it receives (a bit higher than the others, probably due to people not-so-arbitrarily picking it to run "is the Internet working"-type tests). As mentioned, the real "distribution master" is a special machine that is not exposed to the public and which responds only to a limited set of queries related to zone transfer that have a shared secret password (a transaction signature (TSIG) key) in them. The technical term describing this architecture is "stealth master" but I hesitate to use that term given your aside related to the CIA and the risk of inflaming interest/paranoia (:-)). > NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing > ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of > Commitments says. Yes. In a previous note, I described the root zone management process. All root zone changes go from ICANN to NTIA for authorization before they are processed by Verisign who edits the root zone and notifies the root servers of those changes. I do not believe the Affirmation of Commitments references this process -- it is part of the IANA Functions contract. > If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the > Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 > servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 > "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? > > Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep > a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Exactly. The scenario that has been posited in the past was the US government "going rogue" and making inappropriate root zone changes. My argument is that theoretically, this is possible, but would be ridiculously unlikely as it would be political suicide. Just as theoretically, the non-US root server operators could choose not to honor those changes. Given the latter, it is even less likely the former would occur. > Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common > knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... I would like to believe not, however given the comments made by the Indian minister and on this list, I'm unsure whether this knowledge is 'abundantly common'. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hakik at hakik.org Tue Aug 7 12:02:31 2012 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:02:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <278B86E5-703E-40F6-A378-CD3F965E3E6B@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <278B86E5-703E-40F6-A378-CD3F965E3E6B@virtualized.org> Message-ID: I agree with David. Whatever the reason, majority of the concerned personalities in these technically lagging countries (my apologies, for this term, but this is to mention about clarification of minute technicalities around the root zone, and IANA function, or optimization of DNS traffic) are in lack of sufficient information. I remember while conducting a workshop on root server during its installation in 2004, many of the attendees were not aware of the functionality though came from technical background. Hope things have improved by now, but yet to catch up with these minute details. This discussion is getting interesting. Thanks for sharing and discussing. Best regards, Hakikur At 16:01 07-08-2012, David Conrad wrote: >Carlos, > >On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:20 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > > there is only one server, the "distribution > > master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone > > file is stored and modified. > >A clarification: > >a.root-servers.net, the machine(s) that resides at IP address >198.41.0.4, is NOT the distribution master. Long ago, it used to >be, however now it is merely one of 13 and is different only in the >number of queries it receives (a bit higher than the others, >probably due to people not-so-arbitrarily picking it to run "is the >Internet working"-type tests). > >As mentioned, the real "distribution master" is a special machine >that is not exposed to the public and which responds only to a >limited set of queries related to zone transfer that have a shared >secret password (a transaction signature (TSIG) key) in them. The >technical term describing this architecture is "stealth master" but >I hesitate to use that term given your aside related to the CIA and >the risk of inflaming interest/paranoia (:-)). > > > NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing > > ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of > > Commitments says. > >Yes. In a previous note, I described the root zone management >process. All root zone changes go from ICANN to NTIA for >authorization before they are processed by Verisign who edits the >root zone and notifies the root servers of those changes. I do not >believe the Affirmation of Commitments references this process -- it >is part of the IANA Functions contract. > > > If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the > > Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 > > servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 > > "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? > > > > Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep > > a dialogue with the USA instead. :) > >Exactly. The scenario that has been posited in the past was the US >government "going rogue" and making inappropriate root zone changes. >My argument is that theoretically, this is possible, but would be >ridiculously unlikely as it would be political suicide. Just as >theoretically, the non-US root server operators could choose not to >honor those changes. Given the latter, it is even less likely the >former would occur. > > > Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common > > knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... > >I would like to believe not, however given the comments made by the >Indian minister and on this list, I'm unsure whether this knowledge >is 'abundantly common'. > >Regards, >-drc > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From info at freshmail.de Tue Aug 7 12:21:57 2012 From: info at freshmail.de (Matthias Pfeifer - freshmail) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 18:21:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <502123C1.8030309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hello Parminder, ----- Original Message ----- From: "parminder" To: Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) > Dear Carlos > > Thanks for the simplification. > > So, you are saying that since the real control is at the IANA level vis > a vis the root zone file, it is almost of no political importance who > runs the 13 root servers. > > I understand that the real issue is about root zone file changes, but > just thought that, in the first instance, if the root servers can be > distributed to locations/ agencies that have great global trust and > possible ownership, that would be a small step in the right direction. > You dont think so? In respect of the history of the DNS, don't we trust the actual root server operator? Who else could have "a great global trust" right now to manage the root zone. And, are there 10 (or 12) places of "a great global trust" which where we can operate root server (sources) or which we can operate "the dot". I think to make things (here in a semi technical but political way) better, we need alternate things which we can switch to. I case of the root, i cannot see such alternates, which doesn't mean that the current place it is the best place we could ever have. > > Keeping up a dialogue with the US is fine, but it seems to be going > nowhere :). So perhaps nibbling around the current architectures in > small ways may have some eventual cumulative effect. > > US may have problem with giving up the single point of control, and > would extend that battle as much as it can. However, there is so much > less justification not to share the root server operation around, > because you give without losing anything/ much. For other countries, > that perhaps just gives that much more backup security and resilience in > the eventuality of any monkey business by the US with the root, like > interfering with a cctld. I heard David etc go to great length in an > earlier discussion on how a root server operator may refuse to publish > the root zone file in case of improper changes. But for that, the > operator has to be sufficiently away from US's friendly or other kinds > of influence. I do understand that in extreme contingencies, that I am > trying to account for here, any server, including anycast one, can be > set up to work as a root server, but I would think it would greatly help > stability if it is an existing root server. > > But you seem to feel that overall to reallocate root server operations > may not be worth all the effort it will entail. Is it so? I will defer > to your opinion on this. > > regards, parminder > > On Tuesday 07 August 2012 06:50 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >From the point of view of political control, given the current pyramidal >> architecture of the DNS, it really does not matter (except for technical >> questions of redundancy and DNS traffic optimization) how many >> replicators there are, there is only one server, the "distribution >> master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone >> file is stored and modified. >> >> This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled >> change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 >> and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers >> being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six >> replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). >> >> A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the >> "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all >> servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your >> level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. >> NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing >> ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of >> Commitments says. >> >> If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is >> actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? >> No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet >> continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, >> until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) >> >> If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the >> Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 >> servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 >> "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? >> >> Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep >> a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of >> the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many >> millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of >> websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and >> corresponding hosting services. >> >> Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common >> knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: >>> David, >>> >>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>>> Parminder, >>>> >>>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >>> > wrote: >>>>> Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the >>>>> authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file >>>>> vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of >>>>> mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k >>>>> usd . >>>> No. >>>> >>>> There is a "distribution master". >>> So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest >>> level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the >>> highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising >>> may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep technical training >>> like Daniel said is a recent email; >>> >>> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >>> Each of these is an actual root server." >>> >>> Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are >>> mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds >>> of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. An actual >>> root server is a shorthand for an actual root server operator, who >>> exercises control (at least potentially) over the root zone file that he >>> publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions with you on the >>> IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems >>> rather better informed than 'technical experts' here on this particular >>> issue. He seems to know better which is a true or actual root server and >>> which is not. Quote from the same interview where he quite wrongly said >>> that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have >>> said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers). >>> >>> >>> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >>> mechanisms of control and intervention." >>> >>> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or >>> forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt >>> it obvious! >>> >>> In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide examples >>> of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are ''thoroughly >>> wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above >>> example, I will try and find others in your email below :) >>> >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>>> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >>> Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is >>> not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', so >>> why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than create >>> strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days ago >>> >>> "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of >>> those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 >>> are US-based. " (David) >>> >>> Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network >>> latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It is >>> about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely >>> used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real issue, and it >>> was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African ministers the >>> latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to >>> availability of root server mirrors - a very different issue. Similarly, >>> this current discussion is continuously pulled towards the convenient >>> description of geographic extensions through mirrors of root servers, >>> away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against distribution) of >>> power to change root file or resist changes to root file that is with >>> the root server operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators. >>> >>> It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, >>> David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case >>> was based on how the root server operators are really independent (which >>> is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the insurance >>> against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, now when we >>> are discussing the power of root server operators, which is >>> geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root >>> server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely >>> evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone can >>> set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root servers >>> (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well enough are >>> merely stupid! >>> >>> How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different >>> manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I mean >>> by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political >>> viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a >>> sociological 'fact'. >>> >>>> (snip) >>>>> What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very >>>>> significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root >>>>> servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come >>>>> across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the >>>>> difference. >>>> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >>> Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did >>> understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of >>> concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is in >>> the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is >>> obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root zone >>> operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the very >>> basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and >>> conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the root file >>> layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between these two >>> latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision to speak >>> about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite another, or >>> at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the issue of >>> 'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving queries. >>> >>>>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>>> neutral/ technical information. >>>> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>>> communicate. >>> :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a >>> group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical >>> community has - its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call >>> it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to ) >>> see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single >>> political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is >>> further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult! >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default >>>> maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways >>>> around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS >>>> specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, >>>> cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. >>> No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number >>> 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too >>> interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political >>> proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also >>> considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. >>> Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and >>> exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US >>> centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with >>> some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance. >>> >>>>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>>> world happy. >>>> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >>>> root server would make the people of the world happy. >>> This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any justification >>> at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to reallocate / >>> redistribute them in a manner that is politically more justifiable and >>> thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. >>> >>> regards >>> parminder >>> >>>>> Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a >>>>> geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, >>>>> especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why >>>>> not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. >>>> As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are >>>> independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with >>>> the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit >>>> each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How >>>> root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their >>>> decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient >>>> justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute >>>> their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". >>>> >>>> With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" >>>> (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to >>>> give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the >>>> ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be >>>> happy? >>>> >>>>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>>>> these root servers. Is it really true? >>>> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >>>> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>>> >>>>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>>> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>>> distributed. >>>> >>>>> If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way >>>>> tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? >>>> In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to >>>> transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner >>>> the zone transfer password. >>>> >>>> Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server >>>> "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person >>>> to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the >>>> assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by >>>> another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either >>>> require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root >>>> server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would >>>> have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. >>>> >>>>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>>>> root server operators, >>>> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>>> >>>>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>>> physical location points. >>>> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >>>> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >>>> >>>>> Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a >>>>> geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to >>>>> an Indian Institute of Technology. >>>> Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide >>>> infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the >>>> same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in >>>> India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of >>>> hardware being shipped into the country (see >>>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>>> >>>>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>>> present debate. Any answers? >>>> Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is >>>> no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you >>>> will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about >>>> this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in >>>> their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative >>>> control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to >>>> Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that >>>> decision. >>>> >>>>> Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is >>>>> opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers >>>>> (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will >>>>> skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US >>>>> centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. >>>> No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. >>>> Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing >>>> root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network >>>> disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server >>>> allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much >>>> anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to >>>> abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. >>>> >>>> Merging a subsequent note: >>>> >>>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>>>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>>> operator to his own anycast server. >>>> Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you >>>> will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can >>>> gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate >>>> the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. >>>> >>>>> This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got >>>>> from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest >>>>> on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and >>>>> kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. >>>> I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not >>>> what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested >>>> "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is >>>> considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone >>>> asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. >>>> Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? >>>> >>>> As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root >>>> servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. >>>> >>>>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>>> Yes. Really. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> -drc >>>> >>> >>> > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 13:49:59 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:49:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] In Interview, Romney Brings Arab Spring Into Presidential Race - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting article. It seems Romney is using a different strategy than Obama in their race to the White-house. However, I think the USA have more internal issues to deal with rather than trying to impress the world with their international policy (ex. financial recession). I guess the mess they did in Afghanistan and Iraq is more than enough. In addition, and looking at the business opportunities in the Arab world (mainly Libya, Egypt, and Qatar), it would be a "Satisfying Israel" vs. "Multi-billion dollar business in the Arab world". Since Romney is a business man, I think he should focus more on saving the US economy rather than providing soft cushion stances towards certain countries. I admire Obama for bridging the gap with China and improving their relationship with each other. Fahd On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > > http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/in-interview-romney-brings-arab-spring-into-presidential-race/ > > This is going to be soul food for the Arab IGF I suppose. > > Fouad > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 13:58:38 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:58:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] In Interview, Romney Brings Arab Spring Into Presidential Race - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sala, it has become common norms to have Arab business in countries one (especially Arab citizens) might never imagine existed. In my country Jordan, there is a huge corruption scandal regarding a local phosphate company that has been registered in an Eastern Asian island (do not want to mention names here as means not to hurt citizens of that/those countries). When the lid was un-covered, they claimed that the company was owned by investors from those islands. After deep investigations, they found that all investors were Jordanians that managed to buy the company from the government (was owned by the government until the time it was sold) at a discount price. The scandal involves really big names that have fled the country. Fahd On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> Yes Sala, >> >> The Arab Spring issue as Foreign Policy is also the soul food of ITU ITR >> discussions. The paranoia surrounding the Arab Spring across the globe is >> just unbelievably indigestible. >> > The RMI context was that the ICT company that was engaged to roll out > Universal Service had to bail out under "Force Majeure" because they were a > Libyan company. > >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 7 13:09:30 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 13:09:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020DE1E.4020609@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020B448.9060407@itforchange.net> <875CBC93-DF65-4E0D-B6CC-DBE0AD912FE5@virtualized.org> <5020DE1E.4020609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:21 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 07 August 2012 01:30 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > snip > > One can suggest that given the current situation of the Internet, the very > same laudable intention of avoiding capture that informed the present root > server system, when it was instituted, requires us to change the system. Is > it really all that illegitimate a political demand. What is your response to > this question? > > > Illegitimate? No. I've actually made similar arguments myself on numerous > occasions, sometimes in colorful terminology I'm told. > > However, you seem to be missing/ignoring a core concept: there is no central > control of the root servers. I realize this is hard for folks inculcated > with the ITU/monopoly PTT worldview to fully grasp (I've had the discussion > about how the root system works with government official many times and > invariably get "you're kidding" in response) but it is reality. > > Given this, to whom will you make your demand, regardless of its legitimacy? > > > David, I understand that we agree that the current distribution of root > server operators in not fine, and should be changed. However, the question > is how to do so. I still think increasing the number is a feasible > alternative to look into, and we must, but lets not discuss it for the > present. Lets look at reallocation possibility alone, to which your response > is that 'how do you do it' and 'to whom do you make the demand'. > > Ok, here I will need help with technical information again. Your main point > is that "the Internet is composed of a multitude of privately operated > autonomous networks and systems that agree amongst themselves on a set of > parameters to ensure the networks interoperate. There simply is no central > authority." > > However, we know that this is not fully true for everything about the > Internet's architecture. There indeed is a single root, and single operative > authority over it. And things do get changed in this apex system which are > mandatory and applicable to the whole Internet. We did for instance have the > Iraq' cctld re-delegated, apart from other more regular changes done all the > time. > > So, my technical question is, is it not that the root server authority to > 12/13 operators gets allocated was "allocated" or "assigned", not "gets". In other words very much past tense. Even "assigned" or "allocated" are too strong. Folk with ability to run nameservers were asked if they could take on this task, and the current rootops are the ones that said yes. in some way from a central point, IANA, in a > way that if needed, it can be reallocated, like a cctld can be reallocated > by appropriate changes in the root zone file. no, not in the sense that IANA still has any control over these rootops (as in IANA can't "take them back"). I read that private key etc > issues are involved, but any such system is centrally managed, right. no The > original DNS message from the root may simply carry the 13 IP addresses of > root servers that it wants to carry and not others, I see this a central > lever that can help enforce a policy decision if taken at ICANN or whatever > level. I can't parse this. The rootservers serve the rootzone. it is here: http://www.internic.net/domain/root.zone > > I can understand that downstream systems will be looking for specific IP > addressed they know as to be the root servers, but still, is the whole > changeover simply impossible, even if transiting in phases, building > redundancy etc. If a political decision is takne at ICANN level again, this is NOT within the ICANN purview, rootops are independent (mostly). One has signed an MoU with ICANN IIRC. (with its > bottom up policy process and all) that this is the way we want it to be, I > dont think most actors will simply refuse to comply, whereby still if one or > two indeed do, the system should be able to work around it through the > mentioned levers of control. You can ask the rootops to give up their rootserver obligations, but I doubt you will get much traction. > > If we indeed keep saying, the present system is as it is, and all players > with all kinds of vested interests have to agree to all changes, well, we > can keep saying it. It just gives proposals like the one from China for an > autonomous Internet more political weight and traction. it doesn't actually (if you actually read the RFC from China Telecom guys). If we indeed want to > resist such moves to cut the Internet along national boundaries we will have > to stick our neck out, and do all we can do to address the legitimate > demands of non US and Southern actors. Can we be precise and say "some non US and Southern actors"? I would even say a vocal minority, but have no way to gauge that accurately. NB there are also US and Northern actors who might seek a change as well. And democraticising the distribution > to root servers is one such legitimate demand. I am not sure it is legitimate. How do you measure legitimacy? As I proposed we can start > with allocating one each to all RIRs. Are we as a group, IGC, technical > community etc ready to take an initiative in this direction. but they all have rootserver instances hosted in their server rooms anyway. I doubt that all RIRs have the budgetary means to run a global anycast cloud. It is a serious six-figure commitment anually!! > > SNIP > > > It seems to me that one of the fundamental impedance mismatches that is > occurring is the implicit assumption that there is an overarching entity to > which these sorts of political demands can be made and which will act upon > those demands. From an Internet technologist's point of view, this > assumption is false: > > > If indeed legitimate political demands cannot be made and realised in the > global Internet space than there is a serious gap in our political ecology > here. This is not a natural condition for societies to exist in a just and > sustainable way. Is it a legitimate political demand to want to move x number of rootops to places outside the US? I would say no. Is it possible to do it? yes, it might be, if you could find x number of orgs to commit to spending millions of USD over the lifetime of the rootserver AND you could find some rootops willing to give up their role. However, this won't/can't be done centrally. So, if what you say is true, we should collectively take > steps to fill this serious gap/ void... tilt at all the windmills you like. As far as the IGC goes, I think we should not spend any energy on this task. -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Aug 7 13:17:40 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 10:17:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5020DE1E.4020609@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020B448.9060407@itforchange.net> <875CBC93-DF65-4E0D-B6CC-DBE0AD912FE5@virtualized.org> <5020DE1E.4020609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Aug 7, 2012, at 2:21 AM, parminder wrote: > Ok, here I will need help with technical information again. Your main point is that "the Internet is composed of a multitude of privately operated autonomous networks and systems that agree amongst themselves on a set of parameters to ensure the networks interoperate. There simply is no central authority." Yes. > However, we know that this is not fully true for everything about the Internet's architecture. I wasn't speaking of the Internet architecture, I was speaking about Internet resource administration. > There indeed is a single root, This is architecture. > and single operative authority over it. And things do get changed in this apex system which are mandatory and applicable to the whole Internet. This is administration and the changes work because the multitude of privately operated autonomous networks and systems agree that the singly-rooted DNS namespace originates from 13 special (in the sense that they are hardwired into resolvers) IP addresses. If one of those operators decides they do not agree, they change those IP addresses in their systems or modify their view of the data served from those addresses (see China). The "authority" does not reside in the center, but rather at the edges (most typically but not exclusively with network operators). > We did for instance have the Iraq' cctld re-delegated, apart from other more regular changes done all the time. You are confused about the Iraq ccTLD re-delegation, but that's irrelevant. > So, my technical question is, is it not that the root server authority to 12/13 operators gets allocated in some way from a central point, IANA, > in a way that if needed, it can be reallocated, like a cctld can be reallocated by appropriate changes in the root zone file. Not really. Making a global change for a ccTLD means updating a single data repository managed by a single entity (currently Verisign). Changing the IP address of a root server globally means updating _millions_ of separate data repositories all over the planet, some of which are in embedded systems that people don't normally touch and most are operated by different entities. Changing root server addresses can and will occur (the last was when "L" was renumbered and "D" really needs to get renumbered for technical reasons) but the old address will continue to get queries for a very long time (I'm told the IP address of a root server that was involved in a renumbering back in the early 90s still gets tens to hundreds of queries per second). As such, it has to be done cooperatively. > I read that private key etc issues are involved, but any such system is centrally managed, right. The management of the the private keys (I assume you mean the shared secret to fetch the root zone from the distribution master) isn't relevant since the root zone is published in other places than the distribution master. > The original DNS message from the root may simply carry the 13 IP addresses of root servers that it wants to carry and not others, The relevant component of the DNS here are the resolvers. Pretty much every ISP on the planet runs one or more (they are what most of the ISP's customers query to resolve names) and there are resolvers built into everything from some applications (e.g., browsers) to embedded microcontrollers to infrastructural components like mobile network gateways. Many technical folks run resolvers on their laptops and I know folks have ported resolvers to smartphones. Within those resolvers are the same (more or less) 13 IP addresses either compiled into the binary or in a configuration file. Changing a root server address means updating one of those 13 addresses in all of those resolvers all over the planet. > I can understand that downstream systems will be looking for specific IP addressed they know as to be the root servers, but still, is the whole changeover simply impossible, even if transiting in phases, building redundancy etc. As stated several times, no, it is not impossible as long as it is done cooperatively, which gets back to convincing one or more of the existing 12 root server operators that it would be in their best interests to give up their root server. However, if there is cooperation, it is infinitely easier to simply transfer the root server IP address to the new entity than to deal with renumbering. > If a political decision is takne at ICANN level (with its bottom up policy process and all) that this is the way we want it to be, I dont think most actors will simply refuse to comply, whereby still if one or two indeed do, the system should be able to work around it through the mentioned levers of control. Assume ICANN decides that the "K" root server operated by RIPE-NCC should be given to North Korea ("K" - Korea, get it? :-)), despite RIPE-NCC's objections. My guess would be that RIPE-NCC would be unlikely to give up the IP address willingly. Two options then: 1) "K" could be renumbered to a North Korean IP address; and 2) RIPE-NCC could be forced to give up the IP address it uses for "K". In option (1), ISPs and other resolver owners around the world would have to update their resolvers to reflect the new IP address. I would imagine ISPs in the RIPE service region (in particular) would not be excited about this prospect and would likely resist such a change (to avoid your inevitable accusations of me applying "techno-political" spin, I'll note that for most (not all) resolvers, there is an initial query that asks 'what are the root server IP addresses' so the changed IP address will be propagated automatically unless people take special actions. However in this scenario, I suspect it highly like people will take special actions). In addition, resolver vendors around the world (ISC, NLNetLabs, PowerDNS, Microsoft, Nominum, Cisco, etc.) would have to put the new IP address in their distributions. I suspect it likely at least some of those would balk at this demand -- after all, who is ICANN (some small, private, US-based, California incorporated non-profit -- you might have heard ICANN referenced this way in the past) to demand such a thing? That leaves option (2). I believe your argument is that the US government could apply pressure to the government of the Netherlands to force the appropriation of the RIPE-NCC IP address used for "K". As I'm not knowledgable about international or Dutch law, I'll let others comment on this particular scenario but I suspect positive/timely results unlikely. And in the end, rational folks will probably ask "Why are we doing this again? Everything seems to work fine now..." to which your response would be "Kim Jong Un must have the ability to modify the contents of the root zone file on one of the root servers if the US government goes rogue!"? > And democraticising the distribution to root servers is one such legitimate demand. I would ask you to please try to be more precise in your terminology. Anycast mirrors of root servers serve to democratize the distribution of root servers and address legitimate _technical_ requirements. What you are demanding is the "democratization" of root server _ownership_ for purposes of control. As discussed, this is much trickier and I suspect will likely require appropriation of resources (now) considered corporate assets. Whether or not this is legitimate is likely in the eye of the beholder. >> It seems to me that one of the fundamental impedance mismatches that is occurring is the implicit assumption that there is an overarching entity to which these sorts of political demands can be made and which will act upon those demands. From an Internet technologist's point of view, this assumption is false: > > If indeed legitimate political demands cannot be made and realised in the global Internet space than there is a serious gap in our political ecology here. This is getting far afield from my area of expertise, but from my perspective: welcome to a decentralized world. It requires cooperation and consensus of a myriad stakeholders, not a reliance on central authority figure. As I said, I know this doesn't fit with how governments want to view the Internet. Note that I am not arguing this is good or bad (I have my opinions on this but they are irrelevant). I'm merely stating this is how things are. > This is not a natural condition for societies to exist in a just and sustainable way. Actually, another view is that it _is_ the natural condition (unless you are arguing countries have a single overarching authority figure they can rely on -- if so, I think I need only point to the UN's ability to affect events in Syria as a counterpoint), the only difference is that the players that need to cooperate and reach consensus are much more diverse than simply nation-states. > So, if what you say is true, we should collectively take steps to fill this serious gap/ void... So we can have an overarching authority figure that can force decisions on folks without consensus? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Tue Aug 7 13:52:39 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 20:52:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] In Interview, Romney Brings Arab Spring Into Presidential Race - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: True Fouad. One of the main reasons behind that is the business surrounding it. Some countries require re-structuring from close-to scratch zero. Fahd On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Yes Sala, > > The Arab Spring issue as Foreign Policy is also the soul food of ITU ITR > discussions. The paranoia surrounding the Arab Spring across the globe is > just unbelievably indigestible. > > Fouad Bajwa > On Aug 5, 2012 1:01 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >>> >>> http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/in-interview-romney-brings-arab-spring-into-presidential-race/ >>> >>> This is going to be soul food for the Arab IGF I suppose. >>> >> Having being at a recent Pacific Broadband Forum organised by the ITU in >> Fiji which followed the APT meeting. I was surprised to hear the Republic >> of Marshall Islands (RMI) talk about how the Arab Spring affected ICT >> development in RMI. ;) (chuckling) >> >>> Fouad >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Tue Aug 7 21:38:56 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 08:38:56 +0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> On 8/7/2012 8:20 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > From the point of view of political control, given the current pyramidal > architecture of the DNS, it really does not matter (except for technical > questions of redundancy and DNS traffic optimization) how many > replicators there are, there is only one server, the "distribution > master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone > file is stored and modified. Thanks, Carlos. I am surely less technically qualified than many others discussing here - it is more than a decade since I created .kh and administered it for some years. I do NOT understand what the debate here is about - discussing the location of the 12, or of the many mirrors - when it is a debate over possible changes in the political control of this system. Only what happens or does not happen on the Alpha Server makes any difference (and it is replicated down the lines throughout all the sub-systems) I understand. Wrong? So any question about control of the 12 and the mirrors is only about technical details. If the "control" question is pointing at anything else but the Alpha Server it is not changing anything fundamentally. Correct or wrong? Norbert Klein -- Norbert Klein nhklein at gmx.net http://www.thinking21.org > > This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled > change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 > and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers > being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six > replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). > > A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the > "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all > servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your > level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. > NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing > ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of > Commitments says. > > If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is > actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? > No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet > continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, > until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) > > If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the > Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 > servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 > "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? > > Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep > a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of > the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many > millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of > websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and > corresponding hosting services. > > Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common > knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: >> David, >> >> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>> Parminder, >>> >>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >> > wrote: >>>> Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the >>>> authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file >>>> vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of >>>> mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k >>>> usd . >>> No. >>> >>> There is a "distribution master". >> So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest >> level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the >> highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising >> may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep technical training >> like Daniel said is a recent email; >> >> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >> Each of these is an actual root server." >> >> Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are >> mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds >> of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. An actual >> root server is a shorthand for an actual root server operator, who >> exercises control (at least potentially) over the root zone file that he >> publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions with you on the >> IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems >> rather better informed than 'technical experts' here on this particular >> issue. He seems to know better which is a true or actual root server and >> which is not. Quote from the same interview where he quite wrongly said >> that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have >> said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers). >> >> >> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >> mechanisms of control and intervention." >> >> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or >> forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt >> it obvious! >> >> In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide examples >> of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are ''thoroughly >> wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above >> example, I will try and find others in your email below :) >> >>> (snip) >>> >>> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >> Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is >> not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', so >> why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than create >> strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days ago >> >> "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of >> those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 >> are US-based. " (David) >> >> Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network >> latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It is >> about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely >> used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real issue, and it >> was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African ministers the >> latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to >> availability of root server mirrors - a very different issue. Similarly, >> this current discussion is continuously pulled towards the convenient >> description of geographic extensions through mirrors of root servers, >> away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against distribution) of >> power to change root file or resist changes to root file that is with >> the root server operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators. >> >> It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, >> David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case >> was based on how the root server operators are really independent (which >> is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the insurance >> against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, now when we >> are discussing the power of root server operators, which is >> geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root >> server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely >> evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone can >> set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root servers >> (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well enough are >> merely stupid! >> >> How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different >> manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I mean >> by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political >> viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a >> sociological 'fact'. >> >>> (snip) >>>> What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very >>>> significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root >>>> servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come >>>> across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the >>>> difference. >>> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >> Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did >> understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of >> concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is in >> the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is >> obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root zone >> operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the very >> basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and >> conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the root file >> layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between these two >> latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision to speak >> about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite another, or >> at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the issue of >> 'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving queries. >> >>>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>> neutral/ technical information. >>> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>> communicate. >> :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a >> group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical >> community has - its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call >> it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to ) >> see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single >> political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is >> further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult! >>> (snip) >>> >>> You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default >>> maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways >>> around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS >>> specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, >>> cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. >> No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number >> 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too >> interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political >> proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also >> considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. >> Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and >> exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US >> centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with >> some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance. >> >>>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>> world happy. >>> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >>> root server would make the people of the world happy. >> This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any justification >> at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to reallocate / >> redistribute them in a manner that is politically more justifiable and >> thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. >> >> regards >> parminder >> >>>> Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a >>>> geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, >>>> especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why >>>> not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. >>> As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are >>> independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with >>> the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit >>> each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How >>> root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their >>> decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient >>> justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute >>> their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". >>> >>> With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" >>> (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to >>> give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the >>> ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? >>> >>>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>>> these root servers. Is it really true? >>> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >>> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>> >>>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>> distributed. >>> >>>> If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way >>>> tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? >>> In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to >>> transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner >>> the zone transfer password. >>> >>> Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server >>> "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person >>> to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the >>> assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by >>> another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either >>> require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root >>> server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would >>> have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. >>> >>>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>>> root server operators, >>> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>> >>>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>> physical location points. >>> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >>> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >>> >>>> Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a >>>> geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to >>>> an Indian Institute of Technology. >>> Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide >>> infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the >>> same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in >>> India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of >>> hardware being shipped into the country (see >>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>> >>>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>> present debate. Any answers? >>> Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is >>> no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you >>> will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about >>> this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in >>> their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative >>> control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to >>> Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that >>> decision. >>> >>>> Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is >>>> opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers >>>> (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will >>>> skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US >>>> centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. >>> No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. >>> Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing >>> root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network >>> disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server >>> allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much >>> anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to >>> abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. >>> >>> Merging a subsequent note: >>> >>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>> operator to his own anycast server. >>> Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you >>> will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can >>> gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate >>> the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. >>> >>>> This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got >>>> from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest >>>> on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and >>>> kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. >>> I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not >>> what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested >>> "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is >>> considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone >>> asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. >>> Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? >>> >>> As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root >>> servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. >>> >>>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>> Yes. Really. >>> >>> Regards, >>> -drc >>> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 7 21:46:15 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:46:15 -0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <278B86E5-703E-40F6-A378-CD3F965E3E6B@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <278B86E5-703E-40F6-A378-CD3F965E3E6B@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <5021C4E7.8050207@cafonso.ca> Good clarification, David. Thx! frt rgds --c.a. On 08/07/2012 12:01 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Carlos, > > On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:20 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> there is only one server, the "distribution >> master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone >> file is stored and modified. > > A clarification: > > a.root-servers.net, the machine(s) that resides at IP address 198.41.0.4, is NOT the distribution master. Long ago, it used to be, however now it is merely one of 13 and is different only in the number of queries it receives (a bit higher than the others, probably due to people not-so-arbitrarily picking it to run "is the Internet working"-type tests). > > As mentioned, the real "distribution master" is a special machine that is not exposed to the public and which responds only to a limited set of queries related to zone transfer that have a shared secret password (a transaction signature (TSIG) key) in them. The technical term describing this architecture is "stealth master" but I hesitate to use that term given your aside related to the CIA and the risk of inflaming interest/paranoia (:-)). > >> NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing >> ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of >> Commitments says. > > Yes. In a previous note, I described the root zone management process. All root zone changes go from ICANN to NTIA for authorization before they are processed by Verisign who edits the root zone and notifies the root servers of those changes. I do not believe the Affirmation of Commitments references this process -- it is part of the IANA Functions contract. > >> If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the >> Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 >> servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 >> "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? >> >> Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep >> a dialogue with the USA instead. :) > > Exactly. The scenario that has been posited in the past was the US government "going rogue" and making inappropriate root zone changes. My argument is that theoretically, this is possible, but would be ridiculously unlikely as it would be political suicide. Just as theoretically, the non-US root server operators could choose not to honor those changes. Given the latter, it is even less likely the former would occur. > >> Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common >> knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... > > I would like to believe not, however given the comments made by the Indian minister and on this list, I'm unsure whether this knowledge is 'abundantly common'. > > Regards, > -drc > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 8 02:27:20 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 07:27:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> Message-ID: <7vRHZ5ZIbgIQFAvD@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <5021C330.9070803 at gmx.net>, at 08:38:56 on Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Norbert Klein writes >I do NOT understand what the debate here is about - discussing the >location of the 12, or of the many mirrors - when it is a debate over >possible changes in the political control of this system There is certainly the possibility of a debate about changes in the political control of the distribution master - or perhaps control of the file loaded onto the distribution master. However, what we started discussing was the comment that: "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of them are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These servers move the information. I believe India and other countries ought to play a much more relevant role in managing traffic flows. And we have gone on to see that there are many more than 13 servers (although only 12 server operators), and global internet traffic does not pass through them. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 8 02:38:42 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:08:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> Message-ID: <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> Norbert, On Wednesday 08 August 2012 07:08 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: > I do NOT understand what the debate here is about - discussing the > location of the 12, or of the many mirrors - when it is a debate over > possible changes in the political control of this system. > > Only what happens or does not happen on the Alpha Server makes any > difference (and it is replicated down the lines throughout all the > sub-systems) I understand. Wrong? > > So any question about control of the 12 and the mirrors is only about > technical details. If the "control" question is pointing at anything > else but the Alpha Server it is not changing anything fundamentally. > Correct or wrong? You have asked a good question - what is the debate here :) You seem to agree with Carlos that the political issue is ONLY vis a vis the control over the alpha server, which we now know is in fact not the alpha server that a new 'stealth server'. All other root servers, including their anycast extensions, simply and ONLY reflect the root zone file, and so it does not matter who controls them. As for location, there has not been any known difficulty to locate new anycasts anywhere. Fair enough. Now, I will have to take you, and others who may still be with us, to a long discussion on 'US's oversight' over CIRs - chiefly the IANA function, that took place in June on this list. David was greatly involved in it. When I and others argued why US cannot be relied on to have the unilateral authority to change the root file at its will - the MAIN argument by David and others was; the 13, or at least 9, root zone operators will very likely simply refuse to publish a file so changed by the US. This 'system feature' was listed as the MAIN defence that things are not as problematic as some of us are making them to be. McTim, Lee and others made the same argument of the 'independent decision making' by root server operators, to minimise what was seen as the 'scare' over US's fiddling with the root in its own interest. At the end of this email I provide a few quotes from among several on how this single argument was repeated employed. Whereby, when we argue about the problem with US's unilateral control over the root, the argument of 'independence of root operators' is invoked. Such independence means that the '13 root operators' systems is seen, if required, as being able to go beyond simply reflecting the root zone file. Well, it has to be one of the two; (1) Either, root operators can and will ONLY reflect the root zone file in the 'stealth server', whatever happens - in which case, we should not use the argument of their deemed independence in discussions on problems vis a vis US's unilateral IANA oversight powers (2) Or, indeed, at least potentially, root operators can refuse to publish what is considered as an improperly changed file by the US, and support the internet system continuing to work on the basis of the original 'proper' file - whereby, it is useful to redistribute root server operator-ship among agencies that together are more likely to resist US unilateralism. One of the above two must be true, and both cant be true, because they are logically exclusive arguments. It cant be that (2) is true in a discussion over IANA authority, but it becomes untrue when we discuss distribution of root server operators in a geo-political even and just manner. This alone is my case. I can accept either (1) to be true, in which case the argument of independence of root server operators to publish what they want should NOT be used in an IANA related argument (David, McTim, Lee et all, are you there :) ) Or I can accept (2) to be true, in which case, I will appeal to Carlos for sympathy to the argument that redistribution of root server operation authority may be useful to be considered, while agreeing that IANA authority is a much more important question. (To be fair to David, he has said even in the present thread of discussion that 'The diversity of architecture ( of root server operators) and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". If I surmise right, Carlos, and perhaps you, Norbert, do not think this of being of any real significance.) So, indeed there are real difference of views between, for instance David and Carlos, on the political significance of root server operator's independence (or absence of it) - and thus of political significance of who the 13 root server operators are. Such independence (or absence of it) of root operators, especially in the face of an eventuality of US's rogue behaviour, thus remains a key political issue, and in good part is the point of debate here. The answer to this question would determine whether it is worth the effort to consider reallocating root server operation authority in a more equitous manner. parminder > > > Norbert Klein > > -- > Norbert Klein > nhklein at gmx.net > http://www.thinking21.org > > > >> This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled >> change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 >> and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers >> being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six >> replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). >> >> A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the >> "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all >> servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your >> level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. >> NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing >> ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of >> Commitments says. >> >> If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is >> actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? >> No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet >> continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, >> until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) >> >> If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the >> Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 >> servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 >> "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? >> >> Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep >> a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of >> the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many >> millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of >> websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and >> corresponding hosting services. >> >> Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common >> knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: >>> David, >>> >>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>>> Parminder, >>>> >>>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >>> > wrote: >>>>> Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the >>>>> authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file >>>>> vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of >>>>> mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k >>>>> usd . >>>> No. >>>> >>>> There is a "distribution master". >>> So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest >>> level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the >>> highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising >>> may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep technical training >>> like Daniel said is a recent email; >>> >>> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >>> Each of these is an actual root server." >>> >>> Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are >>> mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds >>> of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. An actual >>> root server is a shorthand for an actual root server operator, who >>> exercises control (at least potentially) over the root zone file that he >>> publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions with you on the >>> IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems >>> rather better informed than 'technical experts' here on this particular >>> issue. He seems to know better which is a true or actual root server and >>> which is not. Quote from the same interview where he quite wrongly said >>> that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have >>> said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers). >>> >>> >>> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >>> mechanisms of control and intervention." >>> >>> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or >>> forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt >>> it obvious! >>> >>> In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide examples >>> of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are ''thoroughly >>> wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above >>> example, I will try and find others in your email below :) >>> >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>>> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >>> Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is >>> not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', so >>> why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than create >>> strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days ago >>> >>> "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of >>> those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 >>> are US-based. " (David) >>> >>> Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network >>> latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It is >>> about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely >>> used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real issue, and it >>> was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African ministers the >>> latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to >>> availability of root server mirrors - a very different issue. Similarly, >>> this current discussion is continuously pulled towards the convenient >>> description of geographic extensions through mirrors of root servers, >>> away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against distribution) of >>> power to change root file or resist changes to root file that is with >>> the root server operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators. >>> >>> It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, >>> David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case >>> was based on how the root server operators are really independent (which >>> is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the insurance >>> against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, now when we >>> are discussing the power of root server operators, which is >>> geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root >>> server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely >>> evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone can >>> set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root servers >>> (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well enough are >>> merely stupid! >>> >>> How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different >>> manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I mean >>> by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political >>> viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a >>> sociological 'fact'. >>> >>>> (snip) >>>>> What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very >>>>> significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root >>>>> servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come >>>>> across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the >>>>> difference. >>>> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >>> Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did >>> understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of >>> concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is in >>> the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is >>> obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root zone >>> operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the very >>> basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and >>> conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the root file >>> layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between these two >>> latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision to speak >>> about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite another, or >>> at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the issue of >>> 'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving queries. >>> >>>>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>>> neutral/ technical information. >>>> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>>> communicate. >>> :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a >>> group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical >>> community has - its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call >>> it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to ) >>> see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single >>> political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is >>> further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult! >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default >>>> maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways >>>> around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS >>>> specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, >>>> cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. >>> No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number >>> 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too >>> interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political >>> proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also >>> considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. >>> Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and >>> exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US >>> centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with >>> some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance. >>> >>>>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>>> world happy. >>>> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >>>> root server would make the people of the world happy. >>> This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any justification >>> at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to reallocate / >>> redistribute them in a manner that is politically more justifiable and >>> thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. >>> >>> regards >>> parminder >>> >>>>> Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a >>>>> geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, >>>>> especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why >>>>> not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. >>>> As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are >>>> independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with >>>> the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit >>>> each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How >>>> root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their >>>> decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient >>>> justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute >>>> their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". >>>> >>>> With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" >>>> (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to >>>> give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the >>>> ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? >>>> >>>>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>>>> these root servers. Is it really true? >>>> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >>>> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>>> >>>>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>>> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>>> distributed. >>>> >>>>> If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way >>>>> tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? >>>> In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to >>>> transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner >>>> the zone transfer password. >>>> >>>> Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server >>>> "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person >>>> to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the >>>> assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by >>>> another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either >>>> require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root >>>> server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would >>>> have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. >>>> >>>>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>>>> root server operators, >>>> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>>> >>>>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>>> physical location points. >>>> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >>>> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >>>> >>>>> Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a >>>>> geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to >>>>> an Indian Institute of Technology. >>>> Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide >>>> infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the >>>> same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in >>>> India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of >>>> hardware being shipped into the country (see >>>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>>> >>>>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>>> present debate. Any answers? >>>> Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is >>>> no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you >>>> will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about >>>> this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in >>>> their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative >>>> control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to >>>> Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that >>>> decision. >>>> >>>>> Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is >>>>> opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers >>>>> (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will >>>>> skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US >>>>> centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. >>>> No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. >>>> Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing >>>> root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network >>>> disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server >>>> allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much >>>> anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to >>>> abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. >>>> >>>> Merging a subsequent note: >>>> >>>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>>>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>>> operator to his own anycast server. >>>> Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you >>>> will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can >>>> gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate >>>> the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. >>>> >>>>> This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got >>>>> from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest >>>>> on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and >>>>> kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. >>>> I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not >>>> what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested >>>> "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is >>>> considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone >>>> asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. >>>> Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? >>>> >>>> As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root >>>> servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. >>>> >>>>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>>> Yes. Really. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> -drc >>>> >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Wed Aug 8 03:05:47 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 07:05:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net>,<50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B07D5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Parminder, it may be useful to separate your problem into two parts: 1. authorization for changes in the root; 2. operation of the independent root servers, including their submission or not to an outrageously arbitrary and deletereous change in the root. That, I think, will help you parse the apparent contradictions. We all have a problem with the first's asymmetric-power situation; the second is a fail-safe mechanism for the potential excesses of the first. (Fail-safe does not mean "it cannot fail"; it means "if it fails it devolves to a safe state", sort of when well designed elevators go out of electrical power they don't sink to the bottom and crash, nor just get stuck; they fall to the next floor down and open the doors) (As a side: it may be valuable for IT4Change to recruit the assistance of some Internet engineers, for example by forming an all-volunteer Technical Advisory Board, if you don't find this too meddlesome. I've seen such an Rx work wonders in other, similar organizations elsewhere and it's a win-win. If too meddlesome please ignore. Again, happy to be corrected by those more knowledgeable.) Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Enviado el: miércoles, 08 de agosto de 2012 01:38 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Klein Asunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) Norbert, On Wednesday 08 August 2012 07:08 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: I do NOT understand what the debate here is about - discussing the location of the 12, or of the many mirrors - when it is a debate over possible changes in the political control of this system. Only what happens or does not happen on the Alpha Server makes any difference (and it is replicated down the lines throughout all the sub-systems) I understand. Wrong? So any question about control of the 12 and the mirrors is only about technical details. If the "control" question is pointing at anything else but the Alpha Server it is not changing anything fundamentally. Correct or wrong? You have asked a good question - what is the debate here :) You seem to agree with Carlos that the political issue is ONLY vis a vis the control over the alpha server, which we now know is in fact not the alpha server that a new 'stealth server'. All other root servers, including their anycast extensions, simply and ONLY reflect the root zone file, and so it does not matter who controls them. As for location, there has not been any known difficulty to locate new anycasts anywhere. Fair enough. Now, I will have to take you, and others who may still be with us, to a long discussion on 'US's oversight' over CIRs - chiefly the IANA function, that took place in June on this list. David was greatly involved in it. When I and others argued why US cannot be relied on to have the unilateral authority to change the root file at its will - the MAIN argument by David and others was; the 13, or at least 9, root zone operators will very likely simply refuse to publish a file so changed by the US. This 'system feature' was listed as the MAIN defence that things are not as problematic as some of us are making them to be. McTim, Lee and others made the same argument of the 'independent decision making' by root server operators, to minimise what was seen as the 'scare' over US's fiddling with the root in its own interest. At the end of this email I provide a few quotes from among several on how this single argument was repeated employed. Whereby, when we argue about the problem with US's unilateral control over the root, the argument of 'independence of root operators' is invoked. Such independence means that the '13 root operators' systems is seen, if required, as being able to go beyond simply reflecting the root zone file. Well, it has to be one of the two; (1) Either, root operators can and will ONLY reflect the root zone file in the 'stealth server', whatever happens - in which case, we should not use the argument of their deemed independence in discussions on problems vis a vis US's unilateral IANA oversight powers (2) Or, indeed, at least potentially, root operators can refuse to publish what is considered as an improperly changed file by the US, and support the internet system continuing to work on the basis of the original 'proper' file - whereby, it is useful to redistribute root server operator-ship among agencies that together are more likely to resist US unilateralism. One of the above two must be true, and both cant be true, because they are logically exclusive arguments. It cant be that (2) is true in a discussion over IANA authority, but it becomes untrue when we discuss distribution of root server operators in a geo-political even and just manner. This alone is my case. I can accept either (1) to be true, in which case the argument of independence of root server operators to publish what they want should NOT be used in an IANA related argument (David, McTim, Lee et all, are you there :) ) Or I can accept (2) to be true, in which case, I will appeal to Carlos for sympathy to the argument that redistribution of root server operation authority may be useful to be considered, while agreeing that IANA authority is a much more important question. (To be fair to David, he has said even in the present thread of discussion that 'The diversity of architecture ( of root server operators) and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". If I surmise right, Carlos, and perhaps you, Norbert, do not think this of being of any real significance.) So, indeed there are real difference of views between, for instance David and Carlos, on the political significance of root server operator's independence (or absence of it) - and thus of political significance of who the 13 root server operators are. Such independence (or absence of it) of root operators, especially in the face of an eventuality of US's rogue behaviour, thus remains a key political issue, and in good part is the point of debate here. The answer to this question would determine whether it is worth the effort to consider reallocating root server operation authority in a more equitous manner. parminder Norbert Klein -- Norbert Klein nhklein at gmx.net http://www.thinking21.org This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of Commitments says. If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and corresponding hosting services. Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... frt rgds --c.a. On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: David, On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: Parminder, On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder > wrote: Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k usd . No. There is a "distribution master". So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep technical training like Daniel said is a recent email; "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. Each of these is an actual root server." Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. An actual root server is a shorthand for an actual root server operator, who exercises control (at least potentially) over the root zone file that he publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions with you on the IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems rather better informed than 'technical experts' here on this particular issue. He seems to know better which is a true or actual root server and which is not. Quote from the same interview where he quite wrongly said that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers). "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without mechanisms of control and intervention." Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt it obvious! In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide examples of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are ''thoroughly wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above example, I will try and find others in your email below :) (snip) That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', so why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than create strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days ago "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " (David) Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It is about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real issue, and it was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African ministers the latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to availability of root server mirrors - a very different issue. Similarly, this current discussion is continuously pulled towards the convenient description of geographic extensions through mirrors of root servers, away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against distribution) of power to change root file or resist changes to root file that is with the root server operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators. It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case was based on how the root server operators are really independent (which is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the insurance against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, now when we are discussing the power of root server operators, which is geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone can set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root servers (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well enough are merely stupid! How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I mean by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a sociological 'fact'. (snip) What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the difference. As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root zone operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the very basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the root file layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between these two latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision to speak about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite another, or at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the issue of 'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving queries. This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual neutral/ technical information. Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to communicate. :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical community has - its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to ) see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult! (snip) You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance. So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the world happy. Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own root server would make the people of the world happy. This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any justification at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to reallocate / redistribute them in a manner that is politically more justifiable and thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. regards parminder Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of these root servers. Is it really true? Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to what goes in and from the authoritative root server. Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is distributed. If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner the zone transfer password. Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 root server operators, Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not physical location points. In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to an Indian Institute of Technology. Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of hardware being shipped into the country (see http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the present debate. Any answers? Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that decision. Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. Merging a subsequent note: On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast operator to his own anycast server. Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? Yes. Really. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 8 04:15:35 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:15:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <50220972.8020108 at itforchange.net>, at 12:08:42 on Wed, 8 Aug 2012, parminder writes >(1) Either, root operators can and will ONLY reflect the root zone file >in the 'stealth server', whatever happens - in which case, we should >not use the argument of their deemed independence in discussions on >problems vis a vis US's unilateral IANA oversight powers > >(2) Or, indeed, at least potentially, root operators can refuse to >publish what is considered as an improperly changed file by the US, and >support the internet system continuing to work on the basis of the >original 'proper' file - whereby, it is useful to redistribute root >server operator-ship among agencies that together are more likely to >resist US unilateralism. > >One of the above two must be true, and both cant be true Well, there are other possible scenarios that you haven't listed, but number (2) is much closer to the current situation than (1). -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 8 05:30:55 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:30:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <278B86E5-703E-40F6-A378-CD3F965E3E6B@virtualized.org> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <278B86E5-703E-40F6-A378-CD3F965E3E6B@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <502231CF.7080300@gmail.com> Thanks for all this openness and candour David, really! Like a cool breeze on a hot summers day : ) On 2012/08/07 05:01 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Carlos, > > On Aug 7, 2012, at 6:20 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> there is only one server, the "distribution >> master" (the a.root-servers.net) called by David where the root zone >> file is stored and modified. > A clarification: > > a.root-servers.net, the machine(s) that resides at IP address 198.41.0.4, is NOT the distribution master. Long ago, it used to be, however now it is merely one of 13 and is different only in the number of queries it receives (a bit higher than the others, probably due to people not-so-arbitrarily picking it to run "is the Internet working"-type tests). > > As mentioned, the real "distribution master" is a special machine that is not exposed to the public and which responds only to a limited set of queries related to zone transfer that have a shared secret password (a transaction signature (TSIG) key) in them. The technical term describing this architecture is "stealth master" but I hesitate to use that term given your aside related to the CIA and the risk of inflaming interest/paranoia (:-)). > >> NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing >> ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of >> Commitments says. > Yes. In a previous note, I described the root zone management process. All root zone changes go from ICANN to NTIA for authorization before they are processed by Verisign who edits the root zone and notifies the root servers of those changes. I do not believe the Affirmation of Commitments references this process -- it is part of the IANA Functions contract. > >> If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the >> Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 >> servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 >> "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? >> >> Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep >> a dialogue with the USA instead. :) > Exactly. The scenario that has been posited in the past was the US government "going rogue" and making inappropriate root zone changes. My argument is that theoretically, this is possible, but would be ridiculously unlikely as it would be political suicide. Just as theoretically, the non-US root server operators could choose not to honor those changes. Given the latter, it is even less likely the former would occur. > >> Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common >> knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... > I would like to believe not, however given the comments made by the Indian minister and on this list, I'm unsure whether this knowledge is 'abundantly common'. > > Regards, > -drc > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 8 07:07:37 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:37:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50224879.9050609@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 08 August 2012 01:45 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <50220972.8020108 at itforchange.net>, at 12:08:42 on Wed, 8 > Aug 2012, parminder writes > >> (1) Either, root operators can and will ONLY reflect the root zone >> file in the 'stealth server', whatever happens - in which case, we >> should not use the argument of their deemed independence in >> discussions on problems vis a vis US's unilateral IANA oversight powers >> >> (2) Or, indeed, at least potentially, root operators can refuse to >> publish what is considered as an improperly changed file by the US, >> and support the internet system continuing to work on the basis of >> the original 'proper' file - whereby, it is useful to redistribute >> root server operator-ship among agencies that together are more >> likely to resist US unilateralism. >> >> One of the above two must be true, and both cant be true > > Well, there are other possible scenarios that you haven't listed, but > number (2) is much closer to the current situation than (1). That would mean that it makes the system much more capture-resistant if instead of the present distribution of root server operators, 9 in the US and 3 in US friendly countries, we have these servers distributed in a more geopolitically equitous manner - as I suggested, for a start RIRs of Africa, LA and Asia Pacific get one each, and perhaps one more in each of these continents at a reputed public technical institute. What do you say? Lets first agree on the need and desirability of such re-allocation, before we go to the question how to do it. parminder -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 8 07:16:35 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:46:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B07D5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net>,<50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B07D5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <50224A93.7050205@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 08 August 2012 12:35 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Parminder, > > it may be useful to separate your problem into two parts: > > 1. authorization for changes in the root; Thanks for the kind advice, Alex. In fact, I have insisted repeatedly that I am only dealing with the second part as below. The first part was dealt in an earlier discussion in June with the subject line 'oversight'. > > 2. operation of the independent root servers, including their > submission or not to an outrageously arbitrary and deletereous change > in the root. Yes, this alone is the issue under consideration here. > > That, I think, will help you parse the apparent contradictions. We all > have a problem with the first's asymmetric-power situation; the second > is a fail-safe mechanism for the potential excesses of the first. So you agree that independence of root server operators indeed serves as a 'fail-safe mechanism for the potential excesses' of the unilateral root changing power with the US. In that case, you may agree that making MORE sure that the root operators are MORE independent of US gov will make the system MORE fail-safe or capture-resistant. In practical terms I mean what if instead of the present distribution of root server operators, 9 in the US and 3 in US friendly countries, we have these servers distributed in a more geopolitically equitous manner - as I suggested, for a start RIRs of Africa, LA and Asia Pacific get one each, and perhaps one more in each of these continents at a reputed public technical institute. What do you say? Lets first agree on the need and desirability of such re-allocation, before we go to the question of how to do it. (apologies for some repeat language from my email to Roland) parminder > > (Fail-safe does not mean "it cannot fail"; it means "if it fails it > devolves to a safe state", sort of when well designed elevators go out > of electrical power they don't sink to the bottom and crash, nor just > get stuck; they fall to the next floor down and open the doors) > > (As a side: it may be valuable for IT4Change to recruit the assistance > of some Internet engineers, for example by forming an all-volunteer > Technical Advisory Board, if you don't find this too meddlesome. I've > seen such an Rx work wonders in other, similar organizations elsewhere > and it's a win-win. If too meddlesome please ignore. Again, happy to > be corrected by those more knowledgeable.) > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Desde:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder > [parminder at itforchange.net] > *Enviado el:* miércoles, 08 de agosto de 2012 01:38 > *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Klein > *Asunto:* Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root > server misunderstanding (still...) > > Norbert, > > On Wednesday 08 August 2012 07:08 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: >> I do NOT understand what the debate here is about - discussing the >> location of the 12, or of the many mirrors - when it is a debate over >> possible changes in the political control of this system. >> >> Only what happens or does not happen on the Alpha Server makes any >> difference (and it is replicated down the lines throughout all the >> sub-systems) I understand. Wrong? >> >> So any question about control of the 12 and the mirrors is only about >> technical details. If the "control" question is pointing at anything >> else but the Alpha Server it is not changing anything fundamentally. >> Correct or wrong? > > You have asked a good question - what is the debate here :) > > You seem to agree with Carlos that the political issue is ONLY vis a > vis the control over the alpha server, which we now know is in fact > not the alpha server that a new 'stealth server'. All other root > servers, including their anycast extensions, simply and ONLY reflect > the root zone file, and so it does not matter who controls them. As > for location, there has not been any known difficulty to locate new > anycasts anywhere. Fair enough. > > Now, I will have to take you, and others who may still be with us, to > a long discussion on 'US's oversight' over CIRs - chiefly the IANA > function, that took place in June on this list. David was greatly > involved in it. When I and others argued why US cannot be relied on to > have the unilateral authority to change the root file at its will - > the MAIN argument by David and others was; the 13, or at least 9, root > zone operators will very likely simply refuse to publish a file so > changed by the US. This 'system feature' was listed as the MAIN > defence that things are not as problematic as some of us are making > them to be. McTim, Lee and others made the same argument of the > 'independent decision making' by root server operators, to minimise > what was seen as the 'scare' over US's fiddling with the root in its > own interest. At the end of this email I provide a few quotes from > among several on how this single argument was repeated employed. > > Whereby, when we argue about the problem with US's unilateral control > over the root, the argument of 'independence of root operators' is > invoked. Such independence means that the '13 root operators' systems > is seen, if required, as being able to go beyond simply reflecting the > root zone file. Well, it has to be one of the two; > > (1) Either, root operators can and will ONLY reflect the root zone > file in the 'stealth server', whatever happens - in which case, we > should not use the argument of their deemed independence in > discussions on problems vis a vis US's unilateral IANA oversight powers > > (2) Or, indeed, at least potentially, root operators can refuse to > publish what is considered as an improperly changed file by the US, > and support the internet system continuing to work on the basis of the > original 'proper' file - whereby, it is useful to redistribute root > server operator-ship among agencies that together are more likely to > resist US unilateralism. > > One of the above two must be true, and both cant be true, because they > are logically exclusive arguments. It cant be that (2) is true in a > discussion over IANA authority, but it becomes untrue when we discuss > distribution of root server operators in a geo-political even and just > manner. This alone is my case. > > I can accept either (1) to be true, in which case the argument of > independence of root server operators to publish what they want should > NOT be used in an IANA related argument (David, McTim, Lee et all, are > you there :) ) > > Or I can accept (2) to be true, in which case, I will appeal to Carlos > for sympathy to the argument that redistribution of root server > operation authority may be useful to be considered, while agreeing > that IANA authority is a much more important question. > > (To be fair to David, he has said even in the present thread of > discussion that 'The diversity of architecture ( of root server > operators) and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as it > reduces the opportunities for "capture". If I surmise right, Carlos, > and perhaps you, Norbert, do not think this of being of any real > significance.) > > So, indeed there are real difference of views between, for instance > David and Carlos, on the political significance of root server > operator's independence (or absence of it) - and thus of political > significance of who the 13 root server operators are. > > Such independence (or absence of it) of root operators, especially in > the face of an eventuality of US's rogue behaviour, thus remains a key > political issue, and in good part is the point of debate here. The > answer to this question would determine whether it is worth the effort > to consider reallocating root server operation authority in a more > equitous manner. > > parminder > > > > >> >> >> Norbert Klein >> >> -- >> Norbert Klein >> nhklein at gmx.net >> http://www.thinking21.org >> >> >> >>> This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled >>> change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 >>> and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers >>> being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six >>> replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). >>> >>> A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the >>> "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all >>> servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your >>> level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. >>> NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing >>> ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of >>> Commitments says. >>> >>> If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is >>> actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? >>> No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet >>> continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, >>> until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) >>> >>> If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the >>> Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 >>> servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 >>> "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? >>> >>> Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep >>> a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of >>> the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many >>> millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of >>> websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and >>> corresponding hosting services. >>> >>> Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common >>> knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... >>> >>> frt rgds >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> David, >>>> >>>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>>>> Parminder, >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >>>> > wrote: >>>>>> Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the >>>>>> authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file >>>>>> vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of >>>>>> mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k >>>>>> usd . >>>>> No. >>>>> >>>>> There is a "distribution master". >>>> So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest >>>> level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the >>>> highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising >>>> may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep technical training >>>> like Daniel said is a recent email; >>>> >>>> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >>>> Each of these is an actual root server." >>>> >>>> Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are >>>> mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds >>>> of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. An actual >>>> root server is a shorthand for an actual root server operator, who >>>> exercises control (at least potentially) over the root zone file that he >>>> publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions with you on the >>>> IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems >>>> rather better informed than 'technical experts' here on this particular >>>> issue. He seems to know better which is a true or actual root server and >>>> which is not. Quote from the same interview where he quite wrongly said >>>> that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have >>>> said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers). >>>> >>>> >>>> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >>>> mechanisms of control and intervention." >>>> >>>> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or >>>> forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt >>>> it obvious! >>>> >>>> In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide examples >>>> of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are ''thoroughly >>>> wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above >>>> example, I will try and find others in your email below :) >>>> >>>>> (snip) >>>>> >>>>> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>>>> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >>>> Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is >>>> not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', so >>>> why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than create >>>> strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days ago >>>> >>>> "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of >>>> those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 >>>> are US-based. " (David) >>>> >>>> Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network >>>> latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It is >>>> about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely >>>> used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real issue, and it >>>> was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African ministers the >>>> latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to >>>> availability of root server mirrors - a very different issue. Similarly, >>>> this current discussion is continuously pulled towards the convenient >>>> description of geographic extensions through mirrors of root servers, >>>> away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against distribution) of >>>> power to change root file or resist changes to root file that is with >>>> the root server operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators. >>>> >>>> It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, >>>> David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case >>>> was based on how the root server operators are really independent (which >>>> is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the insurance >>>> against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, now when we >>>> are discussing the power of root server operators, which is >>>> geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root >>>> server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely >>>> evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone can >>>> set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root servers >>>> (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well enough are >>>> merely stupid! >>>> >>>> How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different >>>> manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I mean >>>> by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political >>>> viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a >>>> sociological 'fact'. >>>> >>>>> (snip) >>>>>> What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very >>>>>> significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root >>>>>> servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come >>>>>> across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the >>>>>> difference. >>>>> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >>>> Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did >>>> understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of >>>> concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is in >>>> the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is >>>> obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root zone >>>> operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the very >>>> basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and >>>> conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the root file >>>> layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between these two >>>> latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision to speak >>>> about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite another, or >>>> at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the issue of >>>> 'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving queries. >>>> >>>>>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>>>> neutral/ technical information. >>>>> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>>>> communicate. >>>> :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a >>>> group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical >>>> community has - its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call >>>> it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to ) >>>> see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single >>>> political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is >>>> further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult! >>>>> (snip) >>>>> >>>>> You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default >>>>> maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways >>>>> around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS >>>>> specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, >>>>> cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. >>>> No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number >>>> 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too >>>> interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political >>>> proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also >>>> considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. >>>> Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and >>>> exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US >>>> centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with >>>> some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance. >>>> >>>>>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>>>> world happy. >>>>> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >>>>> root server would make the people of the world happy. >>>> This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any justification >>>> at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to reallocate / >>>> redistribute them in a manner that is politically more justifiable and >>>> thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. >>>> >>>> regards >>>> parminder >>>> >>>>>> Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a >>>>>> geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, >>>>>> especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why >>>>>> not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. >>>>> As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are >>>>> independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with >>>>> the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit >>>>> each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How >>>>> root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their >>>>> decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient >>>>> justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute >>>>> their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". >>>>> >>>>> With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" >>>>> (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to >>>>> give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the >>>>> ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? >>>>> >>>>>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>>>>> these root servers. Is it really true? >>>>> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >>>>> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>>>> >>>>>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>>>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>>>> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>>>> distributed. >>>>> >>>>>> If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way >>>>>> tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? >>>>> In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to >>>>> transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner >>>>> the zone transfer password. >>>>> >>>>> Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server >>>>> "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person >>>>> to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the >>>>> assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by >>>>> another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either >>>>> require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root >>>>> server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would >>>>> have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. >>>>> >>>>>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>>>>> root server operators, >>>>> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>>>> >>>>>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>>>> physical location points. >>>>> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >>>>> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>>> Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a >>>>>> geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to >>>>>> an Indian Institute of Technology. >>>>> Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide >>>>> infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the >>>>> same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in >>>>> India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of >>>>> hardware being shipped into the country (see >>>>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>>>> >>>>>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>>>> present debate. Any answers? >>>>> Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is >>>>> no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you >>>>> will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about >>>>> this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in >>>>> their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative >>>>> control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to >>>>> Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that >>>>> decision. >>>>> >>>>>> Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is >>>>>> opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers >>>>>> (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will >>>>>> skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US >>>>>> centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. >>>>> No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. >>>>> Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing >>>>> root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network >>>>> disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server >>>>> allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much >>>>> anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to >>>>> abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. >>>>> >>>>> Merging a subsequent note: >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>>>>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>>>> operator to his own anycast server. >>>>> Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you >>>>> will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can >>>>> gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate >>>>> the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>>> This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got >>>>>> from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest >>>>>> on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and >>>>>> kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. >>>>> I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not >>>>> what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested >>>>> "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is >>>>> considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone >>>>> asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. >>>>> Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? >>>>> >>>>> As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root >>>>> servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. >>>>> >>>>>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>>>> Yes. Really. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> -drc >>>>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 8 07:34:11 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:34:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50224A93.7050205@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net>,<50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B07D5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <50224A93.7050205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50224EB3.8080102@digsys.bg> On 08.08.12 14:16, parminder wrote: > > In that case, you may agree that making MORE sure that the root > operators are MORE independent of US gov will make the system MORE > fail-safe or capture-resistant. In practical terms I mean what if > instead of the present distribution of root server operators, 9 in the > US and 3 in US friendly countries, we have these servers distributed > in a more geopolitically equitous manner - as I suggested, for a start > RIRs of Africa, LA and Asia Pacific get one each, and perhaps one more > in each of these continents at a reputed public technical institute. > What do you say? > I say, this is asking for trouble. I also say that you will be wrong in assuming my position is to let "US" control things unilaterally. Also, please note I am painting a rather "unlikely" (but very much possible) situation to better illustrate my point. However, imagine, that in order to support the large population in say, Russia and China, two of the root operators are forced to move there (*). What prevents those two to declare "independence". Each of them, or both combined instruct their respective RIR to assume the IANA responsibilities. You may think, that common sense will not let this happen. But especially in those two countries, this is pretty easy to do and is done from time to time. Nothing you, me or anyone else arguing "this is wrong" is going to stop it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. (*) Most of the root server operators are independent entities. In a nation-state, taking over their properly would be called "nationalization". Nationalization is hard business in democratic countries. I have no idea how to call forcing an Swedish company, to transfer their business to some Chinese company -- in order to please our concept of power balance. I also have no idea of how this is handled in an international context. But this is certainly another issue that everybody seems to ignore. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 07:43:26 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 14:43:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Friends and colleagues, this chain of e-mails has grown to 82 messages so far (in 6 days time), and the discussions indicate that it will continue as no one is willing to step down. As Fouad mentioned in one of his e-mails, it is best to take action rather than discussing issues that in reality would not change. The current structure of root-servers, US control, why 13 root-server instances, lack of knowledge of politicians.... are issues that will remain part of our lives for years to come, and they are most probably their to last. Fahd On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > < > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120729_globally_internet_traffic_passes_through_13_root_servers/#.UBoL2jEe7hU > > > "Globally, Internet Traffic Passes Through 13 Root Servers" (!) > > > Question: Who governs the internet at present? > > Sachin Pilot, minister of state for communications and information > technology: > > "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of them > are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These servers move the > information. I believe India and other countries ought to play a much more > relevant role in managing traffic flows. The internet is a global resource > whose governance can't be limited to a particular geography." > > (Times of India, interview > < > http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-07-30/edit-page/32924041_1_internet-governance-internet-corporation-root-servers > >) > > Excellent, we're back in 2002/3. > > Adam > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 8 08:13:35 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 08:13:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50224879.9050609@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <50224879.9050609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:07 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 08 August 2012 01:45 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message <50220972.8020108 at itforchange.**net<50220972.8020108 at itforchange.net>>, >> at 12:08:42 on Wed, 8 Aug 2012, parminder >> writes >> >> (1) Either, root operators can and will ONLY reflect the root zone file >>> in the 'stealth server', whatever happens - in which case, we should not >>> use the argument of their deemed independence in discussions on problems >>> vis a vis US's unilateral IANA oversight powers >>> >>> (2) Or, indeed, at least potentially, root operators can refuse to >>> publish what is considered as an improperly changed file by the US, and >>> support the internet system continuing to work on the basis of the original >>> 'proper' file - whereby, it is useful to redistribute root server >>> operator-ship among agencies that together are more likely to resist US >>> unilateralism. >>> >>> One of the above two must be true, and both cant be true >>> >> >> Well, there are other possible scenarios that you haven't listed, but >> number (2) is much closer to the current situation than (1). >> > > That would mean that it makes the system much more capture-resistant if > instead of the present distribution of root server operators, 9 in the US > and 3 in US friendly countries, we have these servers you mean root operators, not servers, right?? Servers are already distributed globally. > distributed in a more geopolitically equitous manner Who is to say what is "geopolitically equitous"? What you are asking for is a change in a system that works well. You want this change based on your (mis)perception that many root ops are controlled by the US gov't. What you seek is a situation where folks who haven't asked to run root-servers will be asked to do this (by you). This would entail them spending (collectively) millions of USD. This would also entail "trusting" that these new root-ops whether they are India's IT ministry or North Koreans or whoever would not serve a file that was somehow "tainted" by a US action (or inaction). Would you have these new root-ops sign an agreement? If so with whom? ICANN? IANA? the UN? If so, would this not be "centralised control" of any already de-centralised system? How would you convince the current root-ops to give their rootservers to someone else? I am not speaking for my org in this, but I think it highly unlikely that ISC would give up "F", as it is part of our mission and identity. > - as I suggested, for a start RIRs of Africa, LA and Asia Pacific get one > each, and perhaps one more in each of these continents at a reputed public > technical institute. What do you say? > I say its an unfunded mandate that they would be hard-pressed to take up. The RIRs spend money to do what their members ask them to do. No RIR member has asked them to do this AFAIK. > Lets first agree on the need and desirability of such re-allocation, > before we go to the question how to do it. > Need? My answer is no. Desirability? Also no. -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 8 08:15:33 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 13:15:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50224879.9050609@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <50224879.9050609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <50224879.9050609 at itforchange.net>, at 16:37:37 on Wed, 8 Aug 2012, parminder writes >> Well, there are other possible scenarios that you haven't listed, but >>number (2) is much closer to the current situation than (1). > >That would mean that it makes the system much more capture-resistant if >instead of the present distribution of root server operators, 9 in the >US and 3 in US friendly countries, we have these servers server operators. Their [anycast] servers are spread quite widely already. >distributed in a more geopolitically equitous manner - as I suggested, >for a start RIRs of Africa, LA and Asia Pacific get one each, and >perhaps one more in each of these continents at a reputed public >technical institute. What do you say? I think my task here is done. A technically consistent question is being asked, I'll leave the politics to others. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Aug 8 08:38:56 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 12:38:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B11E153@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, I will jumping back in to the conversation, to make a few points. As Parminder notes, the June discussions explicated the administrative procedures and sequence of processes which lead to changes in the root zone file. Now on: (2) Or, indeed, at least potentially, root operators can refuse to publish what is considered as an improperly changed file by the US, and support the internet system continuing to work on the basis of the original 'proper' file - whereby, it is useful to redistribute root server operator-ship among agencies that together are more likely to resist US unilateralism. My comments: First, let's be clear that we are discussing what to do to address the eventuality of what would happen in a hypothetical 'bad State' scenario in which the USG has gone rogue on the global Internet. Folks may not agree or approve of any number of USG actions routinely, but for the net, we have not had a case to test what the actions and reactions of the non-USG root server operators would be, so the discussion is necessarily about hypotheticals. Second, if India, China, Russia, South Africa or Brazil, or the RIRs wanted more root servers hq'd in their region or specifically in their country, there is no process to 'reallocate' the root servers. Remember there are no contracts, just customary net practice right at this point in the system of the net of nets. Imposing any form of political control uniformly on the 13 would break their 'fail-safe' potential, which I still will argue is a feature and not a bug of the current system. (Of course we should take the directly USG root servers out of the hypothetical discussion, since even if they were moved...) Third, if a particularly attractive relocation offer were made, perhaps one or another of the 13 could be persuaded to move. To maintain their place as one of the 13, they would have to explain to their peers - which are not us or the RIRs but the other root zone operators - why they should still be as trusted to do right by the net just as they are now. Assuming they make their own case successfully, then that's that, it's done, servers can be anywhere. Ok, easier said than done. But absent someone asking - nicely - whether and on what terms any of the root zone operators might consider moving, then we won't know the answer. Fourth, there is also nothing standing in the way of an agreement, whether formally ie in writing, or on a handshake basis, among the RIRs or among X Y or Z governments, that in the event USG does go rogue on the net, then A, B and C emergency root zone procedures are put in place and the previously authoritative root managed on the basis outlined in all these messages, is no longer be treated as such. The net of nets then becomes a subnet of subnets, but hey at least some of us could still be talking to some of us. Personally I am unsure how worthwhile effort on 3 and 4 above would be, versus focusing on Parminder's original 1, reforming the current administrative processes over the root. But as always remain open to learning from others. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Fahd A. Batayneh [fahd.batayneh at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 7:43 AM To: IG Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) Friends and colleagues, this chain of e-mails has grown to 82 messages so far (in 6 days time), and the discussions indicate that it will continue as no one is willing to step down. As Fouad mentioned in one of his e-mails, it is best to take action rather than discussing issues that in reality would not change. The current structure of root-servers, US control, why 13 root-server instances, lack of knowledge of politicians.... are issues that will remain part of our lives for years to come, and they are most probably their to last. Fahd On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Adam Peake > wrote: "Globally, Internet Traffic Passes Through 13 Root Servers" (!) Question: Who governs the internet at present? Sachin Pilot, minister of state for communications and information technology: "Globally, internet traffic passes through 13 root servers. Nine of them are in the US, two each in Japan and Western Europe. These servers move the information. I believe India and other countries ought to play a much more relevant role in managing traffic flows. The internet is a global resource whose governance can't be limited to a particular geography." (Times of India, interview ) Excellent, we're back in 2002/3. Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 8 09:10:27 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 14:10:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <50224879.9050609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 08:13:35 on Wed, 8 Aug 2012, McTim writes >- as I suggested, for a start RIRs of Africa, LA and Asia Pacific get >one each, and perhaps one more in each of these continents at a reputed >public technical institute. What do you say? > >---- >I say its an unfunded mandate that they would be hard-pressed to take >up.  The RIRs spend money to do what their members ask them to do.  No >RIR member has asked them to do this AFAIK K Root Server. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 8 09:12:02 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 14:12:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B11E153@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B11E153@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B11E153 at SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 12:38:56 on Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Lee W McKnight writes >if India, China, Russia, South Africa or Brazil, or the RIRs wanted >more root servers hq'd in their region or specifically in their >country, there is no process to 'reallocate' the root servers "root server operators" perhaps? -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 8 09:49:56 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 09:49:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <50224879.9050609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message *gmail.com>, > at 08:13:35 on Wed, 8 Aug 2012, McTim writes > > - as I suggested, for a start RIRs of Africa, LA and Asia Pacific get one >> each, and perhaps one more in each of these continents at a reputed public >> technical institute. What do you say? >> >> >---- > > I say its an unfunded mandate that they would be hard-pressed to take >> up. The RIRs spend money to do what their members ask them to do. No RIR >> member has asked them to do this AFAIK >> > > K Root Server. > right, I meant the other 4 RIRs that PJS has suggested carry this load. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Wed Aug 8 09:40:51 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 13:40:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50224A93.7050205@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net>,<50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B07D5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<50224A93.7050205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B199F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Parmineder, thanks to time-zone differences, Lee, Roland, Daniel, and McTim have already given you replies here which I think lead the question to exhaustion. I'm also taking two points from Fahd's latest intervention: I have pared off all previous email in this response, and agree that we have come, or are close to have come, to a quite converged point beyond which we may be counting angels on a pin. We need the mental powers involved and the bandwidth of all (including layer 8 bandwidth) for other issues. The cost of opportunity of this discussion may be about to become too high. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Enviado el: miércoles, 08 de agosto de 2012 06:16 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) On Wednesday 08 August 2012 12:35 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: Parminder, it may be useful to separate your problem into two parts: 1. authorization for changes in the root; Thanks for the kind advice, Alex. In fact, I have insisted repeatedly that I am only dealing with the second part as below. The first part was dealt in an earlier discussion in June with the subject line 'oversight'. 2. operation of the independent root servers, including their submission or not to an outrageously arbitrary and deletereous change in the root. Yes, this alone is the issue under consideration here. That, I think, will help you parse the apparent contradictions. We all have a problem with the first's asymmetric-power situation; the second is a fail-safe mechanism for the potential excesses of the first. So you agree that independence of root server operators indeed serves as a 'fail-safe mechanism for the potential excesses' of the unilateral root changing power with the US. In that case, you may agree that making MORE sure that the root operators are MORE independent of US gov will make the system MORE fail-safe or capture-resistant. In practical terms I mean what if instead of the present distribution of root server operators, 9 in the US and 3 in US friendly countries, we have these servers distributed in a more geopolitically equitous manner - as I suggested, for a start RIRs of Africa, LA and Asia Pacific get one each, and perhaps one more in each of these continents at a reputed public technical institute. What do you say? Lets first agree on the need and desirability of such re-allocation, before we go to the question of how to do it. (apologies for some repeat language from my email to Roland) parminder (Fail-safe does not mean "it cannot fail"; it means "if it fails it devolves to a safe state", sort of when well designed elevators go out of electrical power they don't sink to the bottom and crash, nor just get stuck; they fall to the next floor down and open the doors) (As a side: it may be valuable for IT4Change to recruit the assistance of some Internet engineers, for example by forming an all-volunteer Technical Advisory Board, if you don't find this too meddlesome. I've seen such an Rx work wonders in other, similar organizations elsewhere and it's a win-win. If too meddlesome please ignore. Again, happy to be corrected by those more knowledgeable.) Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Wed Aug 8 10:05:42 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 07:05:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:38 PM, parminder wrote: > When I and others argued why US cannot be relied on to have the unilateral authority to change the root file at its will - the MAIN argument by David and others was; the 13, or at least 9, root zone operators will very likely simply refuse to publish a file so changed by the US. Actually, my MAIN argument was that it is ridiculously unlikely that the US government would destroy everything it has invested in its push to "privatize" Internet resource management by bypassing documented policies and procedures to force an inappropriate change in the root zone. It would just be silly. However, even if the US government decided to destroy all their efforts in privatizing Internet resource management, inappropriate modifications to the root zone would still have to be published to the root servers and be accepted by resolver operators. Ignoring lawsuits from ICANN and Verisign (since this scenario presupposes the USG doesn't act rationally), since 3 root server operators are outside the US and only 5 root servers are directly associated with parts of the US government, the rogue US government would have no direct way to force all of the root servers to accept the inappropriate root zone updates. Further, resolver operators, once made aware of inappropriate changes to the root, could take steps if they so desired to address the issue (e.g., point their resolvers at different root servers). The implied chaos of all of this in and of itself would make "ridiculously" turn into "ludicrously" (or more directly: "it ain't gonna happen"). As I said in an earlier message, the focus on root server (operators) is a red herring. I've engaged in this discussion primarily to make sure people understand how the root system, from ICANN to NTIA to Verisign to the root servers, actually works, not how various folks with political agendas would like people to think it works. Hopefully someone found it useful. > (2) Or, indeed, at least potentially, root operators can refuse to publish what is considered as an improperly changed file by the US, and support the internet system continuing to work on the basis of the original 'proper' file This is actually what I've been arguing (although I believe Stephane disagreed). I believe some of the root server operators, being confronted with an inappropriate zone modification, would refuse to update the zone thereby giving the Internet community time to figure out an alternative to the USG-controlled distribution master and/or saner heads to prevail within the USG. > - whereby, it is useful to redistribute root server operator-ship among agencies that together are more likely to resist US unilateralism. Knock yourself out. There are 12 organizations you can talk to to convince them they should give up their root server(s). If you'd like contact information, let me know. If you do pursue this, I (honestly) wish you luck -- my interactions with the root server operators most typically spike my blood pressure, but that's probably just me. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 8 12:54:59 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 23:54:59 +0700 Subject: [governance] Iran's ministries to go offline: phase one of move to intranet society In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <502299E3.4030508@gmx.net> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/07/iran-offline And the rest of the people will also have to stay "inside"? -- Norbert Klein nhklein at gmx.net http://www.thinking21.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 13:19:05 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 22:19:05 +0500 Subject: [governance] Iran's ministries to go offline: phase one of move to intranet society In-Reply-To: <502299E3.4030508@gmx.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <502299E3.4030508@gmx.net> Message-ID: Yeup, everyone will be kept off the HARAM or forbidden Internet that is the western agenda against Iran. Alternatively citizens will only be allowed to use the Halal Internet based on locally hosted and acceptable cached content deployed over a network of FOSS platforms and technologies. Fouad Bajwa On Aug 8, 2012 9:56 PM, "Norbert Klein" wrote: > > http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/07/iran-offline > > And the rest of the people will also have to stay "inside"? > > -- > Norbert Klein > nhklein at gmx.net > http://www.thinking21.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 13:29:00 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 20:29:00 +0300 Subject: [governance] Iran's ministries to go offline: phase one of move to intranet society In-Reply-To: <502299E3.4030508@gmx.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <502299E3.4030508@gmx.net> Message-ID: I have a couple of friends from Iran, and while they suffer from low Internet speeds and heavy censorship, there is a lot of innovation and creativity devised along the lines. They manage to access almost any content they wish; including Facebook and Porn content. They have some of the best developers and hackers in the world, and I believe they have a segment of their army devoted to hacking and developing. While I am not a fan of censorship and having many "Internet's", I can see more innovation along the lines. Let us see how reliable it the new network can be. Fahd On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > > http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/07/iran-offline > > And the rest of the people will also have to stay "inside"? > > -- > Norbert Klein > nhklein at gmx.net > http://www.thinking21.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 8 15:35:40 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 07:35:40 +1200 Subject: [governance] Iran's ministries to go offline: phase one of move to intranet society In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <502299E3.4030508@gmx.net> Message-ID: Clearly this is based on paranoia the moves towards an insular society and walling off the rest of the world from the Internet and its marvellous contraptions, opportunities, are based on fear. They are based on a fear that their security would be threatened. If there is anything to be learnt from Stuxnet, it is this, despite having an intranet, the virus was transmitted through a USB key and the manner in which USB keys are evolving from toys, pens, pendants, what is to stop anyone from penetrating a nation's defence. The impact of the Internet on how we live our lives never ceases to amaze me. I suppose when they created their elite army to hunt down dissidents within Iran is also a powerful factor, that they would not want the Arab Spring dynamics to happen in Iran. When a country fears its own people and fears those outside its walls, it's a sad day for humanity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Aug 8 16:23:05 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 06:23:05 +1000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50224A93.7050205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: As someone who has consistently expressed opposition to the US unilateral position as regards root zone file authorisation, let me say also that I do not believe Parminder¹s scenario 2 is workable. There is a high risk involved in looking for a better geopolitical location of root zone servers. The risk is that state partners ­ who would surely want to be involved in selection of sites ­ would also want a say in changes to the root zone. The risk of a split root increases significantly. I don¹t think enough is gained by the change to justify the significant risks involving split roots or political interference. I come back to my original position ­ and perhaps the only one where we might get some agreement and also even the possibility of some action. The authorisation role is completely unnecessary, whether carried out by USA or UN or whatever. Please do not transfer it to another body ­ just remove it. The authorisation is based on recommendations involving a set of very consultative and exhaustive procedures. Once the ICANN processes recommend a change after these consultations, let that be the final authorisation. I can perceive a situation where USA might actually accept that proposition, consistent with increasing independence of ICANN. I cant see a situation where they transfer their authorisation function to any other body. Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:46:35 +0530 To: Subject: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) On Wednesday 08 August 2012 12:35 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > > Parminder, > > > > it may be useful to separate your problem into two parts: > > > > > 1. authorization for changes in the root; > > Thanks for the kind advice, Alex. In fact, I have insisted repeatedly that I am only dealing with the second part as below. The first part was dealt in an earlier discussion in June with the subject line 'oversight'. > > > > > > 2. operation of the independent root servers, including their submission or > not to an outrageously arbitrary and deletereous change in the root. > > Yes, this alone is the issue under consideration here. > > > > > > That, I think, will help you parse the apparent contradictions. We all have a > problem with the first's asymmetric-power situation; the second is a fail-safe > mechanism for the potential excesses of the first. > > > So you agree that independence of root server operators indeed serves as a 'fail-safe mechanism for the potential excesses' of the unilateral root changing power with the US. In that case, you may agree that making MORE sure that the root operators are MORE independent of US gov will make the system MORE fail-safe or capture-resistant. In practical terms I mean what  if instead of the present distribution of root server operators, 9 in the US and 3 in US friendly countries, we have these servers distributed in a more geopolitically equitous manner - as I suggested, for a start RIRs of Africa, LA and Asia Pacific get one each, and perhaps one more in each of these continents at a reputed public technical institute. What do you say? Lets first agree on the need and desirability of such re-allocation, before we go to the question of how to do it. (apologies for some repeat language from my email to Roland) parminder > > > > > > (Fail-safe does not mean "it cannot fail"; it means "if it fails it devolves > to a safe state", sort of when well designed elevators go out of electrical > power they don't sink to the bottom and crash, nor just get stuck; they fall > to the next floor down and open the doors) > > > > > (As a side: it may be valuable for IT4Change to recruit the assistance of some > Internet engineers, for example by forming an all-volunteer Technical Advisory > Board, if you don't find this too meddlesome. I've seen such an Rx work > wonders in other, similar organizations elsewhere and it's a win-win. If too > meddlesome please ignore. Again, happy to be corrected by those more > knowledgeable.) > > > > > Yours, > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > >    > > ! !! !!! !!!! > > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > >   > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > > SMS +525541444475 >      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  > > > > > > > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder > [parminder at itforchange.net] > Enviado el: miércoles, 08 de agosto de 2012 01:38 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Klein > Asunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server > misunderstanding (still...) > > > > Norbert, > > > On Wednesday 08 August 2012 07:08 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: > > >> I do NOT understand what the debate here is about - discussing the location >> of the 12, or of the many mirrors - when it is a debate over possible changes >> in the political control of this system. >> >> Only what happens or does not happen on the Alpha Server makes any >> difference (and it is replicated down the lines throughout all the >> sub-systems) I understand. Wrong? >> >> So any question about control of the 12 and the mirrors is only about >> technical details. If the "control" question is pointing at anything else but >> the Alpha Server it is not changing anything fundamentally. Correct or wrong? >> > > You have asked a good question - what is the debate here :) > > You seem to agree with Carlos that the political issue is ONLY vis a vis the > control over the alpha server, which we now know is in fact not the alpha > server that a new 'stealth server'. All other root servers, including their > anycast extensions, simply and ONLY reflect the root zone file, and so it does > not matter who controls them. As for location, there has not been any known > difficulty to locate new anycasts anywhere. Fair enough. > > Now, I will have to take you, and others who may still be with us, to a long > discussion on 'US's oversight' over CIRs - chiefly the IANA function, that > took place in June on this list. David was greatly involved in it. When I and > others argued why US cannot be relied on to have the unilateral authority to > change the root file at its will - the MAIN argument by David and others was; > the 13, or at least 9, root zone operators will very likely simply refuse to > publish a file so changed by the US. This 'system feature' was listed as the > MAIN defence that things are not as problematic as some of us are making them > to be. McTim, Lee and others made the same argument of the 'independent > decision making' by root server operators, to minimise what was seen as the > 'scare' over US's fiddling with the root in its own interest. At the end of > this email I provide a few quotes from among several on how this single > argument was repeated employed. > > Whereby, when we argue about the problem with US's unilateral control over > the root, the argument of 'independence of root operators' is invoked. Such > independence means that the '13 root operators' systems is seen, if required, > as being able to go beyond simply reflecting the root zone file. Well, it has > to be one of the two; > > (1) Either, root operators can and will ONLY reflect the root zone file in > the 'stealth server', whatever happens - in which case, we should not use the > argument of their deemed independence in discussions on problems vis a vis > US's unilateral IANA oversight powers > > (2) Or, indeed, at least potentially, root operators can refuse to publish > what is considered as an improperly changed file by the US, and support the > internet system continuing to work on the basis of the original 'proper' file > - whereby, it is useful to redistribute root server operator-ship among > agencies that together are more likely to resist US unilateralism. > > One of the above two must be true, and both cant be true, because they are > logically exclusive arguments. It cant be that (2) is true in a discussion > over IANA authority, but it becomes untrue when we discuss distribution of > root server operators in a geo-political even and just manner. This alone is > my case. > >  I can accept either (1) to be true, in which case the argument of > independence of root server operators to publish what they want should NOT be > used in an IANA related argument (David, McTim, Lee et all, are you there :) ) > > Or I can accept (2) to be true, in which case, I will appeal to Carlos for > sympathy to the argument that redistribution of root server operation > authority may be useful to be considered, while agreeing that IANA authority > is a much more important question. > > (To be fair to David, he has said even in the present thread of discussion > that 'The diversity of architecture ( of root server operators) and lack of > centralized control is seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for > "capture". If I surmise right, Carlos, and perhaps you, Norbert, do not think > this of being of any real significance.) > > So, indeed there are real difference of views between, for instance David and > Carlos, on the political significance of root server operator's independence > (or absence of it) - and thus of political significance of who the 13 root > server operators are. > > Such independence (or absence of it) of root operators, especially in the > face of an eventuality of US's rogue behaviour, thus remains a key political > issue, and in good part is the point of debate here. The answer to this > question would determine whether it is worth the effort to consider > reallocating root server operation authority in a more equitous manner. > > parminder > > > > > >> >> >> Norbert Klein >> >> >> -- >> Norbert Klein >> nhklein at gmx.net >> http://www.thinking21.org >> >> >>    >> >>> >>> This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled >>> change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 >>> and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers >>> being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six >>> replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). >>> >>> A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the >>> "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all >>> servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your >>> level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. >>> NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing >>> ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of >>> Commitments says. >>> >>> If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is >>> actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? >>> No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet >>> continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, >>> until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) >>> >>> If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the >>> Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 >>> servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 >>> "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? >>> >>> Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep >>> a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of >>> the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many >>> millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of >>> websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and >>> corresponding hosting services. >>> >>> Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common >>> knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... >>> >>> frt rgds >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> David, >>>> >>>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Parminder, >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the >>>>>> authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file >>>>>> vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of >>>>>> mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k >>>>>> usd . >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No. >>>>> >>>>> There is a "distribution master". >>>>> >>>> >>>> So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest >>>> level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the >>>> highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising >>>> may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep technical training >>>> like Daniel said is a recent email; >>>> >>>> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >>>> Each of these is an actual root server." >>>> >>>> Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are >>>> mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds >>>> of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. An actual >>>> root server is a shorthand for an actual root server operator, who >>>> exercises control (at least potentially) over the root zone file that he >>>> publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions with you on the >>>> IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems >>>> rather better informed than 'technical experts' here on this particular >>>> issue. He seems to know better which is a true or actual root server and >>>> which is not. Quote from the same interview where he quite wrongly said >>>> that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have >>>> said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers). >>>> >>>> >>>> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >>>> mechanisms of control and intervention." >>>> >>>> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or >>>> forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt >>>> it obvious! >>>> >>>> In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide examples >>>> of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are ''thoroughly >>>> wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above >>>> example, I will try and find others in your email below :) >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> (snip) >>>>> >>>>> That's all. There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>>>> root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is >>>> not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', so >>>> why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than create >>>> strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days ago >>>> >>>> "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of >>>> those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 >>>> are US-based. " (David) >>>> >>>> Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network >>>> latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It is >>>> about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely >>>> used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real issue, and it >>>> was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African ministers the >>>> latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to >>>> availability of root server mirrors - a very different issue. Similarly, >>>> this current discussion is continuously pulled towards the convenient >>>> description of geographic extensions through mirrors of root servers, >>>> away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against distribution) of >>>> power to change root file or resist changes to root file that is with >>>> the root server operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators. >>>> >>>> It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, >>>> David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case >>>> was based on how the root server operators are really independent (which >>>> is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the insurance >>>> against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, now when we >>>> are discussing the power of root server operators, which is >>>> geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root >>>> server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely >>>> evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone can >>>> set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root servers >>>> (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well enough are >>>> merely stupid! >>>> >>>> How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different >>>> manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I mean >>>> by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political >>>> viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a >>>> sociological 'fact'. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> (snip) >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very >>>>>> significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root >>>>>> servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come >>>>>> across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the >>>>>> difference. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did >>>> understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of >>>> concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is in >>>> the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is >>>> obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root zone >>>> operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the very >>>> basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and >>>> conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the root file >>>> layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between these two >>>> latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision to speak >>>> about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite another, or >>>> at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the issue of >>>> 'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving queries. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>>>> neutral/ technical information. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>>>> communicate. >>>>> >>>> >>>> :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a >>>> group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical >>>> community has - its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call >>>> it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to ) >>>> see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single >>>> political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is >>>> further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult! >>>> >>>>> >>>>> (snip) >>>>> >>>>> You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default >>>>> maximum DNS message size still exists. While there are now ways >>>>> around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS >>>>> specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, >>>>> cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number >>>> 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too >>>> interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political >>>> proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also >>>> considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. >>>> Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and >>>> exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US >>>> centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with >>>> some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>>>> world happy. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >>>>> root server would make the people of the world happy. >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any justification >>>> at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to reallocate / >>>> redistribute them in a manner that is politically more justifiable and >>>> thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. >>>> >>>> regards >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a >>>>>> geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, >>>>>> especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why >>>>>> not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are >>>>> independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with >>>>> the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit >>>>> each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How >>>>> root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their >>>>> decision. To date, there has apparently been insufficient >>>>> justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute >>>>> their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". >>>>> >>>>> With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" >>>>> (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to >>>>> give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the >>>>> ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>>>>> these root servers. Is it really true? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >>>>> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>>>> what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>>>> distributed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way >>>>>> tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to >>>>> transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner >>>>> the zone transfer password. >>>>> >>>>> Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server >>>>> "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person >>>>> to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the >>>>> assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by >>>>> another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either >>>>> require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root >>>>> server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would >>>>> have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>>>>> root server operators, >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>>>> physical location points. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >>>>> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a >>>>>> geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to >>>>>> an Indian Institute of Technology. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide >>>>> infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the >>>>> same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in >>>>> India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of >>>>> hardware being shipped into the country (see >>>>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>>>> present debate. Any answers? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist. There is >>>>> no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you >>>>> will give your root server to IIT". You and others that care about >>>>> this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in >>>>> their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative >>>>> control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to >>>>> Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that >>>>> decision. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is >>>>>> opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers >>>>>> (as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will >>>>>> skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US >>>>>> centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. >>>>> Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing >>>>> root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network >>>>> disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server >>>>> allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much >>>>> anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to >>>>> abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. >>>>> >>>>> Merging a subsequent note: >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>>>> operator to his own anycast server. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you >>>>> will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can >>>>> gain control of that machine. Obtaining such control would violate >>>>> the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got >>>>>> from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest >>>>>> on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and >>>>>> kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not >>>>> what is actually written. No one (to my knowledge) has suggested >>>>> "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". Root service is >>>>> considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone >>>>> asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. >>>>> Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? >>>>> >>>>> As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root >>>>> servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not among them. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes. Really. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> -drc >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 8 16:27:01 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2012 21:27:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Iran's ministries to go offline: phase one of move to intranet society In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <502299E3.4030508@gmx.net> Message-ID: <0xmkuQSVusIQFAOd@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 07:35:40 on Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >If there is anything to be learnt from Stuxnet, it is this, despite >having an intranet, the virus was transmitted through a USB key and the >manner in which USB keys are evolving from toys, pens, pendants, what >is to stop anyone from penetrating a nation's defence. The memory card in any digital camera (or phone) is in effect a USB stick. My camera/phone even came with a USB stick adapter to plug the [micro-SD] memory card into. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 22:21:18 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 07:21:18 +0500 Subject: [governance] In Interview, Romney Brings Arab Spring Into Presidential Race - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Include in the list mess they've done in Pakistan too.... Fouad Bajwa On Aug 7, 2012 10:50 PM, "Fahd A. Batayneh" wrote: > Interesting article. It seems Romney is using a different strategy than > Obama in their race to the White-house. > > However, I think the USA have more internal issues to deal with rather > than trying to impress the world with their international policy (ex. > financial recession). I guess the mess they did in Afghanistan and Iraq is > more than enough. In addition, and looking at the business opportunities in > the Arab world (mainly Libya, Egypt, and Qatar), it would be a "Satisfying > Israel" vs. "Multi-billion dollar business in the Arab world". > > Since Romney is a business man, I think he should focus more on saving the > US economy rather than providing soft cushion stances towards certain > countries. I admire Obama for bridging the gap with China and improving > their relationship with each other. > > Fahd > > On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> >> http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/in-interview-romney-brings-arab-spring-into-presidential-race/ >> >> This is going to be soul food for the Arab IGF I suppose. >> >> Fouad >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Aug 8 23:14:41 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:14:41 +0500 Subject: [governance] Iran's ministries to go offline: phase one of move to intranet society In-Reply-To: <0xmkuQSVusIQFAOd@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <502299E3.4030508@gmx.net> <0xmkuQSVusIQFAOd@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Censorship, surveillance, filtering and now limiting complete access to a global network is all in fear of national security. Subnetworks will still be penetrate-able because at the end of the day many citizens are not happy with the regime that is taking decisions on their behalf without referendum or public consultation. We will see a reverse and adverse effect sooner or later. Apart from Stuxnet, Iran continues to fear an Iranian Spring that may stifle the government. Fouad Bajwa On Aug 9, 2012 1:27 AM, "Roland Perry" wrote: > In message G4grVWU7M5ekOyTF4g at mail.gmail.**com>, > at 07:35:40 on Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@**gmail.com> > writes > > If there is anything to be learnt from Stuxnet, it is this, despite >> having an intranet, the virus was transmitted through a USB key and the >> manner in which USB keys are evolving from toys, pens, pendants, what is to >> stop anyone from penetrating a nation's defence. >> > > The memory card in any digital camera (or phone) is in effect a USB stick. > My camera/phone even came with a USB stick adapter to plug the [micro-SD] > memory card into. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 03:02:34 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:02:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] Iran's ministries to go offline: phase one of move to intranet society In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <502299E3.4030508@gmx.net> <0xmkuQSVusIQFAOd@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: True. And that is apparent from the number of Iranians who have left their country and immigrated to up North in search of greener shores and more democracy. I admire the brains the Iranians have, but it is obvious that their respective government is positioning these brains on less - or even not - important issues. Fahd On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Censorship, surveillance, filtering and now limiting complete access to a > global network is all in fear of national security. Subnetworks will still > be penetrate-able because at the end of the day many citizens are not happy > with the regime that is taking decisions on their behalf without referendum > or public consultation. > > We will see a reverse and adverse effect sooner or later. Apart from > Stuxnet, Iran continues to fear an Iranian Spring that may stifle the > government. > > Fouad Bajwa > On Aug 9, 2012 1:27 AM, "Roland Perry" > wrote: > >> In message > G4grVWU7M5ekOyTF4g at mail.gmail.**com>, >> at 07:35:40 on Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@**gmail.com> >> writes >> >> If there is anything to be learnt from Stuxnet, it is this, despite >>> having an intranet, the virus was transmitted through a USB key and the >>> manner in which USB keys are evolving from toys, pens, pendants, what is to >>> stop anyone from penetrating a nation's defence. >>> >> >> The memory card in any digital camera (or phone) is in effect a USB >> stick. My camera/phone even came with a USB stick adapter to plug the >> [micro-SD] memory card into. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hakik at hakik.org Thu Aug 9 04:27:15 2012 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 09:27:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <50224879.9050609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: At 13:15 08-08-2012, Roland Perry wrote: >In message <50224879.9050609 at itforchange.net>, at 16:37:37 on Wed, 8 >Aug 2012, parminder writes > >>>Well, there are other possible scenarios that you haven't listed, >>>but number (2) is much closer to the current situation than (1). >> >>That would mean that it makes the system much more >>capture-resistant if instead of the present distribution of root >>server operators, 9 in the US and 3 in US friendly countries, we >>have these servers > >server operators. Their [anycast] servers are spread quite widely already. > >>distributed in a more geopolitically equitous manner - as I >>suggested, for a start RIRs of Africa, LA and Asia Pacific get one >>each, and perhaps one more in each of these continents at a reputed >>public technical institute. What do you say? > >I think my task here is done. A technically consistent question is >being asked, I'll leave the politics to others. To me technicalities should be run through policies and clear consensus without being constricted by politics! Best regards, Hakikur >-- >Roland Perry > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 04:59:30 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 09:59:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <50224879.9050609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5Z$n0ieyv3IQFAds@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 09:27:15 on Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Hakikur Rahman writes >>I think my task here is done. A technically consistent question is >>being asked, I'll leave the politics to others. > >To me technicalities should be run through policies and clear consensus >without being constricted by politics! Some technicalities are facts - like there being 12 root server operators, and what the function of a root server is. Changing these facts would indeed require a new consensus policy, but is very likely to be affected by politics. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hakik at hakik.org Thu Aug 9 06:24:44 2012 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 11:24:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5Z$n0ieyv3IQFAds@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <50224879.9050609@itforchange.net> <5Z$n0ieyv3IQFAds@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: At 09:59 09-08-2012, Roland Perry wrote: >In message , at >09:27:15 on Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Hakikur Rahman writes > >>>I think my task here is done. A technically consistent question is >>>being asked, I'll leave the politics to others. >> >>To me technicalities should be run through policies and clear >>consensus without being constricted by politics! > >Some technicalities are facts - like there being 12 root server >operators, and what the function of a root server is. > >Changing these facts would indeed require a new consensus policy, >but is very likely to be affected by politics. Agreed on your candid comment. Yes, they require a new consensus policy. But, I would say facts may comes first to harness the goodness, may politics remain at the top with less shadow! But, we can always create a bottom up policy support approach. Best regards, Hakikur >-- >Roland Perry > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 06:15:52 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:45:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50238DD8.3060506@itforchange.net> David On Wednesday 08 August 2012 07:35 PM, David Conrad wrote: > On Aug 7, 2012, at 11:38 PM, parminder wrote: >> When I and others argued why US cannot be relied on to have the unilateral authority to change the root file at its will - the MAIN argument by David and others was; the 13, or at least 9, root zone operators will very likely simply refuse to publish a file so changed by the US. > Actually, my MAIN argument was that it is ridiculously unlikely that the US government would destroy everything it has invested in its push to "privatize" Internet resource management by bypassing documented policies and procedures to force an inappropriate change in the root zone. It would just be silly. Lets then first at least agree that your MAIN argument is indeed political, right! It is not technical. Now, many say that such arguments as you give above are used by people ( maybe not you) with political agendas, however good and virtuous they may be (US is good, China isnt, lets propagate openness and democracy etc). So much, therefore, for your admonishing 'folks with political agendas' below. > However, even if the US government decided to destroy all their efforts in privatizing Internet resource management, inappropriate modifications to the root zone would still have to be published to the root servers and be accepted by resolver operators. Ignoring lawsuits from ICANN and Verisign (since this scenario presupposes the USG doesn't act rationally), since 3 root server operators are outside the US and only 5 root servers are directly associated with parts of the US government, the rogue US government would have no direct way to force all of the root servers to accept the inappropriate root zone updates. For root operators within US, you are wrong. You havent heard of emergency powers?! And the US president is trying to take up more wrt to the Internet infrastructure, which includes the root. About the 3 outside ones, influences and security relationship obligations can work, and in my judgement will work, in what gets perceived as collective strategic need. > Further, resolver operators, once made aware of inappropriate changes to the root, could take steps if they so desired to address the issue (e.g., point their resolvers at different root servers). The implied chaos of all of this in and of itself would make "ridiculously" turn into "ludicrously" (or more directly: "it ain't gonna happen"). The whole argument is based on the proposition that the US gov, and presumably US people are not stupid, but other countries (not only China and Russia) can hardly be trusted.... My democratic instinct doesnt allow me to accept this. Such arguments based on such narrow politico-cultural logics are unsustainable, and are in fact, distasteful. > As I said in an earlier message, the focus on root server (operators) is a red herring. I've engaged in this discussion primarily to make sure people understand how the root system, from ICANN to NTIA to Verisign to the root servers, actually works, not how various folks with political agendas would like people to think it works. Uh, back to people with (nefarious) political agendas versus good ones with only neutral technical views and advice :).... Well, to dispel such constructions was one of my MAIN reasons for this discussion. Please note that the only reasonable counter arguments that has been given to my proposal of relocating root server operatorship - whether by Daniel or Ian - are POLITICAL ones. (Even your arguments above are political). So can I once again request the technical community to give up this holier-than-thou attitude - we know the technical facts, if only others will listen. We are primarily discussing politics here. lets be clear. Technical facts remain important, but they should not take the veneer of superiority (and, accordingly, the bearers of technical facts). > Hopefully someone found it useful. > >> (2) Or, indeed, at least potentially, root operators can refuse to publish what is considered as an improperly changed file by the US, and support the internet system continuing to work on the basis of the original 'proper' file > This is actually what I've been arguing (although I believe Stephane disagreed). I believe some of the root server operators, being confronted with an inappropriate zone modification, would refuse to update the zone thereby giving the Internet community time to figure out an alternative to the USG-controlled distribution master and/or saner heads to prevail within the USG. > >> - whereby, it is useful to redistribute root server operator-ship among agencies that together are more likely to resist US unilateralism. > Knock yourself out. There are 12 organizations you can talk to to convince them they should give up their root server(s). If you'd like contact information, let me know. If you do pursue this, I (honestly) wish you luck -- my interactions with the root server operators most typically spike my blood pressure, but that's probably just me. The world is not just based on private interest based private contracts. Our basic social systems and structures - and Internet is now certainly such a system, will be governed by social contract and pubic law. If something is the right thing for all of us, we will find ways to do it. On the other hand, it is not about my arguing with a private operator. It is about normative view of what is right and what not.... You undervalue the strength of say, a very large part of civil society, and many if not all of tech community, solidly taking a stand that - yes, the present CIR management system is unfair and undemocratic. While we must amend the root zone authorisation process, in the meantime, we should ask, say 3 of the US root operators to give up their ownership in favour of three RIRs. Let us take such a common statement to all possible forums - including to ICANN ( which I know will simply rub off its hands). Let it be adopted as a soft resolution/ rec by many parties at the IGF, etc etc. Let us lobby with the US gov, and other govs, including EU etc..... this is the kind of thing civil society does. And IGC is basically a civil society forum. regards parminder > Regards, > -drc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 06:23:20 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 15:53:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> On Thursday 09 August 2012 01:53 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server > misunderstanding (still...) As someone who has consistently expressed > opposition to the US unilateral position as regards root zone file > authorisation, let me say also that I do not believe Parminder’s > scenario 2 is workable. Ian, I am fine with your political reasoning, and see some merit in it. But, we should accept that this is indeed a political debate. And also, when we do discuss root file authorisation issue it is not right to bring in the 13 server backup as a political justification of not doing anything or much - something which got done in the earlier discussions on the IANA role. However, dont you see that it is becoming politically unsustainable to not do anything about the issue of the control of the root. Should we inform the African and the Indian, minister, and I am sure, numerous other ministers, that civil society had a long discussion on their concerns regarding unequitous distribution of root operators, and came to the conclusion that other than the US and a few western countries we are not able to trust anyone - even if it were a regional system like an RIR - with root operations, even when root server operation in a non monopoly multi point redundancy operation. I dont think it will look nice at all. For instance, in the middle of the ITU staff and some authoritarian countries canvassing for more 'innovative' solutions through the ITU and perhaps other means as well. Do you think that as a premier global IG civil society group, we are giving the appropriate response to the developing situation by just keeping mum and thus supporting the status quo. It will be most unfortunate if we simply dont have any position on these issues, or even maybe 2-3 different sets, in these crucial times for global IG. I repeat that seeking 3 US organisations to cede their root server operation to 3 RIRs in developing world will be an important first step. It will in fact look so good for the CS to make such a demand solidly, (for instance, to the political actors in the South - non gov and gov - who I can tell you, have limited trust in the neutrality of what is called the global IG civil society). However I do full agree with you, Carlos and others that the real issue is the IANA authority with the US. For this see below.... > snip > > I come back to my original position – and perhaps the only one where > we might get some agreement and also even the possibility of some > action. The authorisation role is completely unnecessary, whether > carried out by USA or UN or whatever. Please do not transfer it to > another body – just remove it. The authorisation is based on > recommendations involving a set of very consultative and exhaustive > procedures. Once the ICANN processes recommend a change after these > consultations, let that be the final authorisation. You know that even if the US agreed to such a position in its contract with ICANN, all ICANN actions remain subject to US court directives and to the emergency executive powers in the US. So, the ICANN has to be an international body, drawing its constitutive authority from a source other than the US state. Also, since ICANN has a huge operational role, it is always better to have an oversight review structure above and separate from the operational body, This is a general sound political principle. So, I still go back to my proposal for a non UN international, say, Technical Oversight Board, with members from different regions selected through an innovative process (which can be discussed) and who have a very clearly laid out and constrained mandate of oversight and confirming root changes, and whose decisions are to be taken only by a big majority..... > > > I can perceive a situation where USA might actually accept that > proposition, consistent with increasing independence of ICANN. I cant > see a situation where they transfer their authorisation function to > any other body. US will finally have to accept what the world's opinion comes out solidly in favour of. That is how global politics play out. It has huge stakes in global Internet system, especially economic, and must talk, negotiate, and where needed make concessions. It is just that we give up too easily.... parminder > > Ian Peter > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *parminder > *Reply-To: *, parminder > > *Date: *Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:46:35 +0530 > *To: * > *Subject: *Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root > server misunderstanding (still...) > > > > On Wednesday 08 August 2012 12:35 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > > > > Parminder, > > > > it may be useful to separate your problem into two parts: > > > > > 1. authorization for changes in the root; > > > > Thanks for the kind advice, Alex. In fact, I have insisted repeatedly > that I am only dealing with the second part as below. The first part > was dealt in an earlier discussion in June with the subject line > 'oversight'. > > > > > > > 2. operation of the independent root servers, including their > submission or not to an outrageously arbitrary and deletereous > change in the root. > > > Yes, this alone is the issue under consideration here. > > > > > > > > That, I think, will help you parse the apparent contradictions. We > all have a problem with the first's asymmetric-power situation; > the second is a fail-safe mechanism for the potential excesses of > the first. > > > > > So you agree that independence of root server operators indeed serves > as a 'fail-safe mechanism for the potential excesses' of the > unilateral root changing power with the US. > > In that case, you may agree that making MORE sure that the root > operators are MORE independent of US gov will make the system MORE > fail-safe or capture-resistant. In practical terms I mean what if > instead of the present distribution of root server operators, 9 in the > US and 3 in US friendly countries, we have these servers distributed > in a more geopolitically equitous manner - as I suggested, for a start > RIRs of Africa, LA and Asia Pacific get one each, and perhaps one more > in each of these continents at a reputed public technical institute. > What do you say? > > Lets first agree on the need and desirability of such re-allocation, > before we go to the question of how to do it. > > (apologies for some repeat language from my email to Roland) > > parminder > > > > > > > > (Fail-safe does not mean "it cannot fail"; it means "if it fails > it devolves to a safe state", sort of when well designed elevators > go out of electrical power they don't sink to the bottom and > crash, nor just get stuck; they fall to the next floor down and > open the doors) > > > > > (As a side: it may be valuable for IT4Change to recruit the > assistance of some Internet engineers, for example by forming an > all-volunteer Technical Advisory Board, if you don't find this too > meddlesome. I've seen such an Rx work wonders in other, similar > organizations elsewhere and it's a win-win. If too meddlesome > please ignore. Again, happy to be corrected by those more > knowledgeable.) > > > > > Yours, > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Desde:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder > [parminder at itforchange.net] > *Enviado el:* miércoles, 08 de agosto de 2012 01:38 > *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Klein > *Asunto:* Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root > server misunderstanding (still...) > > > > Norbert, > > > On Wednesday 08 August 2012 07:08 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: > > > I do NOT understand what the debate here is about - discussing > the location of the 12, or of the many mirrors - when it is a > debate over possible changes in the political control of this > system. > > Only what happens or does not happen on the Alpha Server > makes any difference (and it is replicated down the lines > throughout all the sub-systems) I understand. Wrong? > > So any question about control of the 12 and the mirrors is > only about technical details. If the "control" question is > pointing at anything else but the Alpha Server it is not > changing anything fundamentally. Correct or wrong? > > > You have asked a good question - what is the debate here :) > > You seem to agree with Carlos that the political issue is ONLY > vis a vis the control over the alpha server, which we now know is > in fact not the alpha server that a new 'stealth server'. All > other root servers, including their anycast extensions, simply and > ONLY reflect the root zone file, and so it does not matter who > controls them. As for location, there has not been any known > difficulty to locate new anycasts anywhere. Fair enough. > > Now, I will have to take you, and others who may still be with > us, to a long discussion on 'US's oversight' over CIRs - chiefly > the IANA function, that took place in June on this list. David was > greatly involved in it. When I and others argued why US cannot be > relied on to have the unilateral authority to change the root file > at its will - the MAIN argument by David and others was; the 13, > or at least 9, root zone operators will very likely simply refuse > to publish a file so changed by the US. This 'system feature' was > listed as the MAIN defence that things are not as problematic as > some of us are making them to be. McTim, Lee and others made the > same argument of the 'independent decision making' by root server > operators, to minimise what was seen as the 'scare' over US's > fiddling with the root in its own interest. At the end of this > email I provide a few quotes from among several on how this single > argument was repeated employed. > > Whereby, when we argue about the problem with US's unilateral > control over the root, the argument of 'independence of root > operators' is invoked. Such independence means that the '13 root > operators' systems is seen, if required, as being able to go > beyond simply reflecting the root zone file. Well, it has to be > one of the two; > > (1) Either, root operators can and will ONLY reflect the root > zone file in the 'stealth server', whatever happens - in which > case, we should not use the argument of their deemed independence > in discussions on problems vis a vis US's unilateral IANA > oversight powers > > (2) Or, indeed, at least potentially, root operators can refuse > to publish what is considered as an improperly changed file by the > US, and support the internet system continuing to work on the > basis of the original 'proper' file - whereby, it is useful to > redistribute root server operator-ship among agencies that > together are more likely to resist US unilateralism. > > One of the above two must be true, and both cant be true, because > they are logically exclusive arguments. It cant be that (2) is > true in a discussion over IANA authority, but it becomes untrue > when we discuss distribution of root server operators in a > geo-political even and just manner. This alone is my case. > > I can accept either (1) to be true, in which case the argument > of independence of root server operators to publish what they want > should NOT be used in an IANA related argument (David, McTim, Lee > et all, are you there :) ) > > Or I can accept (2) to be true, in which case, I will appeal to > Carlos for sympathy to the argument that redistribution of root > server operation authority may be useful to be considered, while > agreeing that IANA authority is a much more important question. > > (To be fair to David, he has said even in the present thread of > discussion that 'The diversity of architecture ( of root server > operators) and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature as > it reduces the opportunities for "capture". If I surmise right, > Carlos, and perhaps you, Norbert, do not think this of being of > any real significance.) > > So, indeed there are real difference of views between, for > instance David and Carlos, on the political significance of root > server operator's independence (or absence of it) - and thus of > political significance of who the 13 root server operators are. > > Such independence (or absence of it) of root operators, > especially in the face of an eventuality of US's rogue behaviour, > thus remains a key political issue, and in good part is the point > of debate here. The answer to this question would determine > whether it is worth the effort to consider reallocating root > server operation authority in a more equitous manner. > > parminder > > > > > > > > Norbert Klein > > > -- > Norbert Klein > nhklein at gmx.net > http://www.thinking21.org > > > > > > This is the only place in which there is > NTIA-authorized/controlled > change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and > all the other 12 > and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the > Anycast servers > being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases > (except for six > replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). > > A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not > give the > "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother > of all > servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, > depending on your > level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters > in Virginia. > NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended > in existing > ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the > Affirmation of > Commitments says. > > If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one > of the 13 is > actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the > Internet stop? > No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the > Internet > continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the > root, Virginia, > until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) > > If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding > the DNS, can the > Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to > one of the 13 > servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to > one of the 12 > "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most > popular for this)? > > Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is > better to keep > a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root > servers, 16 of > the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, > hosting many > millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- > millions of > websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these > servers and > corresponding hosting services. > > Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly > common > knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to > operate... > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: > > > David, > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: > > > Parminder, > > On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder > > > wrote: > > > Now, we know that there are three kinds of > root servers, the > authoritative root server (in which changes > are made to the root file > vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and > then the any number of > mirrors that can allegedly be created by > making an investment of 3k > usd . > > > No. > > There is a "distribution master". > > > So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone > file as the highest > level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply > have said 'the > highest level of Internet's root architecture'. > However, your chastising > may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep > technical training > like Daniel said is a recent email; > > "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root > server instances. > Each of these is an actual root server." > > Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion > where we are > mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root > file. The hundreds > of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root > servers'. An actual > root server is a shorthand for an actual root server > operator, who > exercises control (at least potentially) over the root > zone file that he > publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions > with you on the > IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian > minister seems > rather better informed than 'technical experts' here > on this particular > issue. He seems to know better which is a true or > actual root server and > which is not. Quote from the same interview where he > quite wrongly said > that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers > (he should have > said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 > root servers). > > > "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data > but without > mechanisms of control and intervention." > > Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what > they suppress (or > forget to mention) depends on their techno-political > proclivities. Isnt > it obvious! > > In response to my another email, you have asked me to > "provide examples > of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are > ''thoroughly > wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". > Apart from the above > example, I will try and find others in your email below :) > > > > (snip) > > That's all. There are no special "13" machines > that are the "true > root servers" from which other lesser machines > mirror the root zone. > > > Well, you did understand early in this discussion that > the argument is > not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root > server operators', so > why dont we stick to the real point of contestation > rather than create > strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a > few days ago > > "The concern (as I understand it) is that the > administration of > those root servers is in the hands of 12 > organizations, of which 9 > are US-based. " (David) > > Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not > the network > latency problem. In that email, you understood the > concern right. It is > about root server operators, and the term '13 root > servers' is loosely > used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the > real issue, and it > was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African > ministers the > latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted > to in terms to > availability of root server mirrors - a very different > issue. Similarly, > this current discussion is continuously pulled towards > the convenient > description of geographic extensions through mirrors > of root servers, > away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against > distribution) of > power to change root file or resist changes to root > file that is with > the root server operators and none at all with anycast > mirror operators. > > It is very interesting that when I did that long > discussion with you, > David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your > almost entire case > was based on how the root server operators are really > independent (which > is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and > this is the insurance > against any US mischief with the root zone file. > However, now when we > are discussing the power of root server operators, > which is > geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' > with the root > server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be > completely > evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted > to how anyone can > set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 > root servers > (meaning, root server operators) being not distributed > well enough are > merely stupid! > > How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such > very different > manifestations in two different political arguments? > This is what I mean > by 'technical advice' being warped by strong > techno-political > viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I > am stating a > sociological 'fact'. > > > > (snip) > > > What I see is that, while there are of course > clearly very > significant differences between these three > layers or kinds of root > servers, much of the 'technical input' on this > list that I have come > across seem to focus on the non-difference and > greatly underplay the > difference. > > > As discussed above, the distinction you are making > doesn't exist. > > > Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear > distinction that you did > understand and articulate in your earlier email in > terms of > concentration of ability for "administration of those > root servers is in > the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are > US-based. " There is > obvious and very important distinction between the > 'power' of root zone > operator and someone operating a mirror. This > distinction is the very > basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you > have easily and > conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions > between the root file > layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp > between these two > latter layers . This is done through a unilateral > decision to speak > about one thing when the other party is speaking about > quite another, or > at least another aspect of the issue - which here is > the issue of > 'control' rather than availability of root file for > resolving queries. > > > > > This I think is politically motivated, though > disguised as factual > neutral/ technical information. > > > Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes > it difficult to > communicate. > > > :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to > argue that when a > group has strong political inclinations - as the so > called technical > community has - its technical advice gets accordingly > wrapped... Call > it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. > But also (try to ) > see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies > in every single > political utterance from the South. Worse its > conspiracy theory is > further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult! > > > (snip) > > You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due > to the default > maximum DNS message size still exists. While > there are now ways > around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 > extension to the DNS > specification), these ways are not universally > supported and as such, > cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. > > > No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains > that the number > 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you > are not too > interested to explore that direction while I am > (again, political > proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing > multilingual gtlds also > considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few > years back. > Finally, political considerations helped get over that > unnecessary and > exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the > decisions, the US > centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same > establishment with > some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second > instance. > > > > > So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and > make people of the > world happy. > > > Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt > everyone having their own > root server would make the people of the world happy. > > > This is 'the' most important point - whether there is > any justification > at all to increase the number or root servers and/or > to reallocate / > redistribute them in a manner that is politically more > justifiable and > thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. > > regards > parminder > > > > > Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate > root servers in a > geo-graphically equitable manner, as > Sivasubramanian has suggested, > especially when it seems to make no difference > at all to anyone. Why > not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. > > > As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of > the root servers are > independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the > Verisign contract with > the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG > Departments), albeit > each of these operators deal with their root > servers differently). How > root server operators distribute their instances > is entirely their > decision. To date, there has apparently been > insufficient > justification for those root server operators to > decide to distribute > their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable > manner". > > With that said, there are at least two root server > operators ("L" > (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated > they are willing to > give a root server instance to anyone that asks. > Perhaps the > ill-informed ministers could be informed of this > so they could be happy? > > > > I read that there is no central control over > the 13 or at least 9 of > these root servers. Is it really true? > > > Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of > centralized control is > seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities > for "capture". > > > > Is the 13 root server architecture not > something that is aligned to > what goes in and from the authoritative root > server. > > > Root server architecture is independent of how the > root zone is > distributed. > > > > If it is, why can these root servers not be > reallocated in the way > tlds have been reallocated. Can they be > reallocated or cant they? > > > In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root > server" boils down to > transferring the root server's IP address and > telling the new owner > the zone transfer password. > > Before the DNS became a political battleground, > root server > "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) > when (a) the person > to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed > employers or (b) the > assets of the organization running the root server > were acquired by > another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root > server would either > require the existing root server operator > voluntarily giving the root > server IP address to a different organization or > that IP address would > have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. > > > > I also read that the it is not about 13 > physical root servers, but 13 > root server operators, > > > Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two > root servers). > > > > so the number 13 is about the root server > ownership points, and not > physical location points. > > > In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses > that are "owned" by 12 > organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. > > > > Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the > ownership points in a > geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva > suggests, probably one to > an Indian Institute of Technology. > > > Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that > efforts to provide > infrastructure (not root server infrastructure > specifically albeit the > same folks do provide anycast instances for a root > server operator) in > India were blocked by demands for bribes greater > than the value of > hardware being shipped into the country (see > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). > > > > Why this is not done, or cant be done are the > real questions in the > present debate. Any answers? > > > Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does > not exist. There is > no single entity that can dictate to the root > server operators "you > will give your root server to IIT". You and > others that care about > this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign > that it would be in > their corporate best interests for them to > relocate administrative > control of one of their root servers to India, but > it would be up to > Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its > shareholders) to make that > decision. > > > > Is the real problem here that if root server > allocation issue is > opened up, countries would like to go > country-wise on root servers > (as the recent China's proposal for > 'Autonomous Internet') which will > skew the present non-nation wise Internet > topology (other than its US > centricity), which is an important feature of > the Internet. > > > No. Placement of root servers has no impact on > Internet topology. > Really. Distributing root server instances can be > helpful in reducing > root query latency and improving resiliency in the > event of network > disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the > "root server > allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly > given pretty much > anyone can get a root server instance if they care > and are willing to > abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a > root server. > > Merging a subsequent note: > > On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: > > > ' administrative access will not be available' > to the anycast > operator to his own anycast server. > > > Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with > computer systems, you > will be told that if you have physical access to a > machine, you can > gain control of that machine. Obtaining such > control would violate > the terms by which the machine was granted, but > that's irrelevant. > > > > This is a pretty centralised control, not at > all the picture one got > from all the technically well informed > insiders who seem to suggest > on this list that everything is open, > uncontrolled and hunky-dory and > kind of anyone can set up and operate root > servers. > > > I'm getting the impression that you read what you > prefer to read, not > what is actually written. No one (to my > knowledge) has suggested > "everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory". > Root service is > considered critical infrastructure and is treated > as such, so anyone > asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be > confused at best. > Can you provide a reference to anyone making this > suggestion? > > As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would > say the way the root > servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not > among them. > > > > Was the African minister really so wrong, or > even the Indian minister? > > > Yes. Really. > > Regards, > -drc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 07:07:55 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:07:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50238DD8.3060506@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <50238DD8.3060506@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <12B49D2E-DA21-4D22-AED2-0170B8EB54B2@digsys.bg> On Aug 9, 2012, at 1:15 PM, parminder wrote: > >> Further, resolver operators, once made aware of inappropriate changes to the root, could take steps if they so desired to address the issue (e.g., point their resolvers at different root servers). The implied chaos of all of this in and of itself would make "ridiculously" turn into "ludicrously" (or more directly: "it ain't gonna happen"). > > The whole argument is based on the proposition that the US gov, and presumably US people are not stupid, but other countries (not only China and Russia) can hardly be trusted.... My democratic instinct doesnt allow me to accept this. Such arguments based on such narrow politico-cultural logics are unsustainable, and are in fact, distasteful. Since it was me, who gave "China and Russia" as examples and you didn't comment my post, but include this assumption here, let me put this in some perspective. First, I don't believe either China, or Russia could be considered any less "trustworthy" parties than say, the USA. At least, they are not that financially dependent on third parties. Second, there is no doubt, that *today* both China and Russia exercise practices, that your "democratic instinct" should immediately "recognise" as non-democratic. Yet, in these countries sometimes such "non-democratic" actions are considered completely normal and logical. By the way, much of these practices are hardly visible from outside. Third, let's imagine for a moment, that the situation was reversed. That it was (say) Russia that was in control more or less, of the root server operations, IANA was an Russian Government agency and ICANN was an Moscow or Novosibirsk registered corporation. The "three non-US root server operators" were situated in Bulgaria, Cuba and China (most probably run by SS-type structure). How would be your proposal to "diversify to Africa, the USA and say, France" viewed by the Russian powers-that-are? Stupid - no. Less mature - sometimes. Trustworthy - if it matches their interests of the day. Finally, let me remind you, that I do understand the russian way of thinking way better than you could imagine and didn't present this opinion lightly. Can't say the same for China, but have my observations and while they are different -- don't spark much confidence. In any case, it is to me, who will judge whose politics and practices are more adequate. > Uh, back to people with (nefarious) political agendas versus good ones with only neutral technical views and advice :).... Well, to dispel such constructions was one of my MAIN reasons for this discussion. Please note that the only reasonable counter arguments that has been given to my proposal of relocating root server operatorship - whether by Daniel or Ian - are POLITICAL ones. (Even your arguments above are political). So can I once again request the technical community to give up this holier-than-thou attitude - we know the technical facts, if only others will listen. We are primarily discussing politics here. lets be clear. Technical facts remain important, but they should not take the veneer of superiority (and, accordingly, the bearers of technical facts). You read these counter arguments as political, because, apparently your whole construct is based on politics. Step for a moment from the political soapbox and you will see there are very valid technical reasons to fight this political nonsense. Splitting the DNS root is extremely serious technical challenge and difficult to resolve technical problem. We could live with split DNS root in the early days of Internet, but today, more and more protocols depend on DNS consistency. Any serious flaws in the DNS management (the non-technical part) will mark the DNS technology "not trusted" and will lead to needs for other technologies to be developed in order for Internet to continue growing (in technological sense). This is a lot of work and will cost enormous resources. It is just cheaper, in both technical sense and in political sense to leave the DNS root server system as it is now. (correct, I added the political aspect for your convenience and emphasys) >> >>> - whereby, it is useful to redistribute root server operator-ship among agencies that together are more likely to resist US unilateralism. >> Knock yourself out. There are 12 organizations you can talk to to convince them they should give up their root server(s). If you'd like contact information, let me know. If you do pursue this, I (honestly) wish you luck -- my interactions with the root server operators most typically spike my blood pressure, but that's probably just me. > > The world is not just based on private interest based private contracts. Our basic social systems and structures - and Internet is now certainly such a system, will be governed by social contract and pubic law. However "nice" this sounds, everyday life and history prove it is not true. Each and every human being is motivated by strictly personal and private interests and about the only reason why each human sacrifices his intrinsic freedoms is to comply with the atavistic need to have the human race survive. Almost all abuse used by politicians over the millennia is based on convincing individuals that whatever stupid things they do, it is for their ancestors's sake. > If something is the right thing for all of us, we will find ways to do it. On the other hand, it is not about my arguing with a private operator. It is about normative view of what is right and what not.... You undervalue the strength of say, a very large part of civil society, and many if not all of tech community, solidly taking a stand that - yes, the present CIR management system is unfair and undemocratic. Just what would the "civil society" do, when the DNS root is split? Go on demonstrations? Collect "me too" petitions on Facebook? Write to their Congressman? Start the October Revolution? In contrast, the "private interest" root server operator(s) can and do a lot for this not to happen. By the way, this whole discussion reminds me again, why I dislike politics. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 07:18:47 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:18:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Aug 9, 2012, at 1:23 PM, parminder wrote: > > > However, dont you see that it is becoming politically unsustainable to not do anything about the issue of the control of the root. Should we inform the African and the Indian, minister, and I am sure, numerous other ministers, that civil society had a long discussion on their concerns regarding unequitous distribution of root operators, and came to the conclusion that other than the US and a few western countries we are not able to trust anyone - even if it were a regional system like an RIR - with root operations, even when root server operation in a non monopoly multi point redundancy operation. > The best thing about Internet is that we don't have to tell them anything. The Internet, whether someone likes it or not, is in fact an network of private networks. You can regulate it all the way you desire, but the ultimate decisions how it will be run will be taken by those private parties. >From this it follows, directly, that if the Indian (whatever) minister wants something to change with how Internet's DNS root is run, they should convince (all) those private parties to run it differently. While you may thing it all depends on the US government and those 13 organisations, the reality is that the involved parties are way, way more. Those 13 are the tip of the (Internet) iceberg. This Internet thing was designed (in every aspect) to survive nuclear war. It will surely survive a minister, or two, or a dozen governments, or all of them at once. Daniel PS: I believe, like apparently others, that this whole discussion is going nowhere. It has already fulfilled it's useful purpose to spread some knowledge on how and why the DNS root runs this way. PPS: By the way, I have informed a number of Bulgarian ministries and what not, of the above. They all had "politically unsustainable" situations at hand. So what happened? Governments changed, new ministries came, they had to be educated too.. such is life. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 07:33:31 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:33:31 +0500 Subject: [governance] On; Is there any hope for the Internet Governance Forum? | IGP Blog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Milton and all, I was just reading through the article Milton published on his blog (link below) and one of the questions that continues to strike was that is ITU trying to tackle through the ITRs where the IGF is failing and falling apart? Secondly is the private sector contributing to the overall ITR paranoia by lobbying and pushing certain legislations and surveillance activity in the name of national security and cyber defence stifling HR and FoE that will be later framed as the fault of the ITU, ITRs, failed IGF and weak and corrupt governments! We have seen other UN supported broader settings with a weak foundation slowly crumbling without any outcome such as the UNGAID though the analogy may not truly fit this argument but can be used as a recent reference. Leaving the CSTD/ECOSOC approved IGF improvements aside, as I remain highly skeptical they will ever get implemented, the role of private sector remains self possessed and sneaky to keep things in their hands and exploit their position and sustain their self-designed grip on the global Internet development business. On the note about the CIR session, why did we forget the IG4D session that was thrown out in every other direction. On certain occasions, one of our own CS MAG member was seen slowly tilting towards private sector led objections to CS backed interventions. That member's stake was private sector funding into their group's project. Private agendas and cashing the weak IGF setting is also an opportunity for some in the name of advocacy and capacity raising. No one raises capacity on the solid changes required to evolve the IGF into that initial belief that supported its founding. That also leads to losing ground for participation from LDCs etc. Sadly, the IGF private sector stakeholder setting is heavily if not completely filled with US centric and developed nation business backed lobbyists and the same faces that are there are everywhere in every Internet policy and freedom of expression dialogue in the world ironically both leading and moderating discussions portraying local business owners or self-identified locals as leaders or catalysts of revolutions in those countries. My hopes with the IGF are becoming skeptical every passing day as I see it lacking impact. First, since 2005, there has been no delegation from my or many South Asian/SAARC countries to the IGF. They participate in the ITU because it funds them to almost all of its meetings and gives space to country delegations etc in whatever form or model it runs. On the other hand, countries like mine and many others being pushed and funded by the Internet private sector backed lobbyists to quickly design and implement repressive policies and legislations before the wcit ITR's happen so that such legislations and policy changes can be blamed on ITRs. Examples include development or modifications to electronic, privacy, e-payment safety-nets, cybercrime legislation backed by ideas from commonwealth cybercrime initiative without leading any open press releases and public or multistakeholder consultations. And all the things I have shared are in the open and happening whereas we continue to believe and live in a fools paradise about evolving a rosy world. Internet Public Policy and any related notion is being tangled by private sector lobbying. There are examples even on this list where Private Sector people from my country portray themselves as CS have and are participating in key igc activities including nomcom processes and have been floating false credentials and whenever pointed out are ignored in the name of openness and inclusiveness. How long will we be allowing ourselves to be eaten from the inside where as other IGF stakeholder groups completely ignore us. Sorry this is not ICANN and no, it has its own crazy mess! I am becoming self-critical because the IGF multistakeholder-ism itself is being gnawed down from the inside due to limited regular self-assessment and watching out who tries to take part in our open processes. Every stakeholder in the IGF process needs some self-reflection as to what are we doing to the future of a single and open Internet with our private agendas. http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/07/30/is-there-any-hope-for-the-internet-governance-forum/ Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 08:20:08 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 17:50:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l In-Reply-To: <8A9F122E-AD3F-4A9D-8D8C-59EF62DB2748@acm.org> References: <8A9F122E-AD3F-4A9D-8D8C-59EF62DB2748@acm.org> Message-ID: <5023AAF8.40600@itforchange.net> On Thursday 09 August 2012 05:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 9 Aug 2012, at 11:43, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: > >> However, given the concepts raised regarding the availability of 2nd >> level domains under gTLDs has policy implications that impacts >> individual Internet end users, the gTLD RG recommends that the issues >> raised be referred to the At-Large new gTLD Working Group >> (https://community.icann.org/x/8Yoi) for discussion and possible >> policy recommendations. > > Within the At-Large New gTLD Working Group, Evan has already asked that generic word private TLDs be added as an issue the ANgWG discuss further. I am assuming this specific case can fall under that category. Is that ok? Yes, private tlds is by far the biggest issue/ problem with the new gtld process. Thanks to anyone who is raising this issue. I see no reason why private tlds should be allowed, and what public interest is served by allowing them. Some may make a case to allow private gltds for very well established and proven trade marks or registered names, when the name is very clearly exclusive, and unlikely to provide a new form of unfair monopoly (like, maybe IBM). However, I dont see why even that may be so necessary! But that is a relatively lesser issue. Private gltds using generic names like .book must be an absolute NO...... I dont know how any such proposal survived so many committee, reviews etc that may have gone into the decision about new gtlds... parminder > > I have added the text quoted above as a note on that entry in the work table . Please let me know if there is more action required at this time. > > thanks > > avri > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 08:27:05 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:27:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] Iran's ministries to go offline: phase one of move to intranet society In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <502299E3.4030508@gmx.net> Message-ID: Wasn't it Cuba that was doing this for years? They say, history is cyclic... and by the way, FOSS has nothing to do with it. Daniel On Aug 8, 2012, at 8:19 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Yeup, everyone will be kept off the HARAM or forbidden Internet that is the western agenda against Iran. > > Alternatively citizens will only be allowed to use the Halal Internet based on locally hosted and acceptable cached content deployed over a network of FOSS platforms and technologies. > > Fouad Bajwa > > On Aug 8, 2012 9:56 PM, "Norbert Klein" wrote: > > http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-08/07/iran-offline > > And the rest of the people will also have to stay "inside"? > > -- > Norbert Klein > nhklein at gmx.net > http://www.thinking21.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 9 08:36:35 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 15:36:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l In-Reply-To: <5023AAF8.40600@itforchange.net> References: <8A9F122E-AD3F-4A9D-8D8C-59EF62DB2748@acm.org> <5023AAF8.40600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, looking at the New gTLDs that were introduced in the past two rounds, some were successful (such as .biz) while others were not (.museum is a big flop). While I am not a huge fan of introducing 1000s of New gTLDs at one shot, some of the private gTLDs will be deployed as means to create more brand trust. For example, Apple Inc. applied for .apple. From my understanding of this application, Apple Inc. will use this TLD - partly - to introduce applications for their various products such as an iPhone application X will take the name x.iphone.apple. This increases brand perception and trust amongst users. However, I would say that some gTLDs applied for do not make any sense (I do not want to mention any here as means not to insult their respective applicants). While innovation and brand perception are the theme of many applications, there are many other ugly faces for others. Fahd On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:20 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 09 August 2012 05:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> On 9 Aug 2012, at 11:43, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: >> >> However, given the concepts raised regarding the availability of 2nd >>> level domains under gTLDs has policy implications that impacts >>> individual Internet end users, the gTLD RG recommends that the issues >>> raised be referred to the At-Large new gTLD Working Group >>> (https://community.icann.org/**x/8Yoi) >>> for discussion and possible >>> policy recommendations. >>> >> >> Within the At-Large New gTLD Working Group, Evan has already asked that >> generic word private TLDs be added as an issue the ANgWG discuss further. >> I am assuming this specific case can fall under that category. Is that ok? >> > > Yes, private tlds is by far the biggest issue/ problem with the new gtld > process. Thanks to anyone who is raising this issue. I > see no reason why private tlds should be allowed, and what public interest > is served by allowing them. > > Some may make a case to allow private gltds for very well established and > proven trade marks or registered names, when the name is very clearly > exclusive, and unlikely to provide a new form of unfair monopoly (like, > maybe IBM). However, I dont see why even that may be so necessary! But that > is a relatively lesser issue. Private gltds using generic names like .book > must be an absolute NO...... I dont know how any such proposal survived so > many committee, reviews etc that may have gone into the decision about new > gtlds... > > parminder > > > > >> I have added the text quoted above as a note on that entry in the work >> table >> **>. Please let me know if there is more action required at this time. >> >> thanks >> >> avri >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.**org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.**org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 09:01:41 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:01:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l In-Reply-To: <5023AAF8.40600@itforchange.net> References: <8A9F122E-AD3F-4A9D-8D8C-59EF62DB2748@acm.org> <5023AAF8.40600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <5023AAF8.40600 at itforchange.net>, at 17:50:08 on Thu, 9 Aug 2012, parminder writes >Private gltds using generic names like .book must be an absolute >NO...... I dont know how any such proposal survived so many committee, >reviews etc that may have gone into the decision about new gtlds... If you want to know, there's quite a bit of reading to do. The policy development process was lengthy and complex. But at least it's got a good audit trail. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Thu Aug 9 10:21:08 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 14:21:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l In-Reply-To: References: <8A9F122E-AD3F-4A9D-8D8C-59EF62DB2748@acm.org> <5023AAF8.40600@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B2263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Fahd, all, as Roland says, this is well under way, and in a particularly ripe moment for interventions like yours: after the new-gTLD applications were all received and made public, an open-comment period for objections to TLDs proposed is open. It is about to close (it's been up for weeks and the objections are interesting!!) This is the time to act if you don't like any proposal. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Fahd A. Batayneh [fahd.batayneh at gmail.com] Enviado el: jueves, 09 de agosto de 2012 07:36 Hasta: Parminder CC: IG Caucus Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l Parminder, looking at the New gTLDs that were introduced in the past two rounds, some were successful (such as .biz) while others were not (.museum is a big flop). While I am not a huge fan of introducing 1000s of New gTLDs at one shot, some of the private gTLDs will be deployed as means to create more brand trust. For example, Apple Inc. applied for .apple. From my understanding of this application, Apple Inc. will use this TLD - partly - to introduce applications for their various products such as an iPhone application X will take the name x.iphone.apple. This increases brand perception and trust amongst users. However, I would say that some gTLDs applied for do not make any sense (I do not want to mention any here as means not to insult their respective applicants). While innovation and brand perception are the theme of many applications, there are many other ugly faces for others. Fahd On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:20 PM, parminder > wrote: On Thursday 09 August 2012 05:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote: On 9 Aug 2012, at 11:43, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: However, given the concepts raised regarding the availability of 2nd level domains under gTLDs has policy implications that impacts individual Internet end users, the gTLD RG recommends that the issues raised be referred to the At-Large new gTLD Working Group (https://community.icann.org/x/8Yoi) for discussion and possible policy recommendations. Within the At-Large New gTLD Working Group, Evan has already asked that generic word private TLDs be added as an issue the ANgWG discuss further. I am assuming this specific case can fall under that category. Is that ok? Yes, private tlds is by far the biggest issue/ problem with the new gtld process. Thanks to anyone who is raising this issue. I see no reason why private tlds should be allowed, and what public interest is served by allowing them. Some may make a case to allow private gltds for very well established and proven trade marks or registered names, when the name is very clearly exclusive, and unlikely to provide a new form of unfair monopoly (like, maybe IBM). However, I dont see why even that may be so necessary! But that is a relatively lesser issue. Private gltds using generic names like .book must be an absolute NO...... I dont know how any such proposal survived so many committee, reviews etc that may have gone into the decision about new gtlds... parminder I have added the text quoted above as a note on that entry in the work table . Please let me know if there is more action required at this time. thanks avri _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 10:35:44 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 10:35:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50238DD8.3060506@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <50238DD8.3060506@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 6:15 AM, parminder wrote: authorisation process, in the meantime, we should ask, say 3 of the US root > operators to give up their ownership in favour of three RIRs. > First, you might want to ask the 4 RIRs who are not root-ops if any of them have the means to take over a rootserver operation. > Let us take such a common statement to all possible forums - including to > ICANN ( which I know will simply rub off its hands). Let it be adopted as a > soft resolution/ rec by many parties at the IGF, etc etc. Let us lobby with > the US gov, and other govs, including EU etc..... this is the kind of thing > civil society does. And IGC is basically a civil society forum. > so are the RIRs IMO, but I know you disagree. You misunderstand the dynamic here. ICANN/IGF/EU don't have any say in this matter whatsoever. You need to go to the root operators themselves and ask nicely if they will cooperate in this endeavor. But first you need to have a home for these rootservers that you propose to move, and well-funded homes to boot! -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Thu Aug 9 12:24:45 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:24:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B2263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <8A9F122E-AD3F-4A9D-8D8C-59EF62DB2748@acm.org> <5023AAF8.40600@itforchange.net>, <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B2263@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <5023E44D.8070903@gih.com> Thanks Alejandro! On 09/08/2012 16:21, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > as Roland says, this is well under way, and in a particularly ripe > moment for interventions like yours: after the new-gTLD applications > were all received and made public, an open-comment period for > objections to TLDs proposed is open. > https://gtldcomment.icann.org/comments-feedback/applicationcomment/login Comment period closes on 12 August 2012. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 9 15:39:18 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 21:39:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google to pay record $22.5m fine to FTC over Safari tracking Message-ID: <502411E6.3080109@gmail.com> Google to pay record $22.5m fine to FTC over Safari tracking Internet giant admits it tracked iPhone, iPad and Mac users by circumventing the privacy protections on Safari web browsers * Charles Arthur * guardian.co.uk , Thursday 9 August 2012 18.02 BST * Jump to comments (...) Google at the Moscone Center in San Francisco Google at the Moscone Center in San Francisco. Photograph: Kimihiro Hoshino/AFP/Getty Images Google is to pay a record $22.5m fine to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the US after admitting that it tracked users of Apple 's iPhone , iPad and Mac computers by circumventing the privacy protections on the Safari web browser for "several months" at the end of 2011 and into 2012. The fine is the largest ever paid by a single company to the FTC, which imposed a 20-year privacy order on Google in March 2010 following concerns around the launch of its ill-fated Buzz social network. In the latest case, the FTC's commissioners ruled by a 4-1 majority that Google had breached that order, which demanded that it should not mislead consumers about its privacy practices. Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the FTC, in a statement : "The record setting penalty in this matter sends a clear message to all companies under an FTC privacy order. No matter how big or small, all companies must abide by FTC orders against them and keep their privacy promises to consumers, or they will end up paying many times what it would have cost to comply in the first place." The intrusion would have affected millions of users of Apple devices, which web statistics suggest are used for substantial amounts of mobile browsing in western countries particularly. The FTC began investigating the case six months ago after Jonathan Mayer, a researcher at Stanford University -- once attended by Google's founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin -- discovered that Google's DoubleClick advertising network was overriding safeguards built into the Safari browser that should have prevented cookies being used to track peoples' movements around the web. Cookies can be used as unique identifiers of a user, so that if someone goes from one site to an unrelated one that also uses DoubleClick, the cookie will work as an identifier and mean that the adverts on that site, and their activity there, will be logged and tailored to them. Google's circumvention of the protection -- a system that it protested at the time was also used by other companies -- apparently contradicted the advice in its online Help Center, which at that time told Safari users they did not need to do anything to prevent Google monitoring their actions, because the browser's default settings would block the cookies. The previous largest FTC fine, of almost $19m, was imposed on a US telemarketer accused of duping people into thinking they were making donations to charities. Google has not admitted wrongdoing. But the fine is yet another in a growing list for Google, which fell foul of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) earlier this year over its collection of Wi-Fi data from home and business networks via its Street View cars in 2008. The FCC fined it $50,000 for failing to cooperate with its investigation. The largest payment remains the $500m that it paid to settle a federal case in August 2011 after illegally advertising Canadian-sourced pharmaceuticals to US users . The adverts appeared after being bought by vendors trying to sell pills to US users, who bought AdWords adverts alongside search results. The company escaped prosecution after settling. In a statement, Google said: "We set the highest standards of privacy and security for our users. The FTC is focused on a 2009 help center page published more than two years before our consent decree, and a year before Apple changed its cookie-handling policy. We have now changed that page and taken steps to remove the ad cookies, which collected no personal information, from Apple's browsers." The company is also under investigation in Europe and the US over the question of whether it has used its dominant position in search to push its other products, such as its shopping, video and maps products, ahead of rivals' which would have an equal claim to high ranking in search results. The pressure group Big Brother Watch welcomed the ruling. It said in a statement: "It is a very dangerous precedent for companies to deliberately circumvent privacy protection and so we welcome this ruling as an important milestone in returning to consumers true control over their personal information. "As we have often warned, where businesses rely on personal information to offer better targeted advertisements there will be inherent tension between respecting consumer privacy and pursuing profit." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Google-at-the-Moscone-Cen-008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 29761 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 16:03:15 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 16:03:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Google to pay record $22.5m fine to FTC over Safari tracking In-Reply-To: <502411E6.3080109@gmail.com> References: <502411E6.3080109@gmail.com> Message-ID: 22.5m USD is somewhere between 2 and 3 hours of Google revenue. just sayin On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Google to pay record $22.5m fine to FTC over Safari tracking > > Internet giant admits it tracked iPhone, iPad and Mac users by > circumventing the privacy protections on Safari web browsers > > - Charles Arthur > - guardian.co.uk , **Thursday 9 August > 2012 18.02 BST** > - Jump to comments (…) > > [image: Google at the Moscone Center in San Francisco] > Google at the Moscone Center in San Francisco. Photograph: Kimihiro > Hoshino/AFP/Getty Images > > Google is to pay a record $22.5m fine to the Federal Trade Commission > (FTC) in the US after admitting that it tracked users of Apple's > iPhone , iPadand Mac computers by circumventing the > privacy protections on the > Safari web browser for "several months" at the end of 2011 and into 2012. > > The fine is the largest ever paid by a single company to the FTC, which > imposed a 20-year privacy order on Google in March 2010 following concerns > around the launch of its ill-fated Buzz social network. > > In the latest case, the FTC's commissioners ruled by a 4-1 majority that > Google had breached that order, which demanded that it should not mislead > consumers about its privacy practices. > > Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the FTC, in a statement: > "The record setting penalty in this matter sends a clear message to all > companies under an FTC privacy order. No matter how big or small, all > companies must abide by FTC orders against them and keep their privacy > promises to consumers, or they will end up paying many times what it would > have cost to comply in the first place." > > The intrusion would have affected millions of users of Apple devices, > which web statistics suggest are used for substantial amounts of mobile > browsing in western countries particularly. > > The FTC began investigating the case six months ago after Jonathan Mayer, > a researcher at Stanford University – once attended by Google's founders > Larry Page and Sergey Brin – discovered that Google's DoubleClick > advertising network was overriding safeguards built into the Safari browser > that should have prevented cookies being used to track peoples' movements > around the web. > > Cookies can be used as unique identifiers of a user, so that if someone > goes from one site to an unrelated one that also uses DoubleClick, the > cookie will work as an identifier and mean that the adverts on that site, > and their activity there, will be logged and tailored to them. > > Google's circumvention of the protection – a system that it protested at > the time was also used by other companies – apparently contradicted the > advice in its online Help Center, which at that time told Safari users they > did not need to do anything to prevent Google monitoring their actions, > because the browser's default settings would block the cookies. > > The previous largest FTC fine, of almost $19m, was imposed on a US > telemarketer accused of duping people into thinking they were making > donations to charities. > > Google has not admitted wrongdoing. But the fine is yet another in a > growing list for Google, which fell foul of the Federal Communications > Commission (FCC) earlier this yearover its collection of Wi-Fi data from home and business networks via its > Street View cars in 2008. The FCC fined it $50,000 for failing to cooperate > with its investigation. > > The largest payment remains the $500m that it paid to settle a federal > case in August 2011 after illegally advertising Canadian-sourced > pharmaceuticals to US users. > The adverts appeared after being bought by vendors trying to sell pills to > US users, who bought AdWords adverts alongside search results. The company > escaped prosecution after settling. > > In a statement, Google said: "We set the highest standards of privacy and > security for our users. The FTC is focused on a 2009 help center page > published more than two years before our consent decree, and a year before > Apple changed its cookie-handling policy. We have now changed that page and > taken steps to remove the ad cookies, which collected no personal > information, from Apple's browsers." > > The company is also under investigation in Europe and the US over the > question of whether it has used its dominant position in search to push its > other products, such as its shopping, video and maps products, ahead of > rivals' which would have an equal claim to high ranking in search results. > > The pressure group Big Brother Watch welcomed the ruling. It said in a > statement: "It is a very dangerous precedent for companies to deliberately > circumvent privacy protection and so we welcome this ruling as an important > milestone in returning to consumers true control over their personal > information. > > "As we have often warned, where businesses rely on personal information to > offer better targeted advertisements there will be inherent tension between > respecting consumer privacy and pursuing profit." > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Google-at-the-Moscone-Cen-008.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 29761 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Aug 9 16:17:05 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 13:17:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50238DD8.3060506@itforchange.net> References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <50238DD8.3060506@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Aug 9, 2012, at 3:15 AM, parminder wrote: >> Actually, my MAIN argument was that it is ridiculously unlikely that the US government would destroy everything it has invested in its push to "privatize" Internet resource management by bypassing documented policies and procedures to force an inappropriate change in the root zone. It would just be silly. > Lets then first at least agree that your MAIN argument is indeed political, right! I would agree that it is non-technical. > So much, therefore, for your admonishing 'folks with political agendas' below. I was speaking of folks who knowingly distort or obfuscate facts in order to drive political agendas. I have no issue with driving political (or other non-technical) agendas based on facts. > For root operators within US, you are wrong. You havent heard of emergency powers?! Sigh. Alright, yes, I am wrong: if the USG were to declare martial law in order to force the root server operators based in the US to accept a root zone change, then yes, those root server operators would accept the change. I will admit I believe the likelihood of this occurring is, shall we say, a bit remote. > And the US president is trying to take up more wrt to the Internet infrastructure, which includes the root. [citation needed] >> Further, resolver operators, once made aware of inappropriate changes to the root, could take steps if they so desired to address the issue (e.g., point their resolvers at different root servers). The implied chaos of all of this in and of itself would make "ridiculously" turn into "ludicrously" (or more directly: "it ain't gonna happen"). > The whole argument is based on the proposition that the US gov, and presumably US people are not stupid, Well, yes. I get that you disagree with this view. > but other countries (not only China and Russia) can hardly be trusted.... Not even the slightest -- I challenge you to point to anything I have said that would suggest this. My argument is based on simple pragmatic reality that there is no central authority in control of the root server system and as a result, attempts to abuse that system must take into account the likely outcome of Mutual Assured Destruction as the various independent actors act in their own self interest and/or what they believe to be the Internet's best interests. > Please note that the only reasonable counter arguments that has been given to my proposal of relocating root server operatorship - whether by Daniel or Ian - are POLITICAL ones. (Even your arguments above are political). I suppose if you define anything that is non-technical to be "political". > So can I once again request the technical community to give up this holier-than-thou attitude - we know the technical facts, if only others will listen. We are primarily discussing politics here. lets be clear. Technical facts remain important, but they should not take the veneer of superiority (and, > accordingly, the bearers of technical facts). "Don't bother me with facts, I'm talking politics"? I think I see why you appear to have missed some of my comments. :-) > If something is the right thing for all of us, we will find ways to do it. As I said, I honestly wish you luck. However, since this is a political discussion, I'll leave it to the politicians (with the proviso that I might jump in to correct technical errors, omissions, or lies). Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Thu Aug 9 16:47:36 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 20:47:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <501A636C.70400@cafonso.ca> <501A2ADB-BF64-4AE1-BCD7-053BF8C75AD7@virtualized.org> <501AD002.4010000@gmail.com> <01368488-C252-4350-8D48-1AD5C497A5DE@virtualized.org> <501ADDCB.5010308@gmail.com> <962BE8CB-4208-4C78-9B43-A0EC2B6106FB@virtualized.org> <501E5D34.1060102@itforchange.net> <501E69B3.5050607@itforchange.net> <2F7C0136-DA33-4C00-A2DA-E368182FC0B1@virtualized.org> <5020A4F9.7030401@itforchange.net> <5021160E.4090209@cafonso.ca> <5021C330.9070803@gmx.net> <50220972.8020108@itforchange.net> <50238DD8.3060506@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B26FB@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Hi, as I previously and Daniel Kalchev today have suggested, from here on it's just for the lulz, right, Parminder? Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de David Conrad [drc at virtualized.org] Enviado el: jueves, 09 de agosto de 2012 15:17 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) Parminder, On Aug 9, 2012, at 3:15 AM, parminder wrote: >> Actually, my MAIN argument was that it is ridiculously unlikely that the US government would destroy everything it has invested in its push to "privatize" Internet resource management by bypassing documented policies and procedures to force an inappropriate change in the root zone. It would just be silly. > Lets then first at least agree that your MAIN argument is indeed political, right! I would agree that it is non-technical. > So much, therefore, for your admonishing 'folks with political agendas' below. I was speaking of folks who knowingly distort or obfuscate facts in order to drive political agendas. I have no issue with driving political (or other non-technical) agendas based on facts. > For root operators within US, you are wrong. You havent heard of emergency powers?! Sigh. Alright, yes, I am wrong: if the USG were to declare martial law in order to force the root server operators based in the US to accept a root zone change, then yes, those root server operators would accept the change. I will admit I believe the likelihood of this occurring is, shall we say, a bit remote. > And the US president is trying to take up more wrt to the Internet infrastructure, which includes the root. [citation needed] >> Further, resolver operators, once made aware of inappropriate changes to the root, could take steps if they so desired to address the issue (e.g., point their resolvers at different root servers). The implied chaos of all of this in and of itself would make "ridiculously" turn into "ludicrously" (or more directly: "it ain't gonna happen"). > The whole argument is based on the proposition that the US gov, and presumably US people are not stupid, Well, yes. I get that you disagree with this view. > but other countries (not only China and Russia) can hardly be trusted.... Not even the slightest -- I challenge you to point to anything I have said that would suggest this. My argument is based on simple pragmatic reality that there is no central authority in control of the root server system and as a result, attempts to abuse that system must take into account the likely outcome of Mutual Assured Destruction as the various independent actors act in their own self interest and/or what they believe to be the Internet's best interests. > Please note that the only reasonable counter arguments that has been given to my proposal of relocating root server operatorship - whether by Daniel or Ian - are POLITICAL ones. (Even your arguments above are political). I suppose if you define anything that is non-technical to be "political". > So can I once again request the technical community to give up this holier-than-thou attitude - we know the technical facts, if only others will listen. We are primarily discussing politics here. lets be clear. Technical facts remain important, but they should not take the veneer of superiority (and, > accordingly, the bearers of technical facts). "Don't bother me with facts, I'm talking politics"? I think I see why you appear to have missed some of my comments. :-) > If something is the right thing for all of us, we will find ways to do it. As I said, I honestly wish you luck. However, since this is a political discussion, I'll leave it to the politicians (with the proviso that I might jump in to correct technical errors, omissions, or lies). Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 9 18:10:05 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2012 18:10:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> Parminder, I've read most of the emails on this thread as well as the Q&A with Sachin Pilot, the Indian minister of state for communications and information technology, that started it. And I'd like to make two points. Most recently I was thinking about the challenges that would arise from implementing such change and the potential damage that might result to the stability, security, and centrality or unity of the Net. And I was reminded of the arguments used in my country for several decades after its founding, that tinkering with that institution of chattel slavery in the southern states would do severe damage to the security and stability of the then nascent state. That might be a somewhat harsh parallel, but we are only in the first decades of the Net, and its impact on us all grows daily. Second, with this conversation taking place on the IGC list, your statement relating to the upcoming ITU deliberations: "Do you think that as a premier global IG civil society group, we are giving the appropriate response to the developing situation by just keeping mum and thus supporting the status quo. It will be most unfortunate if we simply dont have any position on these issues, or even maybe 2-3 different sets, in these crucial times for global IG." drew me to write this +1 for your effort. It is my belief that the IGC should, minimally, put forth at the coming ITU talks that we should seek ways to incorporate the desires, needs, dreams, and otherwise of those not currently a central part of the Net's CIR into a broadened circle of oversight. And that such a broadening serves the goal of a stable and developing Internet. And that an exploration of expansion, transfer, or movement of root resources and their oversight seems a reasonable place to start. I do believe most everyone on this list supports a loosening of the U.S. government's control of some of its CIR reigns, albeit without damaging the Net. So a statement to the effect that "IGC sees merit in exploring a more equitable geographic distribution of root resources" should serve IGC and the Net's future. Such a statement seems to fit quite well with our organization's Vision Statement: /The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all/. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt Jackson Heights, New York On 8/9/2012 6:23 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 09 August 2012 01:53 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server >> misunderstanding (still...) As someone who has consistently expressed >> opposition to the US unilateral position as regards root zone file >> authorisation, let me say also that I do not believe Parminder’s >> scenario 2 is workable. > > Ian, > > I am fine with your political reasoning, and see some merit in it. > But, we should accept that this is indeed a political debate. And > also, when we do discuss root file authorisation issue it is not right > to bring in the 13 server backup as a political justification of not > doing anything or much - something which got done in the earlier > discussions on the IANA role. > > However, dont you see that it is becoming politically unsustainable to > not do anything about the issue of the control of the root. Should we > inform the African and the Indian, minister, and I am sure, numerous > other ministers, that civil society had a long discussion on their > concerns regarding unequitous distribution of root operators, and came > to the conclusion that other than the US and a few western countries > we are not able to trust anyone - even if it were a regional system > like an RIR - with root operations, even when root server operation in > a non monopoly multi point redundancy operation. > > I dont think it will look nice at all. For instance, in the middle of > the ITU staff and some authoritarian countries canvassing for more > 'innovative' solutions through the ITU and perhaps other means as > well. Do you think that as a premier global IG civil society group, > we are giving the appropriate response to the developing situation by > just keeping mum and thus supporting the status quo. It will be most > unfortunate if we simply dont have any position on these issues, or > even maybe 2-3 different sets, in these crucial times for global IG. I > repeat that seeking 3 US organisations to cede their root server > operation to 3 RIRs in developing world will be an important first > step. It will in fact look so good for the CS to make such a demand > solidly, (for instance, to the political actors in the South - non gov > and gov - who I can tell you, have limited trust in the neutrality of > what is called the global IG civil society). > > However I do full agree with you, Carlos and others that the real > issue is the IANA authority with the US. For this see below.... > > >> snip >> >> I come back to my original position – and perhaps the only one where >> we might get some agreement and also even the possibility of some >> action. The authorisation role is completely unnecessary, whether >> carried out by USA or UN or whatever. Please do not transfer it to >> another body – just remove it. The authorisation is based on >> recommendations involving a set of very consultative and exhaustive >> procedures. Once the ICANN processes recommend a change after these >> consultations, let that be the final authorisation. > > You know that even if the US agreed to such a position in its contract > with ICANN, all ICANN actions remain subject to US court directives > and to the emergency executive powers in the US. So, the ICANN has to > be an international body, drawing its constitutive authority from a > source other than the US state. > > Also, since ICANN has a huge operational role, it is always better to > have an oversight review structure above and separate from the > operational body, This is a general sound political principle. So, I > still go back to my proposal for a non UN international, say, > Technical Oversight Board, with members from different regions > selected through an innovative process (which can be discussed) and > who have a very clearly laid out and constrained mandate of oversight > and confirming root changes, and whose decisions are to be taken only > by a big majority..... > >> >> >> I can perceive a situation where USA might actually accept that >> proposition, consistent with increasing independence of ICANN. I >> cant see a situation where they transfer their authorisation function >> to any other body. > > US will finally have to accept what the world's opinion comes out > solidly in favour of. That is how global politics play out. It has > huge stakes in global Internet system, especially economic, and must > talk, negotiate, and where needed make concessions. It is just that we > give up too easily.... parminder > > > >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From: *parminder >> *Reply-To: *, parminder >> >> *Date: *Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:46:35 +0530 >> *To: * >> *Subject: *Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root >> server misunderstanding (still...) >> >> >> >> On Wednesday 08 August 2012 12:35 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >> >> >> >> Parminder, >> >> >> >> it may be useful to separate your problem into two parts: >> >> >> >> >> 1. authorization for changes in the root; >> >> >> >> Thanks for the kind advice, Alex. In fact, I have insisted >> repeatedly that I am only dealing with the second part as below. The >> first part was dealt in an earlier discussion in June with the >> subject line 'oversight'. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. operation of the independent root servers, including their >> submission or not to an outrageously arbitrary and deletereous >> change in the root. >> >> >> Yes, this alone is the issue under consideration here. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That, I think, will help you parse the apparent contradictions. >> We all have a problem with the first's asymmetric-power >> situation; the second is a fail-safe mechanism for the potential >> excesses of the first. >> >> >> >> >> So you agree that independence of root server operators indeed >> serves as a 'fail-safe mechanism for the potential excesses' of the >> unilateral root changing power with the US. >> >> In that case, you may agree that making MORE sure that the root >> operators are MORE independent of US gov will make the system MORE >> fail-safe or capture-resistant. In practical terms I mean what if >> instead of the present distribution of root server operators, 9 in >> the US and 3 in US friendly countries, we have these servers >> distributed in a more geopolitically equitous manner - as I >> suggested, for a start RIRs of Africa, LA and Asia Pacific get one >> each, and perhaps one more in each of these continents at a reputed >> public technical institute. What do you say? >> >> Lets first agree on the need and desirability of such re-allocation, >> before we go to the question of how to do it. >> >> (apologies for some repeat language from my email to Roland) >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> (Fail-safe does not mean "it cannot fail"; it means "if it fails >> it devolves to a safe state", sort of when well designed >> elevators go out of electrical power they don't sink to the >> bottom and crash, nor just get stuck; they fall to the next floor >> down and open the doors) >> >> >> >> >> (As a side: it may be valuable for IT4Change to recruit the >> assistance of some Internet engineers, for example by forming an >> all-volunteer Technical Advisory Board, if you don't find this >> too meddlesome. I've seen such an Rx work wonders in other, >> similar organizations elsewhere and it's a win-win. If too >> meddlesome please ignore. Again, happy to be corrected by those >> more knowledgeable.) >> >> >> >> >> Yours, >> >> >> >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> >> >> >> ! !! !!! !!!! >> >> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >> >> >> >> >> >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >> >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO >> >> >> SMS +525541444475 >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, >> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *Desde:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder >> [parminder at itforchange.net] >> *Enviado el:* miércoles, 08 de agosto de 2012 01:38 >> *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Klein >> *Asunto:* Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root >> server misunderstanding (still...) >> >> >> >> Norbert, >> >> >> On Wednesday 08 August 2012 07:08 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: >> >> >> I do NOT understand what the debate here is about - >> discussing the location of the 12, or of the many mirrors - >> when it is a debate over possible changes in the political >> control of this system. >> >> Only what happens or does not happen on the Alpha Server >> makes any difference (and it is replicated down the lines >> throughout all the sub-systems) I understand. Wrong? >> >> So any question about control of the 12 and the mirrors is >> only about technical details. If the "control" question is >> pointing at anything else but the Alpha Server it is not >> changing anything fundamentally. Correct or wrong? >> >> >> You have asked a good question - what is the debate here :) >> >> You seem to agree with Carlos that the political issue is ONLY >> vis a vis the control over the alpha server, which we now know is >> in fact not the alpha server that a new 'stealth server'. All >> other root servers, including their anycast extensions, simply >> and ONLY reflect the root zone file, and so it does not matter >> who controls them. As for location, there has not been any known >> difficulty to locate new anycasts anywhere. Fair enough. >> >> Now, I will have to take you, and others who may still be with >> us, to a long discussion on 'US's oversight' over CIRs - chiefly >> the IANA function, that took place in June on this list. David >> was greatly involved in it. When I and others argued why US >> cannot be relied on to have the unilateral authority to change >> the root file at its will - the MAIN argument by David and others >> was; the 13, or at least 9, root zone operators will very likely >> simply refuse to publish a file so changed by the US. This >> 'system feature' was listed as the MAIN defence that things are >> not as problematic as some of us are making them to be. McTim, >> Lee and others made the same argument of the 'independent >> decision making' by root server operators, to minimise what was >> seen as the 'scare' over US's fiddling with the root in its own >> interest. At the end of this email I provide a few quotes from >> among several on how this single argument was repeated employed. >> >> Whereby, when we argue about the problem with US's unilateral >> control over the root, the argument of 'independence of root >> operators' is invoked. Such independence means that the '13 root >> operators' systems is seen, if required, as being able to go >> beyond simply reflecting the root zone file. Well, it has to be >> one of the two; >> >> (1) Either, root operators can and will ONLY reflect the root >> zone file in the 'stealth server', whatever happens - in which >> case, we should not use the argument of their deemed independence >> in discussions on problems vis a vis US's unilateral IANA >> oversight powers >> >> (2) Or, indeed, at least potentially, root operators can refuse >> to publish what is considered as an improperly changed file by >> the US, and support the internet system continuing to work on the >> basis of the original 'proper' file - whereby, it is useful to >> redistribute root server operator-ship among agencies that >> together are more likely to resist US unilateralism. >> >> One of the above two must be true, and both cant be true, >> because they are logically exclusive arguments. It cant be that >> (2) is true in a discussion over IANA authority, but it becomes >> untrue when we discuss distribution of root server operators in a >> geo-political even and just manner. This alone is my case. >> >> I can accept either (1) to be true, in which case the argument >> of independence of root server operators to publish what they >> want should NOT be used in an IANA related argument (David, >> McTim, Lee et all, are you there :) ) >> >> Or I can accept (2) to be true, in which case, I will appeal to >> Carlos for sympathy to the argument that redistribution of root >> server operation authority may be useful to be considered, while >> agreeing that IANA authority is a much more important question. >> >> (To be fair to David, he has said even in the present thread of >> discussion that 'The diversity of architecture ( of root server >> operators) and lack of centralized control is seen as a feature >> as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". If I surmise >> right, Carlos, and perhaps you, Norbert, do not think this of >> being of any real significance.) >> >> So, indeed there are real difference of views between, for >> instance David and Carlos, on the political significance of root >> server operator's independence (or absence of it) - and thus of >> political significance of who the 13 root server operators are. >> >> Such independence (or absence of it) of root operators, >> especially in the face of an eventuality of US's rogue behaviour, >> thus remains a key political issue, and in good part is the point >> of debate here. The answer to this question would determine >> whether it is worth the effort to consider reallocating root >> server operation authority in a more equitous manner. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Norbert Klein >> >> >> -- >> Norbert Klein >> nhklein at gmx.net >> http://www.thinking21.org >> >> >> >> >> >> This is the only place in which there is >> NTIA-authorized/controlled >> change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and >> all the other 12 >> and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the >> Anycast servers >> being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases >> (except for six >> replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). >> >> A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not >> give the >> "nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother >> of all >> servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, >> depending on your >> level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters >> in Virginia. >> NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification >> intended in existing >> ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the >> Affirmation of >> Commitments says. >> >> If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one >> of the 13 is >> actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the >> Internet stop? >> No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the >> Internet >> continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the >> root, Virginia, >> until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) >> >> If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding >> the DNS, can the >> Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to >> one of the 13 >> servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to >> one of the 12 >> "master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most >> popular for this)? >> >> Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is >> better to keep >> a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root >> servers, 16 of >> the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, >> hosting many >> millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* >> -- millions of >> websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these >> servers and >> corresponding hosting services. >> >> Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly >> common >> knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to >> operate... >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> David, >> >> On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >> >> >> Parminder, >> >> On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> Now, we know that there are three kinds of >> root servers, the >> authoritative root server (in which changes >> are made to the root file >> vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and >> then the any number of >> mirrors that can allegedly be created by >> making an investment of 3k >> usd . >> >> >> No. >> >> There is a "distribution master". >> >> >> So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone >> file as the highest >> level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply >> have said 'the >> highest level of Internet's root architecture'. >> However, your chastising >> may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep >> technical training >> like Daniel said is a recent email; >> >> "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root >> server instances. >> Each of these is an actual root server." >> >> Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a >> discussion where we are >> mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root >> file. The hundreds >> of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root >> servers'. An actual >> root server is a shorthand for an actual root server >> operator, who >> exercises control (at least potentially) over the >> root zone file that he >> publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions >> with you on the >> IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian >> minister seems >> rather better informed than 'technical experts' here >> on this particular >> issue. He seems to know better which is a true or >> actual root server and >> which is not. Quote from the same interview where he >> quite wrongly said >> that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers >> (he should have >> said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 >> root servers). >> >> >> "Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data >> but without >> mechanisms of control and intervention." >> >> Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what >> they suppress (or >> forget to mention) depends on their techno-political >> proclivities. Isnt >> it obvious! >> >> In response to my another email, you have asked me to >> "provide examples >> of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are >> ''thoroughly >> wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". >> Apart from the above >> example, I will try and find others in your email >> below :) >> >> >> >> (snip) >> >> That's all. There are no special "13" machines >> that are the "true >> root servers" from which other lesser machines >> mirror the root zone. >> >> >> Well, you did understand early in this discussion >> that the argument is >> not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root >> server operators', so >> why dont we stick to the real point of contestation >> rather than create >> strawmen and defend against them. From your email of >> a few days ago >> >> "The concern (as I understand it) is that the >> administration of >> those root servers is in the hands of 12 >> organizations, of which 9 >> are US-based. " (David) >> >> Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, >> not the network >> latency problem. In that email, you understood the >> concern right. It is >> about root server operators, and the term '13 root >> servers' is loosely >> used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the >> real issue, and it >> was the issue that bothered the Indian and the >> African ministers the >> latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted >> to in terms to >> availability of root server mirrors - a very >> different issue. Similarly, >> this current discussion is continuously pulled >> towards the convenient >> description of geographic extensions through mirrors >> of root servers, >> away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against >> distribution) of >> power to change root file or resist changes to root >> file that is with >> the root server operators and none at all with >> anycast mirror operators. >> >> It is very interesting that when I did that long >> discussion with you, >> David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your >> almost entire case >> was based on how the root server operators are really >> independent (which >> is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and >> this is the insurance >> against any US mischief with the root zone file. >> However, now when we >> are discussing the power of root server operators, >> which is >> geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the >> 'power' with the root >> server operators is sought to be so minimized as to >> be completely >> evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted >> to how anyone can >> set up a root server and that those who speak about >> 13 root servers >> (meaning, root server operators) being not >> distributed well enough are >> merely stupid! >> >> How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such >> very different >> manifestations in two different political arguments? >> This is what I mean >> by 'technical advice' being warped by strong >> techno-political >> viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. >> I am stating a >> sociological 'fact'. >> >> >> >> (snip) >> >> >> What I see is that, while there are of course >> clearly very >> significant differences between these three >> layers or kinds of root >> servers, much of the 'technical input' on >> this list that I have come >> across seem to focus on the non-difference >> and greatly underplay the >> difference. >> >> >> As discussed above, the distinction you are >> making doesn't exist. >> >> >> Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear >> distinction that you did >> understand and articulate in your earlier email in >> terms of >> concentration of ability for "administration of those >> root servers is in >> the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are >> US-based. " There is >> obvious and very important distinction between the >> 'power' of root zone >> operator and someone operating a mirror. This >> distinction is the very >> basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you >> have easily and >> conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions >> between the root file >> layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp >> between these two >> latter layers . This is done through a unilateral >> decision to speak >> about one thing when the other party is speaking >> about quite another, or >> at least another aspect of the issue - which here is >> the issue of >> 'control' rather than availability of root file for >> resolving queries. >> >> >> >> >> This I think is politically motivated, though >> disguised as factual >> neutral/ technical information. >> >> >> Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes >> it difficult to >> communicate. >> >> >> :). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to >> argue that when a >> group has strong political inclinations - as the so >> called technical >> community has - its technical advice gets >> accordingly wrapped... Call >> it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. >> But also (try to ) >> see how the technical community sees deep >> conspiracies in every single >> political utterance from the South. Worse its >> conspiracy theory is >> further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double >> insult! >> >> >> (snip) >> >> You misread. The 13 IP(v4) address limitation >> due to the default >> maximum DNS message size still exists. While >> there are now ways >> around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 >> extension to the DNS >> specification), these ways are not universally >> supported and as such, >> cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. >> >> >> No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact >> remains that the number >> 13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you >> are not too >> interested to explore that direction while I am >> (again, political >> proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing >> multilingual gtlds also >> considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few >> years back. >> Finally, political considerations helped get over >> that unnecessary and >> exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the >> decisions, the US >> centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same >> establishment with >> some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second >> instance. >> >> >> >> >> So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and >> make people of the >> world happy. >> >> >> Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt >> everyone having their own >> root server would make the people of the world happy. >> >> >> This is 'the' most important point - whether there is >> any justification >> at all to increase the number or root servers and/or >> to reallocate / >> redistribute them in a manner that is politically >> more justifiable and >> thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. >> >> regards >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate >> root servers in a >> geo-graphically equitable manner, as >> Sivasubramanian has suggested, >> especially when it seems to make no >> difference at all to anyone. Why >> not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. >> >> >> As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of >> the root servers are >> independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the >> Verisign contract with >> the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG >> Departments), albeit >> each of these operators deal with their root >> servers differently). How >> root server operators distribute their instances >> is entirely their >> decision. To date, there has apparently been >> insufficient >> justification for those root server operators to >> decide to distribute >> their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable >> manner". >> >> With that said, there are at least two root >> server operators ("L" >> (ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated >> they are willing to >> give a root server instance to anyone that asks. >> Perhaps the >> ill-informed ministers could be informed of this >> so they could be happy? >> >> >> >> I read that there is no central control over >> the 13 or at least 9 of >> these root servers. Is it really true? >> >> >> Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of >> centralized control is >> seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities >> for "capture". >> >> >> >> Is the 13 root server architecture not >> something that is aligned to >> what goes in and from the authoritative root >> server. >> >> >> Root server architecture is independent of how >> the root zone is >> distributed. >> >> >> >> If it is, why can these root servers not be >> reallocated in the way >> tlds have been reallocated. Can they be >> reallocated or cant they? >> >> >> In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root >> server" boils down to >> transferring the root server's IP address and >> telling the new owner >> the zone transfer password. >> >> Before the DNS became a political battleground, >> root server >> "reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) >> when (a) the person >> to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed >> employers or (b) the >> assets of the organization running the root >> server were acquired by >> another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root >> server would either >> require the existing root server operator >> voluntarily giving the root >> server IP address to a different organization or >> that IP address would >> have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. >> >> >> >> I also read that the it is not about 13 >> physical root servers, but 13 >> root server operators, >> >> >> Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two >> root servers). >> >> >> >> so the number 13 is about the root server >> ownership points, and not >> physical location points. >> >> >> In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses >> that are "owned" by 12 >> organizations. Geography is largely irrelevant. >> >> >> >> Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the >> ownership points in a >> geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva >> suggests, probably one to >> an Indian Institute of Technology. >> >> >> Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that >> efforts to provide >> infrastructure (not root server infrastructure >> specifically albeit the >> same folks do provide anycast instances for a >> root server operator) in >> India were blocked by demands for bribes greater >> than the value of >> hardware being shipped into the country (see >> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >> >> >> >> Why this is not done, or cant be done are the >> real questions in the >> present debate. Any answers? >> >> >> Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does >> not exist. There is >> no single entity that can dictate to the root >> server operators "you >> will give your root server to IIT". You and >> others that care about >> this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign >> that it would be in >> their corporate best interests for them to >> relocate administrative >> control of one of their root servers to India, >> but it would be up to >> Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its >> shareholders) to make that >> decision. >> >> >> >> Is the real problem here that if root server >> allocation issue is >> opened up, countries would like to go >> country-wise on root servers >> (as the recent China's proposal for >> 'Autonomous Internet') which will >> skew the present non-nation wise Internet >> topology (other than its US >> centricity), which is an important feature of >> the Internet. >> >> >> No. Placement of root servers has no impact on >> Internet topology. >> Really. Distributing root server instances can be >> helpful in reducing >> root query latency and improving resiliency in >> the event of network >> disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the >> "root server >> allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly >> given pretty much >> anyone can get a root server instance if they >> care and are willing to >> abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a >> root server. >> >> Merging a subsequent note: >> >> On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> ' administrative access will not be >> available' to the anycast >> operator to his own anycast server. >> >> >> Yes. However, if you ask anyone familiar with >> computer systems, you >> will be told that if you have physical access to >> a machine, you can >> gain control of that machine. Obtaining such >> control would violate >> the terms by which the machine was granted, but >> that's irrelevant. >> >> >> >> This is a pretty centralised control, not at >> all the picture one got >> from all the technically well informed >> insiders who seem to suggest >> on this list that everything is open, >> uncontrolled and hunky-dory and >> kind of anyone can set up and operate root >> servers. >> >> >> I'm getting the impression that you read what you >> prefer to read, not >> what is actually written. No one (to my >> knowledge) has suggested >> "everything is open, uncontrolled and >> hunky-dory". Root service is >> considered critical infrastructure and is treated >> as such, so anyone >> asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be >> confused at best. >> Can you provide a reference to anyone making >> this suggestion? >> >> As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would >> say the way the root >> servers are operated is "hunky-dory". I am not >> among them. >> >> >> >> Was the African minister really so wrong, or >> even the Indian minister? >> >> >> Yes. Really. >> >> Regards, >> -drc >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 10 03:18:42 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:18:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Hi Tom On Aug 10, 2012, at 12:10 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > It is my belief that the IGC should, minimally, put forth at the coming ITU talks that we should seek ways to incorporate the desires, needs, dreams, and otherwise of those not currently a central part of the Net's CIR into a broadened circle of oversight. And that such a broadening serves the goal of a stable and developing Internet. And that an exploration of expansion, transfer, or movement of root resources and their oversight seems a reasonable place to start. > > I do believe most everyone on this list supports a loosening of the U.S. government's control of some of its CIR reigns, albeit without damaging the Net. So a statement to the effect that "IGC sees merit in exploring a more equitable geographic distribution of root resources" should serve IGC and the Net's future. Such a statement seems to fit quite well with our organization's Vision Statement: While, like many in CS and the TC, I support the concept of decoupling root change authorizations from sole USG responsibility if and when a plausibly reliable alternative can be identified, realistically it has to recognized that this would need to be an evolutionary process that plays out over some years, with dialogue and collective learning rather than posturing and demanding as the lead edge. It would need to be debated fully within the US domestic political system, where there would be opposition from virtually every salient corner of the polity, especially the omnipotent and all powerful political right, but also civil society. So a lot of minds to change to convince people the plausible alternative would maintain the same level of security and stability etc. as now, that it would not increase UNGA-style politicization (e.g. Taiwan or Israel disappear on majority vote) or undermine critical infrastructure protection and of course "sovereignty" (just as much a third rail in the US as anywhere else). Personally, I find it unimaginable that even if Obama squeaks out a victory he'd pick this fight with a Republican Congress, Fox News, and all the rest. Normalization of relations with Cuba would probably have a better chance. It would also need to be worked through to consensus with all the governments and players outside the who US who might have similar concerns about a change, irrespective of what they sometimes say for domestic political consumption (a lot more of these than discussion on this list would ever let on—there's pretty active intergovernmental coordination that we don't see). It would not happen in a flash because of some sort of divided vote UN declaration any more than this works in any other international issue-area. Expecting a sovereign state to make big changes that bite domestically because some foreign governments say they don't like something just doesn't work so well—from the mundane (Japanese whaling, aka "scientific research", Americans to stop driving hummers, Chinese to stop burning coal, Indonesians to stop burning forests, Russians to lay off Pussy Riot, and on and on) to the big stuff (Iranian nukes, Syria, pick your example). You'd also have to assemble a strong coalition of demandeurs to even get it on the UN agenda. While Parminder seems to be convinced that billions across the entire global South are just seething with rage over who signs off on zone changes, I've asked before for some evidence of who exactly we're taking about here without getting replies. Probably one could compile an initial list of governments at least by looking at larger, upper income countries like the BRICS whose general diplomatic stance is that they deserve seats at all tables commensurate with their ascendent wealth and power, as well as authoritarian regimes in the ME and elsewhere. Whether all their citizens would feel the same way, know knows. And for a lot of other countries, this is pretty far down their list of priorities relative to other Internet and non-internet issues. They might be persuaded to sign onto some G77 and China statement through arm twisting and side-payments (football stadiums seem to work well for China) and the usual presumption that group solidarity increases their influence, but the level of actual commitment may vary. I know I've asked governments before about G77 statements and been told oh that's not really our position but we have to go along with the group (have heard this in Europe too, for that matter). I've argued before that the only way one could really start the conversation would be to outline said plausible alternative and why its risks/costs are less than the certainties/benefits of the SQ. I believe Parminder objected along the lines of this is putting the burden on the oppressed etc but don't want to paraphrase incorrectly and get flamed, so he can perhaps reiterate. But my view's unchanged, you can't start the conversation without something sensible and concrete written down for people to focus on. Starting with "we're pissed but it's not up to us to give the alternative" just won't move anything. In any event, the one thing we ought to be able to agree on is that this has absolutely no place in the ITRs. The ITRs are not a framework agreement on IG, they're a high-level treaty of rather questionable utility that pertains to how traditional telecom services offered to the general public should be organized at the political level. DNS matters absolutely do not fit in here even if the Russians and some Arab countries would like to stir it into the pot, and its inclusion would be a regressive step that would correctly engender such extensive Reservations as to make it meaningless. And in the meanwhile, while we concentrate on this, the rest of global civil society will go on debating other global IG issues that actually bite much more hard on citizens around the world, e.g.rampant surveillance, censorship, securitization, propertyization, access costs and availability, opening up supposedly democratic intergovernmental processes, etc. So the distance between the IGC and other progressive networks could just fester and grow at a moment when others are trying to come together a bit. Otherwise, I'm optimistic about making this the caucus' cause célèbre. 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hakik at hakik.org Fri Aug 10 04:38:24 2012 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:38:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> Message-ID: +1 Hakikur At 23:10 09-08-2012, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: >Parminder, > >I've read most of the emails on this thread as >well as the Q&A with Sachin Pilot, the Indian >minister of state for communications and >information technology, that started it. And I'd like to make two points. > >Most recently I was thinking about the >challenges that would arise from implementing >such change and the potential damage that might >result to the stability, security, and >centrality or unity of the Net. And I was >reminded of the arguments used in my country for >several decades after its founding, that >tinkering with that institution of chattel >slavery in the southern states would do severe >damage to the security and stability of the then >nascent state. That might be a somewhat harsh >parallel, but we are only in the first decades >of the Net, and its impact on us all grows daily. > >Second, with this conversation taking place on >the IGC list, your statement relating to the upcoming ITU deliberations: >"Do you think that as a premier global IG civil >society group, we are giving the appropriate >response to the developing situation by just >keeping mum and thus supporting the status quo. >It will be most unfortunate if we simply dont >have any position on these issues, or even maybe >2-3 different sets, in these crucial times for global IG." > >drew me to write this +1 for your effort. > >It is my belief that the IGC should, minimally, >put forth at the coming ITU talks that we should >seek ways to incorporate the desires, needs, >dreams, and otherwise of those not currently a >central part of the Net's CIR into a broadened >circle of oversight. And that such a broadening >serves the goal of a stable and developing >Internet. And that an exploration of >expansion, transfer, or movement of root >resources and their oversight seems a reasonable place to start. > >I do believe most everyone on this list supports >a loosening of the U.S. government's control of >some of its CIR reigns, albeit without damaging >the Net. So a statement to the effect that "IGC >sees merit in exploring a more equitable >geographic distribution of root resources" >should serve IGC and the Net's future. Such a >statement seems to fit quite well with our organization's Vision Statement: >The policies that shape the Internet impact not >only the development of the technologies >themselves, but also the realization of >internationally agreed human rights, social >equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, >and both social and economic development. Our >vision is that Internet governance should be >inclusive, people centered and development >oriented. Our contributions to the various >forums relevant to Internet governance, will >strive to ensure an information society which >better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all. > >Best, > >Tom Lowenhaupt >Jackson Heights, New York > >On 8/9/2012 6:23 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>On Thursday 09 August 2012 01:53 AM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>As someone who has consistently expressed >>>opposition to the US unilateral position as >>>regards root zone file authorisation, let me >>>say also that I do not believe Parminder’s scenario 2 is workable. >> >>Ian, >> >>I am fine with your political reasoning, and >>see some merit in it. But, we should accept >>that this is indeed a political debate. And >>also, when we do discuss root file >>authorisation issue it is not right to bring in >>the 13 server backup as a political >>justification of not doing anything or much - >>something which got done in the earlier discussions on the IANA role. >> >>However, dont you see that it is becoming >>politically unsustainable to not do anything >>about the issue of the control of the root. >>Should we inform the African and the Indian, >>minister, and I am sure, numerous other >>ministers, that civil society had a long >>discussion on their concerns regarding >>unequitous distribution of root operators, and >>came to the conclusion that other than the US >>and a few western countries we are not able to >>trust anyone - even if it were a regional >>system like an RIR - with root operations, even >>when root server operation in a non monopoly multi point redundancy operation. >> >>I dont think it will look nice at all. For >>instance, in the middle of the ITU staff and >>some authoritarian countries canvassing for >>more 'innovative' solutions through the ITU and >>perhaps other means as well. Do you think >>that as a premier global IG civil society >>group, we are giving the appropriate response >>to the developing situation by just keeping mum >>and thus supporting the status quo. It will be >>most unfortunate if we simply dont have any >>position on these issues, or even maybe 2-3 >>different sets, in these crucial times for >>global IG. I repeat that seeking 3 US >>organisations to cede their root server >>operation to 3 RIRs in developing world will be >>an important first step. It will in fact look >>so good for the CS to make such a demand >>solidly, (for instance, to the political actors >>in the South - non gov and gov - who I can >>tell you, have limited trust in the neutrality >>of what is called the global IG civil society). >> >>However I do full agree with you, Carlos and >>others that the real issue is the IANA >>authority with the US. For this see below.... >> >> >>>snip >>> >>>I come back to my original position – and >>>perhaps the only one where we might get some >>>agreement and also even the possibility of >>>some action. The authorisation role is >>>completely unnecessary, whether carried out by >>>USA or UN or whatever. Please do not transfer >>>it to another body – just remove it. The >>>authorisation is based on recommendations >>>involving a set of very consultative and >>>exhaustive procedures. Once the ICANN >>>processes recommend a change after these >>>consultations, let that be the final authorisation. >> >>You know that even if the US agreed to such a >>position in its contract with ICANN, all ICANN >>actions remain subject to US court directives >>and to the emergency executive powers in the >>US. So, the ICANN has to be an international >>body, drawing its constitutive authority from a >>source other than the US state. >> >>Also, since ICANN has a huge operational role, >>it is always better to have an oversight review >>structure above and separate from the >>operational body, This is a general sound >>political principle. So, I still go back to my >>proposal for a non UN international, say, >>Technical Oversight Board, with members from >>different regions selected through an >>innovative process (which can be discussed) and >>who have a very clearly laid out and >>constrained mandate of oversight and confirming >>root changes, and whose decisions are to be taken only by a big majority..... >> >>> >>> >>>I can perceive a situation where USA might >>>actually accept that proposition, consistent >>>with increasing independence of ICANN.  I >>>cant see a situation where they transfer their >>>authorisation function to any other body. >> >>US will finally have to accept what the world's >>opinion comes out solidly in favour of. That is >>how global politics play out. It has huge >>stakes in global Internet system, especially >>economic, and must talk, negotiate, and where >>needed make concessions. It is just that we give up too easily.... parminder >> >> >> >>> >>>Ian Peter  >>> >>> >>> >>>From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> >>>Reply-To: >>><governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, >>>parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> >>>Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 16:46:35 +0530 >>>To: <governance at lists.igcaucus.org> >>>Subject: Re: [governance] India's >>>communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) >>> >>>   >>> >>>On Wednesday 08 August 2012 12:35 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >>> >>> >>>  >>>Parminder, >>> >>> >>> >>>it may be useful to separate your problem into two parts: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>1. authorization for changes in the root; >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for the kind advice, Alex. In fact, I >>>have insisted repeatedly that I am only >>>dealing with the second part as below. The >>>first part was dealt in an earlier discussion >>>in June with the subject line 'oversight'. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>2. operation of the independent root servers, >>>including their submission or not to an >>>outrageously arbitrary and deletereous change in the root. >>> >>> >>>Yes, this alone is the issue under consideration here. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>That, I think, will help you parse the >>>apparent contradictions. We all have a problem >>>with the first's asymmetric-power situation; >>>the second is a fail-safe mechanism for the potential excesses of the first. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> So you agree that independence of root >>>server operators indeed serves as a 'fail-safe >>>mechanism for the potential excesses' of the >>>unilateral root changing power with the US. >>> >>> In that case, you may agree that making MORE >>>sure that the root operators are MORE >>>independent of US gov will make the system >>>MORE fail-safe or capture-resistant. In >>>practical terms I mean what if instead of >>>the present distribution of root server >>>operators, 9 in the US and 3 in US friendly >>>countries, we have these servers distributed >>>in a more geopolitically equitous manner - as >>>I suggested, for a start RIRs of Africa, LA >>>and Asia Pacific get one each, and perhaps one >>>more in each of these continents at a reputed >>>public technical institute. What do you say? >>> >>> Lets first agree on the need and >>>desirability of such re-allocation, before we >>>go to the question of how to do it. >>> >>> (apologies for some repeat language from my email to Roland) >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>(Fail-safe does not mean "it cannot fail"; it >>>means "if it fails it devolves to a safe >>>state", sort of when well designed elevators >>>go out of electrical power they don't sink to >>>the bottom and crash, nor just get stuck; they >>>fall to the next floor down and open the doors) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>(As a side: it may be valuable for IT4Change >>>to recruit the assistance of some Internet >>>engineers, for example by forming an >>>all-volunteer Technical Advisory Board, if you >>>don't find this too meddlesome. I've seen such >>>an Rx work wonders in other, similar >>>organizations elsewhere and it's a win-win. If >>>too meddlesome please ignore. Again, happy to >>>be corrected by those more knowledgeable.) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Yours, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Alejandro Pisanty >>> >>> >>>  >>> >>>! !! !!! !!!! >>> >>>NEW  PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>+52-1-5541444475  FROM ABROAD >>> >>> >>>+525541444475  DESDE MÉXICO >>> >>> >>>SMS  +525541444475 >>>     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >>> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >>> >>> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >>>LinkedIn: >>>http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >>> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, >>>http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Desde: >>>governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>>[governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] >>>en nombre de parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] >>> Enviado el: miércoles, 08 de agosto de 2012 01:38 >>> Hasta: >>>governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Klein >>> Asunto: Re: [governance] India's >>>communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) >>> >>> >>> >>>Norbert, >>> >>> >>>On Wednesday 08 August 2012 07:08 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: >>> >>> >>>I do NOT understand what the debate here is >>>about - discussing the location of the 12, or >>>of the many mirrors - when it is a debate over >>>possible changes in the political control of this system. >>> >>> Only what happens or does not happen on the >>>Alpha Server makes any difference (and it is >>>replicated down the lines throughout all the sub-systems) I understand. Wrong? >>> >>> So any question about control of the 12 and >>>the mirrors is only about technical details. >>>If the "control" question is pointing at >>>anything else but the Alpha Server it is not >>>changing anything fundamentally. Correct or wrong? >>> >>> >>> >>> You have asked a good question - what is the debate here :) >>> >>> You seem to agree with Carlos that the >>>political issue is ONLY vis a vis the control >>>over the alpha server, which we now know is in >>>fact not the alpha server that a new 'stealth >>>server'. All other root servers, including >>>their anycast extensions, simply and ONLY >>>reflect the root zone file, and so it does not >>>matter who controls them. As for location, >>>there has not been any known difficulty to >>>locate new anycasts anywhere. Fair enough. >>> >>> Now, I will have to take you, and others who >>>may still be with us, to a long discussion on >>>'US's oversight' over CIRs - chiefly the IANA >>>function, that took place in June on this >>>list. David was greatly involved in it. When I >>>and others argued why US cannot be relied on >>>to have the unilateral authority to change the >>>root file at its will - the MAIN argument by >>>David and others was; the 13, or at least 9, >>>root zone operators will very likely simply >>>refuse to publish a file so changed by the US. >>>This 'system feature' was listed as the MAIN >>>defence that things are not as problematic as >>>some of us are making them to be. McTim, Lee >>>and others made the same argument of the >>>'independent decision making' by root server >>>operators, to minimise what was seen as the >>>'scare' over US's fiddling with the root in >>>its own interest. At the end of this email I >>>provide a few quotes from among several on how >>>this single argument was repeated employed. >>> >>> Whereby, when we argue about the problem >>>with US's unilateral control over the root, >>>the argument of 'independence of root >>>operators' is invoked. Such independence means >>>that the '13 root operators' systems is seen, >>>if required, as being able to go beyond simply >>>reflecting the root zone file. Well, it has to be one of the two; >>> >>> (1) Either, root operators can and will ONLY >>>reflect the root zone file in the 'stealth >>>server', whatever happens - in which case, we >>>should not use the argument of their deemed >>>independence in discussions on problems vis a >>>vis US's unilateral IANA oversight powers >>> >>> (2) Or, indeed, at least potentially, root >>>operators can refuse to publish what is >>>considered as an improperly changed file by >>>the US, and support the internet system >>>continuing to work on the basis of the >>>original 'proper' file - whereby, it is useful >>>to redistribute root server operator-ship >>>among agencies that together are more likely to resist US unilateralism. >>> >>> One of the above two must be true, and both >>>cant be true, because they are logically >>>exclusive arguments. It cant be that (2) is >>>true in a discussion over IANA authority, but >>>it becomes untrue when we discuss distribution >>>of root server operators in a geo-political >>>even and just manner. This alone is my case. >>> >>>  I can accept either (1) to be true, in >>>which case the argument of independence of >>>root server operators to publish what they >>>want should NOT be used in an IANA related >>>argument (David, McTim, Lee et all, are you there :) ) >>> >>> Or I can accept (2) to be true, in which >>>case, I will appeal to Carlos for sympathy to >>>the argument that redistribution of root >>>server operation authority may be useful to be >>>considered, while agreeing that IANA authority >>>is a much more important question. >>> >>> (To be fair to David, he has said even in >>>the present thread of discussion that 'The >>>diversity of architecture ( of root server >>>operators) and lack of centralized control is >>>seen as a feature as it reduces the >>>opportunities for "capture". If I surmise >>>right, Carlos, and perhaps you, Norbert, do >>>not think this of being of any real significance.) >>> >>> So, indeed there are real difference of >>>views between, for instance David and Carlos, >>>on the political significance of root server >>>operator's independence (or absence of it) - >>>and thus of political significance of who the 13 root server operators are. >>> >>> Such independence (or absence of it) of root >>>operators, especially in the face of an >>>eventuality of US's rogue behaviour, thus >>>remains a key political issue, and in good >>>part is the point of debate here. The answer >>>to this question would determine whether it is >>>worth the effort to consider reallocating root >>>server operation authority in a more equitous manner. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Norbert Klein >>> >>> >>>-- >>> Norbert Klein >>> nhklein at gmx.net >>> http://www.thinking21.org >>> >>> >>>   >>> >>> >>>This is the only place in which there is NTIA-authorized/controlled >>>change in the root (the so-called "IANA function"), and all the other 12 >>>and the hundreds of Anycast servers just replicate - the Anycast servers >>>being replicators of replicators in nearly all cases (except for six >>>replicating directly from a.root-servers.net). >>> >>>A new gTLD/ccTLD will never become alive if NTIA does not give the >>>"nihil obstat" to insert it in this file in this "mother of all >>>servers", which interestingly (or coincidentally, depending on your >>>level of paranoia :)) sits very close to CIA headquarters in Virginia. >>>NTIA also must become aware of *any* modification intended in existing >>>ccTLD or gTLD records in the root zone file, whatever the Affirmation of >>>Commitments says. >>> >>>If a saboteur explodes this server installation (each one of the 13 is >>>actually a cluster for resilience and security), does the Internet stop? >>>No, of course, the net of replicators will make sure the Internet >>>continues to operate fine. But no more changes in the root, Virginia, >>>until the "mother server" is rebuilt in Virginia :) >>> >>>If there is a worldwide revolt agains the USA regarding the DNS, can the >>>Anycast net operate and be modified without resorting to one of the 13 >>>servers (an Anycast server is by agreement used tied to one of the 12 >>>"master replicators", the F, I, J and L being the most popular for this)? >>> >>>Technically, yes, of course, but...hmmm... I think it is better to keep >>>a dialogue with the USA instead. :) Aside from the root servers, 16 of >>>the largest 20 DNS servers in the planet are in the USA, hosting many >>>millions of domain pointers to Web services *worldwide* -- millions of >>>websites in Latin America, for example, depend on these servers and >>>corresponding hosting services. >>> >>>Is this talk necessary at all? I think this is abundantly common >>>knowledge since the root system's 13 servers started to operate... >>> >>>frt rgds >>> >>>--c.a. >>> >>>On 08/07/2012 02:17 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>>David, >>> >>>On Sunday 05 August 2012 10:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: >>> >>> >>>Parminder, >>> >>>On Aug 5, 2012, at 5:40 AM, parminder >>><parminder at itforchange.net >>>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>Now, we know that there are three kinds of root servers, the >>>authoritative root server (in which changes are made to the root file >>>vide the IANA process), 13 root servers and then the any number of >>>mirrors that can allegedly be created by making an investment of 3k >>>usd . >>> >>> >>> >>>No. >>> >>>There is a "distribution master". >>> >>> >>> >>>So, well, apologies for referring to the root zone file as the highest >>>level of root zone server; I should perhaps simply have said 'the >>>highest level of Internet's root architecture'. However, your chastising >>>may be biased. Someone, quite unlike me, with deep technical training >>>like Daniel said is a recent email; >>> >>>   "As already mentioned, there are hundreds of root server instances. >>>   Each of these is an actual root server." >>> >>>Isnt this statement as or more untrue, in a discussion where we are >>>mainly speaking about actual 'control' over the root file. The hundreds >>>of root servers mentioned above are NOT 'actual root servers'. An actual >>>root server is a shorthand for an actual root server operator, who >>>exercises control (at least potentially) over the root zone file that he >>>publishes. (I learnt this from my earlier discussions with you on the >>>IANA authority and the US.) The 'ill-informed' Indian minister seems >>>rather better informed than 'technical experts' here on this particular >>>issue. He seems to know better which is a true or actual root server and >>>which is not. Quote from the same interview where he quite wrongly said >>>that Internet traffic flows through 13 root servers (he should have >>>said, internet traffic, in a way, gets directed by 13 root servers). >>> >>> >>>"Currently, India's mirror servers reflect the data but without >>>mechanisms of control and intervention." >>> >>>Clearly what some 'technical experts' stress and what they suppress (or >>>forget to mention) depends on their techno-political proclivities. Isnt >>>it obvious! >>> >>>In response to my another email, you have asked me to "provide examples >>>of supposed 'statements of technical facts' that are ''thoroughly >>>wrapped in a certain techno-political viewpoint". Apart from the above >>>example, I will try and find others in your email below :) >>> >>> >>> >>>(snip) >>> >>>That's all.  There are no special "13" machines that are the "true >>>root servers" from which other lesser machines mirror the root zone. >>> >>> >>> >>>Well, you did understand early in this discussion that the argument is >>>not about 'true root servers' but about 'true root server operators', so >>>why dont we stick to the real point of contestation rather than create >>>strawmen and defend against them. From your email of a few days ago >>> >>>   "The concern (as I understand it) is that the administration of >>>   those root servers is in the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 >>>   are US-based. " (David) >>> >>>Yes, true. It is this what we are discussing here, not the network >>>latency problem. In that email, you understood the concern right. It is >>>about root server operators, and the term '13 root servers' is loosely >>>used to mean '13 root server operators'. That is the real issue, and it >>>was the issue that bothered the Indian and the African ministers the >>>latter being wrongly, if not mischievously, retorted to in terms to >>>availability of root server mirrors - a very different issue. Similarly, >>>this current discussion is continuously pulled towards the convenient >>>description of geographic extensions through mirrors of root servers, >>>away from the real issue of 'concentration' (against distribution) of >>>power to change root file or resist changes to root file that is with >>>the root server operators and none at all with anycast mirror operators. >>> >>>It is very interesting that when I did that long discussion with you, >>>David, on the US's unilateral IANA authority, your almost entire case >>>was based on how the root server operators are really independent (which >>>is the same thing as saying they have 'power') and this is the insurance >>>against any US mischief with the root zone file. However, now when we >>>are discussing the power of root server operators, which is >>>geo-politically very unevenly distributed, the 'power' with the root >>>server operators is sought to be so minimized as to be completely >>>evaporated. The focus is repeatedly sought to shifted to how anyone can >>>set up a root server and that those who speak about 13 root servers >>>(meaning, root server operators) being not distributed well enough are >>>merely stupid! >>> >>>How does what appears to be the 'same fact' take such very different >>>manifestations in two different political arguments? This is what I mean >>>by 'technical advice' being warped by strong techno-political >>>viewpoints. I am not making any personal accusation. I am stating a >>>sociological 'fact'. >>> >>> >>> >>>(snip) >>> >>> >>>What I see is that, while there are of course clearly very >>>significant differences between these three layers or kinds of root >>>servers, much of the 'technical input' on this list that I have come >>>across seem to focus on the non-difference and greatly underplay the >>>difference. >>> >>> >>> >>>As discussed above, the distinction you are making doesn't exist. >>> >>> >>> >>>Well!! See above for the distinction. A clear distinction that you did >>>understand and articulate in your earlier email in terms of >>>concentration of ability for "administration of those root servers is in >>>the hands of 12 organizations, of which 9 are US-based. " There is >>>obvious and very important distinction between the 'power' of root zone >>>operator and someone operating a mirror. This distinction is the very >>>basis of the whole discussion in this thread. But you have easily and >>>conveniently dismissed, or minimised, distinctions between the root file >>>layer, root zone layer and anycast mirror layer, esp between these two >>>latter layers . This is done through a unilateral decision to speak >>>about one thing when the other party is speaking about quite another, or >>>at least another aspect of the issue - which here is the issue of >>>'control' rather than availability of root file for resolving queries. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>This I think is politically motivated, though disguised as factual >>>neutral/ technical information. >>> >>> >>> >>>Conspiracy theories are tricky things as it makes it difficult to >>>communicate. >>> >>> >>> >>>:). I made it clear at the onset that I am trying to argue that when a >>>group has strong political inclinations - as the so called technical >>>community has -  its technical advice gets accordingly wrapped... Call >>>it my conspiracy theory, but at least I am upfront. But also (try to ) >>>see how the technical community sees deep conspiracies in every single >>>political utterance from the South. Worse its conspiracy theory is >>>further compounded by a 'stupidity theory'. Double insult! >>> >>> >>>(snip) >>> >>>You misread.  The 13 IP(v4) address limitation due to the default >>>maximum DNS message size still exists.  While there are now ways >>>around this limitation (specifically, the EDNS0 extension to the DNS >>>specification), these ways are not universally supported and as such, >>>cannot be relied upon, particularly for root service. >>> >>> >>> >>>No, I dont think I misread. Just that the fact remains that the number >>>13 can be expanded without much difficulty, but you are not too >>>interested to explore that direction while I am (again, political >>>proclivities intervene). Wasnt introducing multilingual gtlds also >>>considered a bit 'difficult to rely upon' just a few years back. >>>Finally, political considerations helped get over that unnecessary and >>>exaggerated fear. It depended who were taking the decisions, the US >>>centric ICANN establishment earlier, but the same establishment with >>>some WSIS related fears and cautions in the second instance. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>So if indeed it is not, why not breach it and make people of the >>>world happy. >>> >>> >>> >>>Even if it were possible, I sincerely doubt everyone having their own >>>root server would make the people of the world happy. >>> >>> >>> >>>This is 'the' most important point - whether there is any justification >>>at all to increase the number or root servers and/or to reallocate / >>>redistribute them in a manner that is politically more justifiable and >>>thus sustainable. I will take it up in a separate email. >>> >>>regards >>>parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Even within the limit of 13, why not allocate root servers in a >>>geo-graphically equitable manner, as Sivasubramanian has suggested, >>>especially when it seems to make no difference at all to anyone. Why >>>not make all these ill-informed ministers happy. >>> >>> >>> >>>As mentioned in a previous note, the operators of the root servers are >>>independent (modulo "A" and "J" (through the Verisign contract with >>>the USG) and "E", "G", and "H" (operated by USG Departments), albeit >>>each of these operators deal with their root servers differently). How >>>root server operators distribute their instances is entirely their >>>decision.  To date, there has apparently been insufficient >>>justification for those root server operators to decide to distribute >>>their machines in a "geo-graphically equitable manner". >>> >>>With that said, there are at least two root server operators ("L" >>>(ICANN) and "F" (ISC)) who have publicly stated they are willing to >>>give a root server instance to anyone that asks. Perhaps the >>>ill-informed ministers could be informed of this so they could be happy? >>> >>> >>> >>>I read that there is no central control over the 13 or at least 9 of >>>these root servers. Is it really true? >>> >>> >>> >>>Yes. The diversity of architecture and lack of centralized control is >>>seen as a feature as it reduces the opportunities for "capture". >>> >>> >>> >>>Is the 13 root server architecture not something that is aligned to >>>what goes in and from the authoritative root server. >>> >>> >>> >>>Root server architecture is independent of how the root zone is >>>distributed. >>> >>> >>> >>>If it is, why can these root servers not be reallocated in the way >>>tlds have been reallocated. Can they be reallocated or cant they? >>> >>> >>> >>>In practical terms, the "reallocation of a root server" boils down to >>>transferring the root server's IP address and telling the new owner >>>the zone transfer password. >>> >>>Before the DNS became a political battleground, root server >>>"reallocation" occurred (extremely infrequently) when (a) the person >>>to whom Jon Postel "gave" the root server changed employers or (b) the >>>assets of the organization running the root server were acquired by >>>another company. Today, "reallocation" of a root server would either >>>require the existing root server operator voluntarily giving the root >>>server IP address to a different organization or that IP address would >>>have to be "taken" by eminent domain or somesuch. >>> >>> >>> >>>I also read that the it is not about 13 physical root servers, but 13 >>>root server operators, >>> >>> >>> >>>Well, 12 operators (since Verisign operates two root servers). >>> >>> >>> >>>so the number 13 is about the root server ownership points, and not >>>physical location points. >>> >>> >>> >>>In the sense that there are 13 IP(v4) addresses that are "owned" by 12 >>>organizations.  Geography is largely irrelevant. >>> >>> >>> >>>Therefore what is needed is to reallocate the ownership points in a >>>geo-politically equitious manner. As Siva suggests, probably one to >>>an Indian Institute of Technology. >>> >>> >>> >>>Somewhat as an aside, my understanding is that efforts to provide >>>infrastructure (not root server infrastructure specifically albeit the >>>same folks do provide anycast instances for a root server operator) in >>>India were blocked by demands for bribes greater than the value of >>>hardware being shipped into the country (see >>>http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.operators.nanog/100786). >>> >>> >>> >>>Why this is not done, or cant be done are the real questions in the >>>present debate. Any answers? >>> >>> >>> >>>Sure. You are assuming a top-down model that does not exist.  There is >>>no single entity that can dictate to the root server operators "you >>>will give your root server to IIT".  You and others that care about >>>this are free to make the case to (say) Verisign that it would be in >>>their corporate best interests for them to relocate administrative >>>control of one of their root servers to India, but it would be up to >>>Verisign (or perhaps more accurately, its shareholders) to make that >>>decision. >>> >>> >>> >>>Is the real problem here that if root server allocation issue is >>>opened up, countries would like to go country-wise on root servers >>>(as the recent China's proposal for 'Autonomous Internet') which will >>>skew the present non-nation wise Internet topology (other than its US >>>centricity), which is an important feature of the Internet. >>> >>> >>> >>>No. Placement of root servers has no impact on Internet topology. >>>Really. Distributing root server instances can be helpful in reducing >>>root query latency and improving resiliency in the event of network >>>disruption. That's pretty much it. Opening up the "root server >>>allocation issue" is a red herring, particularly given pretty much >>>anyone can get a root server instance if they care and are willing to >>>abide by the restrictions inherent in operating a root server. >>> >>>Merging a subsequent note: >>> >>>On Sunday 05 August 2012 06:10 PM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>>' administrative access will not be available' to the anycast >>>operator to his own anycast server. >>> >>> >>> >>>Yes.  However, if you ask anyone familiar with computer systems, you >>>will be told that if you have physical access to a machine, you can >>>gain control of that machine.  Obtaining such control would violate >>>the terms by which the machine was granted, but that's irrelevant. >>> >>> >>> >>>This is a pretty centralised control, not at all the picture one got >>>from all the technically well informed insiders who seem to suggest >>>on this list that everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory and >>>kind of anyone can set up and operate root servers. >>> >>> >>> >>>I'm getting the impression that you read what you prefer to read, not >>>what is actually written.  No one (to my knowledge) has suggested >>>"everything is open, uncontrolled and hunky-dory".  Root service is >>>considered critical infrastructure and is treated as such, so anyone >>>asserting it is "open and uncontrolled" would be confused at best. >>> Can you provide a reference to anyone making this suggestion? >>> >>>As for "hunky-dory", I suppose some folks would say the way the root >>>servers are operated is "hunky-dory".  I am not among them. >>> >>> >>> >>>Was the African minister really so wrong, or even the Indian minister? >>> >>> >>> >>>Yes. Really. >>> >>>Regards, >>>-drc >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>>     >>>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>>     >>>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>     http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: >>>http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Aug 10 05:05:34 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:05:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] No internet administration without representation Message-ID: <5024CEDE.1000402@gmail.com> Parminder Since the Indian Minister thread is "tired", I thought this might be more apt for our convo as if others are not here... which is "open" to others... If we take an evolutionary perspective to change, and a political economy i.e. to achieve change necessarily means replacing a radical view with one of reform - then the educative process on root servers was useful, and is just a beginning of an issue that has been smothered time and time again. What strikes me is how the elements of the technical side have evolved, and how flexible some of the arrangements actually are at some levels and how the technical arguments can be dialectically used for the status quo (stability) and against it (flexibility, anycast, etc). And as Conrad puts it, political agendas are fine if there is precision - which is just what is needed. On Drake and others, I think evolutionary change is precisely experimental. As every general view needs to be refined until it resolves itself into a crisp demand capable of legal or policy rendering. There is not one conception of legitimacy, and it can begin slowly (that is why some of the 'single root believers'/'anti CIR discussion' case is belied by changes by ICANN et al made),. Arguments against CIR legitimacy have come in many shades, ranging from you can't have more than one root through to there are too many players to change these matters through to "USA!USA! USA!" Burying CIR as many wish to, based on a political judgement of impossibility, has its merits (at the first IGF this was done with only the BBCs Nick Gowing being allowed to raise the issue with none other than Vint Cerf - at a non-binding forum) especially if it opens up spaces to discuss other issues. Thomas has put forward a proposal that may well be a starting point for keeping the issue of legitimacy of CIR on the agenda. While the most dirty tricks have been played to detract attention from this issue (which makes remarkable coincidence with those whose political assessment is that change on this is impossible, mentioned so that those who care to be sensitive and open can understand and perhaps take some heed), a /process solution/ to keep the flame burning allows a number of things. Others can then also work on different issues of importance. And those with an interest in this matter can pursue it. The only reservation I have is with the reactionaries of the anti-legitimacy crowd (I desist from mob, after all they seem not be part of the great unwashed if you get my drift ;) and so you should plan accordingly including being morose/hard ass/difficult/contrary/nice/abivalent/etc (Practically this would mean that ALL processes/panels/discussions need not be "balanced" - that there be space for broadening - discussions that are balanced - and deepening - one sided discussions that take CIR governance as illegit, or technical courses on architecture). Conrad especially, and others even with whom you/we disagree, have shown not only generosity but openness to engage and this at least is civil if robust. But perhaps some of the marginals like Auerbach could be drawn back in as well - this is quite essential, imho, if as a community we are to regard ourselves as inclusive rather than merely likeminded with a few token dissenters. As we know, the danger here is that other issues will be used as Weapons of Mass Distraction - a danger that one merely be aware of, perhaps in the Chinese sense, you could allow them to save some face. On saving face, I think here we need to let people ride in the front of the bus so to speak. In these matters of political judgement, there are simply forks in the road where we have to agree to disagree. Many are more comfortable with their own governments than with others, and issues tend to be more contestable in the rich countries than in ours. However, I think there is also some level of arrogance that goes with such views, which should not be forgotten. And the people expressing them may not be arrogant, but they need to be aware of context, so... I do not think that USers often appreciate how dangerous Bush's retrospective legislation on telecoms companies revealing data sans court order was in legal terms (retrospectivity in law is quite an exception) or that the PATRIOT act will only really end its reign until the US signs a peace treaty with terrorism. Even on matters of corruption, on everything from the derivatives scandals to LIBOR we see that there are different forms of corruption/deceit/oppression Southerners are country bumpkins when it comes to ripping stuff off compared to Northerners (and by the way tax write offs for bribes to South countries used to exist until very recently in the rich countries): 23 trillion for bankers while Barofsky of TARP says the government/Geithner was not interested in sorting out foreclosures or helping home owners (which were about a 3 trillion problem in the US). But some lessons one has to learn the hard way and no amount of talk or data will make the case that some political oversight and contestability in issues may not be a bad thing (a refrain often used on the poor countries to improve their governance). I will not even go into Wikileaks. I mention this not to pique differences, but merely to highlight the point that if Southerners need to acknowledge the governance problems then a double standard should not be applied when it comes to the North. The ticket for participation in civil society is reason, and so goose and gander stuff applies here... even if we acknowledge that many things are better handled in the North (some issues are simply acceptable unsayable as Drake points out CIR, or as Friends of the Earth on the US climate change/Kyoto Protocol - so there are lots finicky politicking that needs also be acknowledged if difference is taken seriously). And it is not ONLY that something big and bad that is the problem - in which MAD is a counterbalance. It is the subtle abuse that can creep into the system (like potential misdirection based on resolve requests timing as Auerbach points out, etc) - and like me, your experience in civil society on these issues does not need any instruction on how corrosive subtle continual vilification, abuse, marginalisation can be - and this can be the same for governance of CIR. This is NOT about hypotheticals at all. It is about a resource that serves a global public good function whose stability and development is in the public interest - and even if people disagree (forks) a negative inference cannot be made of those who raise legitimacy as public interest. Nor can any claims to universalism be made that are definitive for either side. It is contested, and therefore in civil society MUST be contestable. The essential problem always is, who guards the guardians. There are two views here: 1) there is not the ability to guard - which is a valid proposition (i.e. US will never do it, it is complicated, the operators will not agree - all valid from some perspective or level of abstraction). And we must do what we can. However there ought also to be space for those who want Pessimism of the intellect (technicalities, precision) and optimism of the will (no i-admin w/out reptn), suffices... 2) there is no interest /need to guard. These people usually indict themselves imho as time flows... Great stuff for the India Minister discussion and all who contributed...! Peace riaz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 10 06:10:09 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:40:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> Hi Bill, Before I engage with your surprisingly status quoist politics, let me point out some important factual untruths in your email, mostly about me/ my positions/ activities.... On Friday 10 August 2012 12:48 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Tom > Snip > You'd also have to assemble a strong coalition of demandeurs to even > get it on the UN agenda. While Parminder seems to be convinced that > billions across the entire global South are just seething with rage > over who signs off on zone changes, I've asked before for some > evidence of who exactly we're taking about here without getting replies. So you really dont know? For instance, please see the statement signed by more than 65 organisations worldwide, and more than 125 individuals, who signed it in around just 10 days before the May 18th meeting on enhanced cooperation. BTW, this statement was also positively referred to a press statement by UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural rights and Special Rapporteur on FoE, which was entitled ' It is crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet today ' issued on the occasion on the meeting on 'enhanced cooperation'. Now, I do know for sure that you had read this joint civil society statement because you have quoted parts of it in an IGC discussion. What would be a proof to you that global South really sees iniquitous global IG as a problem? One puts one's required level of evidence high or low depending simply on what ones wants to believe, or not. In fact, it is not I or IT for Change that is living in a glass bubble, it is a form of global civil society involved with IG which is not in connection with what the rest of world is really thinking! > Probably one could compile an initial list of governments at least by > looking at larger, upper income countries like the BRICS whose general > diplomatic stance is that they deserve seats at all tables > commensurate with their ascendent wealth and power, as well as > authoritarian regimes in the ME and elsewhere. Whether all their > citizens would feel the same way, know knows. And for a lot of other > countries, this is pretty far down their list of priorities relative > to other Internet and non-internet issues. They might be persuaded to > sign onto some G77 and China statement through arm twisting and > side-payments (football stadiums seem to work well for China) and the > usual presumption that group solidarity increases their influence, but > the level of actual commitment may vary. You seem to notice allurements by a BRICS country very easily, and ignore what all lengths, legitimate and illegitimate, US and its allies go to get country votes on their side. And this is historical so well known in geo-politics. For instance, the almost unbelievable overdrive that the US admin is on currently in trying to get countries on its side on global IG issues is widely known. Just try to be a little more even-handed, Bill. > I know I've asked governments before about G77 statements and been > told oh that's not really our position but we have to go along with > the group (have heard this in Europe too, for that matter). They are just trying to be friendly to you, Bill :). What they speak are country positions. Dont be taken by their polite manners... > > I've argued before that the only way one could really start the > conversation would be to outline said plausible alternative and why > its risks/costs are less than the certainties/benefits of the SQ. I > believe Parminder objected along the lines of this is putting the > burden on the oppressed etc but don't want to paraphrase incorrectly > and get flamed, so he can perhaps reiterate. Well, a good case of being damned if you will, and damned if you wont! I dont know whether you are unhappy about developing countries not positing alternatives, or about civil society actors like my organisation. As for countries doing it; India proposed the CIRP proposal. It did so precisely because India believed that for too long the discussion has been in the air, and it needed some concrete proposal(s) on the ground to make any movement forward on the EC issue - a position that now you seem to be taking. India's proposal ends with such open hearted candour basically seeking engagement of other actors with this proposal and keenness to listen to other views which it is almost unusual in making such proposals.......... But I did not find much, or any, engagement with that proposal other than most extreme and unfair characterisations of the proposal... On the other hand, at the process level, how to go forward on a meaningful dialogue on the issue - IBSA has been asking for a CSTD working group on EC since 2010 with little tractions...... (BTW, during WSIS Brazil gave a very detailed proposal for democratising CIR management which can be seen in a chapter by Carlos in a UN ICT Task Force book edited by you.) What else do you want these countries to do??? Why so high standards for chastity for developing countries? When you are so so very forgiving and 'understanding' of what US does and why wrt global IG - domestic considerations and all.... It is, in fact, the so called global IG civil society that has always failed to constructively engage with the positions or views proposed by developing countries (even when they are not authoritarian countries) rejecting them summarily as simply obnoxious and not worthy to even talk about. (And we see this tendency continue from the current thread of discussion) As for IT for Change offering alternatives; you can hardly say we shy from doing so..... We proposed a UN Committee like CIRP even before India did (though we did not list the oversight function in our proposal, we were, and remain, more interested in the functions that OECD's CCICP does), we have proposed WG on enhanced cooperation (EC), We have insisted on IGF discussions on EC long before the current enthusiasm for IGF discussion on EC (whose timing and opportunism is questionable).... At the CSTD 2012 meeting we proposed that India's CIRP proposal be modified to take out the oversight function, which should be taken to a different body........ on the IGC list too, during the 'oversight' discussion in June, we proposed some models, we encouraged Norbert to complete his proposal and commented on, in the current thread we have been proposing means to redistribute ownership of root ops, even yesterday in my email to Ian I proposed the outlines of an alternative for root zone authorisation........ You got it completely wrong here Bill. parminder > But my view's unchanged, you can't start the conversation without > something sensible and concrete written down for people to focus on. > Starting with "we're pissed but it's not up to us to give the > alternative" just won't move anything. > > In any event, the one thing we ought to be able to agree on is that > this has absolutely no place in the ITRs. The ITRs are not a > framework agreement on IG, they're a high-level treaty of rather > questionable utility that pertains to how traditional telecom services > offered to the general public should be organized at the political > level. DNS matters absolutely do not fit in here even if the Russians > and some Arab countries would like to stir it into the pot, and its > inclusion would be a regressive step that would correctly engender > such extensive Reservations as to make it meaningless. > > And in the meanwhile, while we concentrate on this, the rest of global > civil society will go on debating other global IG issues that actually > bite much more hard on citizens around the world, e.g.rampant > surveillance, censorship, securitization, propertyization, access > costs and availability, opening up supposedly democratic > intergovernmental processes, etc. So the distance between the IGC and > other progressive networks could just fester and grow at a moment when > others are trying to come together a bit. > > Otherwise, I'm optimistic about making this the caucus' cause célèbre. > > 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 10 07:07:27 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:07:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> Hi Parminder On Aug 10, 2012, at 12:10 PM, parminder wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Before I engage with your surprisingly status quoist politics, I was clear that I don't advocate the SQ but was noting some of the barriers that can't just be wish away. Please don't start with this kind of twisting things or it will go downhill quickly. > let me point out some important factual untruths in your email, mostly about me/ my positions/ activities.... > > On Friday 10 August 2012 12:48 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi Tom > >> Snip > >> You'd also have to assemble a strong coalition of demandeurs to even get it on the UN agenda. While Parminder seems to be convinced that billions across the entire global South are just seething with rage over who signs off on zone changes, I've asked before for some evidence of who exactly we're taking about here without getting replies. > > So you really dont know? For instance, please see the statement signed by more than 65 organisations worldwide, and more than 125 individuals, who signed it in around just 10 days before the May 18th meeting on enhanced cooperation. BTW, this statement was also positively referred to a press statement by UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural rights and Special Rapporteur on FoE, which was entitled ' It is crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet today' issued on the occasion on the meeting on 'enhanced cooperation'. > > Now, I do know for sure that you had read this joint civil society statement because you have quoted parts of it in an IGC discussion. Right I read that. The signatories cannot be taken as a proxy for "the whole global South thinks," sorry. Anyway, I was asking about governments, particularly governments who've done proper multistakeholder consultations so we know what they're saying may actually reflect some semblance of public opinion rather than just the aspirations of state elites. For example, I'm sure you would argue that "India" thinks there's an urgent need to multilateralize the USG functions, but I keep talking to Indians who say they don't agree and there's been no open consultations on the matter, it's just the preferences of a few ministries. So I'm asking for some clarity on the head count, and the counting methodology, in order to be able to assess your claims better. Nothing wrong with that, one would think. > > What would be a proof to you that global South really sees iniquitous global IG as a problem? One puts one's required level of evidence high or low depending simply on what ones wants to believe, or not. In fact, it is not I or IT for Change that is living in a glass bubble, it is a form of global civil society involved with IG which is not in connection with what the rest of world is really thinking! I don't have your confidence that I know what billions of people who've probably never heard of a root server think, or that I can speak for them. > >> Probably one could compile an initial list of governments at least by looking at larger, upper income countries like the BRICS whose general diplomatic stance is that they deserve seats at all tables commensurate with their ascendent wealth and power, as well as authoritarian regimes in the ME and elsewhere. Whether all their citizens would feel the same way, know knows. And for a lot of other countries, this is pretty far down their list of priorities relative to other Internet and non-internet issues. They might be persuaded to sign onto some G77 and China statement through arm twisting and side-payments (football stadiums seem to work well for China) and the usual presumption that group solidarity increases their influence, but the level of actual commitment may vary. > > You seem to notice allurements by a BRICS country very easily, and ignore what all lengths, legitimate and illegitimate, US and its allies go to get country votes on their side. I do no such thing, I'm perfectly aware that other countries play alignment politics. The point here was trying to identify who the dissatisfied may be. > And this is historical so well known in geo-politics. For instance, the almost unbelievable overdrive that the US admin is on currently in trying to get countries on its side on global IG issues is widely known. Just try to be a little more even-handed, Bill. See above. When asking who is on side x, not listing who is on side y doesn't make for unevenhandedness. > >> I know I've asked governments before about G77 statements and been told oh that's not really our position but we have to go along with the group (have heard this in Europe too, for that matter). > > They are just trying to be friendly to you, Bill :). What they speak are country positions. Dont be taken by their polite manners… And you know who I've spoken with about what and what their real motives and thinking are because….? >> >> I've argued before that the only way one could really start the conversation would be to outline said plausible alternative and why its risks/costs are less than the certainties/benefits of the SQ. I believe Parminder objected along the lines of this is putting the burden on the oppressed etc but don't want to paraphrase incorrectly and get flamed, so he can perhaps reiterate. > > Well, a good case of being damned if you will, and damned if you wont! I dont know whether you are unhappy about developing countries not positing alternatives, or about civil society actors like my organisation. I'm not an unhappy guy Parminder. I was just saying that I recall you objecting to the argument that it's incumbent on proponents of change to propose something plausible if they want to get the conversation going. > > As for countries doing it; India proposed the CIRP proposal. It did so precisely because India believed that for too long the discussion has been in the air, and it needed some concrete proposal(s) on the ground to make any movement forward on the EC issue - a position that now you seem to be taking. India's proposal ends with such open hearted candour basically seeking engagement of other actors with this proposal and keenness to listen to other views which it is almost unusual in making such proposals.......... But I did not find much, or any, engagement with that proposal other than most extreme and unfair characterisations of the proposal... On the other hand, at the process level, how to go forward on a meaningful dialogue on the issue - IBSA has been asking for a CSTD working group on EC since 2010 with little tractions...... (BTW, during WSIS Brazil gave a very detailed proposal for democratising CIR management which can be seen in a chapter by Carlos in a UN ICT Task Force book edited by you.) What else do you want these countries to do??? Carlos' chapter was good. Does it reflect official Brazilian policy today? I don't know. > Why so high standards for chastity for developing countries? When you are so so very forgiving and 'understanding' of what US does and why wrt global IG - domestic considerations and all…. Now I'm an advocate of chastity? Huh. Anyway, yes, the Indian government made a proposal (which Indian CS and business people I talked to said they had no warning of and did not support, but anyway..). And it enjoyed quite a bit of prominence in these parts for awhile, you cannot claim it didn't get a hearing. It had a number of elements in it that were highly problematic (and which reportedly led Mr. Govind to declare India was dropping them as "not well thought out"), which opponents naturally focused on, and some elements that might be sensible depending on xyz factors. But overall, while I know you feel personally invested in it, you do have to admit, there was no great rush to the side of the proposal. Even Brazil and South Africa backed away. Where were the others? I never heard endorsements from other developing country governments, and recall asking you if there had been any in the UNGA when they introduced it, since you were following that more closely. No reply. > > It is, in fact, the so called global IG civil society that has always failed to constructively engage with the positions or views proposed by developing countries (even when they are not authoritarian countries) rejecting them summarily as simply obnoxious and not worthy to even talk about. (And we see this tendency continue from the current thread of discussion) Why when I say the proponent of change should propose something plausible do you keep turing it around to attack people with nonsequitors? If we can stick to the issues we can talk, if it's going to be throwing stuff at people I'm not interested. > > As for IT for Change offering alternatives; you can hardly say we shy from doing so..... We proposed a UN Committee like CIRP even before India did (though we did not list the oversight function in our proposal, we were, and remain, more interested in the functions that OECD's CCICP does), we have proposed WG on enhanced cooperation (EC), We have insisted on IGF discussions on EC long before the current enthusiasm for IGF discussion on EC (whose timing and opportunism is questionable).... At the CSTD 2012 meeting we proposed that India's CIRP proposal be modified to take out the oversight function, which should be taken to a different body........ on the IGC list too, during the 'oversight' discussion in June, we proposed some models, we encouraged Norbert to complete his proposal and commented on, in the current thread we have been proposing means to redistribute ownership of root ops, even yesterday in my email to Ian I proposed the outlines of an alternative for root zone authorisation........ You got it completely wrong here Bill. Got what wrong? I didn't say IT for Change hasn't made any proposals on IG. I said to that if there's this big global coalition of countries/peoples who are stewing over root zone signings, please indicate who they are and how you know, so I understand the basis of your claims; and that if you/they want to make this the priority battle and overcome all the various elements of resistance I noted would have to be overcome, advancing a plausible proposal that would provide assurances to those not already in agreement with you would be a logical first step. I really don't see why that should agitate you or lead to accusations that I'm issuing untruths about your position (case unproven, BTW), putting down people who may think like you, or turning a blind eye to problems with US policy. Why not respond to what I was saying, rather than to what I wasn't? Do you want to score points against imaginary enemies, or have a conversation about what would be required to effectively promote a change in the model? Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Aug 10 07:23:39 2012 From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:23:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Multiplication of virus cases built by and for states ... In-Reply-To: <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20120810132339.14641kx04im2jvaz@mail1.itu.ch> Gauss – Nation-state cyber-surveillance meets banking Trojan http://www.securelist.com/en/blog?weblogid=208193767 Gauss, a new virus (or worm because its decryption is not done) was identified by Kaspersky. The fourth after Stuxnet, Flame and Duqu. I wondered if it's not time sounding the alarm because it could be that many more malware exist but those who created them or the victims do not dare talk about for their image and of sovereignty reasons. What benefits can be envisaged for end users in what appears to be a cybernetics war that started before it was predicted by experts. Where countries may protest at global level? I believe that ICT governance is truly threatened and we may be surprized by all implications as for now it's clear that everything is possible in the cyberspace. Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED, Comoros -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatednet at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 07:28:47 2012 From: isolatednet at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:58:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Multiplication of virus cases built by and for states ... In-Reply-To: <20120810132339.14641kx04im2jvaz@mail1.itu.ch> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <20120810132339.14641kx04im2jvaz@mail1.itu.ch> Message-ID: > > Gauss was discovered during the course of the ongoing effort initiated by > the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) , > following the discovery of Flame. On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:53 PM, wrote: > Gauss – Nation-state cyber-surveillance meets banking Trojan > http://www.securelist.com/en/**blog?weblogid=208193767 > > Gauss, a new virus (or worm because its decryption is not done) was > identified by Kaspersky. The fourth after Stuxnet, Flame and Duqu. > > I wondered if it's not time sounding the alarm because it could be that > many more malware exist but those who created them or the victims do not > dare talk about for their image and of sovereignty reasons. > > What benefits can be envisaged for end users in what appears to be a > cybernetics war that started before it was predicted by experts. > > Where countries may protest at global level? I believe that ICT governance > is truly threatened and we may be surprized by all implications as for now > it's clear that everything is possible in the cyberspace. > > Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED, Comoros > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 10 07:53:21 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:53:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 7:07 AM, William Drake wrote: > Got what wrong? I didn't say IT for Change hasn't made any proposals on > IG. I said to that if there's this big global coalition of > countries/peoples who are stewing over root zone signings, please indicate > who they are and how you know, so I understand the basis of your claims; > and that if you/they want to make this the priority battle and overcome all > the various elements of resistance I noted would have to be overcome, > advancing a plausible proposal that would provide assurances to those not > already in agreement with you would be a logical first step. > what he said. I'd also like you (PJS) to reply to my concerns re: your concrete proposal, specifically, have you asked the 4 RIRs if they want to take on a root-ops role? Where would the money to do this come from? > I really don't see why that should agitate you or lead to accusations > that I'm issuing untruths about your position (case unproven, BTW), putting > down people who may think like you, or turning a blind eye to problems with > US policy. Why not respond to what I was saying, rather than to what I > wasn't? Do you want to score points against imaginary enemies, or have a > conversation about what would be required to effectively promote a change > in the model? > seemingly the former. -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 10 08:37:34 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:07:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <5025008E.4040700@itforchange.net> On Friday 10 August 2012 04:37 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Parminder > > On Aug 10, 2012, at 12:10 PM, parminder wrote: > >> Hi Bill, >> >> Before I engage with your surprisingly status quoist politics, > > I was clear that I don't advocate the SQ but was noting some of the > barriers that can't just be wish away. Please don't start with this > kind of twisting things or it will go downhill quickly. When someone says that anyone wanting a change has to "outline said plausible alternative and why its risks/costs are less than the certainties/benefits of the SQ", and carries on at length to show - as most of your email does - that there isnt any clear demand for change, and when that someone is not an appointed neutral referee or something but a political player in the arena, then that person's politics is legitimately called as status quoist. I stick to my position. In politics, no one is neutral, either you agree to be in the status quo, or you are sympathetic to talk of alternatives, and likely, have some in your mind yourself....... And when I did describe how alternatives have indeed been proposed, unlike what you suggest, you are getting into nuances of those alternatives, that are surely worth discussing, but here the only point was - indeed, alternatives have been proposed, these cannot be called as 'non-plausible' even if one has differences with them.... And then you want 'evidence' from me that there indeed is support among CS, governments, people etc... and to anything that can be mentioned in this regard, your have responses that I can do little about. You say a joint CS statement does not mean most people support this position - i agree, it doesn’t 'prove' so, but what do you want me to do, hold an referendum to satisfy you. You say developing countries may take official positions but in private talks most officials confess to you that they are really not interested. You say, you are not convinced how inclusive and multi-stakeholder is the process of building country positions..... which all may be true.... But that kind of unending reasoning can be used to be sceptic of every position on anything, whatever... the world is hardly close to being perfect. You seem to have concluded - there isnt any real demand - even in the developing world - for change in status quo. You chose to believe those whom you speak in private etc, but these other more open processes - joint CS statements, stated gov positions - above do not meet your requirement of evidence.... You see, I cant do much about that. But one thing is clear, that you seem to infer, and want to infer, that there is not much demand for change in status quo really in terms of CIR management. And you are satisfied with that inference. Why not respond to what I was saying, rather than to what I wasn't? (Bill) I read you mostly to say, there isnt much demand for change. I found most of the email being about it, and so my response. "Do you want to score points against imaginary enemies, or have a conversation about what would be required to effectively promote a change in the model?" (Bill) We are not going to agree on who is trying to score points, but, well, as I said I read your email mostly making the point that there is insufficient evidence of demand for change. However, if the main point was something else, i am happy to respond to it. You tell me what you think "would be required to effectively promote a change in the model" and we can go from there. (I have said it enough times already). parminder > >> let me point out some important factual untruths in your email, >> mostly about me/ my positions/ activities.... >> >> On Friday 10 August 2012 12:48 PM, William Drake wrote: >>> Hi Tom >> >>> Snip >> >>> You'd also have to assemble a strong coalition of demandeurs to even >>> get it on the UN agenda. While Parminder seems to be convinced that >>> billions across the entire global South are just seething with rage >>> over who signs off on zone changes, I've asked before for some >>> evidence of who exactly we're taking about here without getting >>> replies. >> >> So you really dont know? For instance, please see the statement >> >> signed by more than 65 organisations worldwide, and more than 125 >> individuals, who signed it in around just 10 days before the May 18th >> meeting on enhanced cooperation. BTW, this statement was also >> positively referred to a press statement by UN Special Rapporteur on >> Cultural rights and Special Rapporteur on FoE, which was entitled ' >> It is crucial to address who and what shapes the Internet today >> ' >> issued on the occasion on the meeting on 'enhanced cooperation'. >> >> Now, I do know for sure that you had read this joint civil society >> statement because you have quoted parts of it in an IGC discussion. > > Right I read that. The signatories cannot be taken as a proxy for > "the whole global South thinks," sorry. Anyway, I was asking about > governments, particularly governments who've done proper > multistakeholder consultations so we know what they're saying may > actually reflect some semblance of public opinion rather than just the > aspirations of state elites. For example, I'm sure you would argue > that "India" thinks there's an urgent need to multilateralize the USG > functions, but I keep talking to Indians who say they don't agree and > there's been no open consultations on the matter, it's just the > preferences of a few ministries. So I'm asking for some clarity on > the head count, and the counting methodology, in order to be able to > assess your claims better. Nothing wrong with that, one would think. >> >> What would be a proof to you that global South really sees iniquitous >> global IG as a problem? One puts one's required level of evidence >> high or low depending simply on what ones wants to believe, or not. >> In fact, it is not I or IT for Change that is living in a glass >> bubble, it is a form of global civil society involved with IG which >> is not in connection with what the rest of world is really thinking! > > I don't have your confidence that I know what billions of people > who've probably never heard of a root server think, or that I can > speak for them. >> >>> Probably one could compile an initial list of governments at least >>> by looking at larger, upper income countries like the BRICS whose >>> general diplomatic stance is that they deserve seats at all tables >>> commensurate with their ascendent wealth and power, as well as >>> authoritarian regimes in the ME and elsewhere. Whether all their >>> citizens would feel the same way, know knows. And for a lot of >>> other countries, this is pretty far down their list of priorities >>> relative to other Internet and non-internet issues. They might be >>> persuaded to sign onto some G77 and China statement through arm >>> twisting and side-payments (football stadiums seem to work well for >>> China) and the usual presumption that group solidarity increases >>> their influence, but the level of actual commitment may vary. >> >> You seem to notice allurements by a BRICS country very easily, and >> ignore what all lengths, legitimate and illegitimate, US and its >> allies go to get country votes on their side. > > I do no such thing, I'm perfectly aware that other countries play > alignment politics. The point here was trying to identify who the > dissatisfied may be. > >> And this is historical so well known in geo-politics. For instance, >> the almost unbelievable overdrive that the US admin is on currently >> in trying to get countries on its side on global IG issues is widely >> known. Just try to be a little more even-handed, Bill. > > See above. When asking who is on side x, not listing who is on side y > doesn't make for unevenhandedness. >> >>> I know I've asked governments before about G77 statements and been >>> told oh that's not really our position but we have to go along with >>> the group (have heard this in Europe too, for that matter). >> >> They are just trying to be friendly to you, Bill :). What they speak >> are country positions. Dont be taken by their polite manners… > > And you know who I've spoken with about what and what their real > motives and thinking are because….? >>> >>> I've argued before that the only way one could really start the >>> conversation would be to outline said plausible alternative and why >>> its risks/costs are less than the certainties/benefits of the SQ. I >>> believe Parminder objected along the lines of this is putting the >>> burden on the oppressed etc but don't want to paraphrase incorrectly >>> and get flamed, so he can perhaps reiterate. >> >> Well, a good case of being damned if you will, and damned if you >> wont! I dont know whether you are unhappy about developing countries >> not positing alternatives, or about civil society actors like my >> organisation. > > I'm not an unhappy guy Parminder. I was just saying that I recall you > objecting to the argument that it's incumbent on proponents of change > to propose something plausible if they want to get the conversation > going. >> >> As for countries doing it; India proposed the CIRP proposal. It did >> so precisely because India believed that for too long the discussion >> has been in the air, and it needed some concrete proposal(s) on the >> ground to make any movement forward on the EC issue - a position that >> now you seem to be taking. India's proposal ends with such open >> hearted candour basically seeking engagement of other actors with >> this proposal and keenness to listen to other views which it is >> almost unusual in making such proposals.......... But I did not find >> much, or any, engagement with that proposal other than most extreme >> and unfair characterisations of the proposal... On the other hand, >> at the process level, how to go forward on a meaningful dialogue on >> the issue - IBSA has been asking for a CSTD working group on EC since >> 2010 with little tractions...... (BTW, during WSIS Brazil gave a >> very detailed proposal for democratising CIR management which can be >> seen in a chapter by Carlos in a UN ICT Task Force book edited by >> you.) What else do you want these countries to do??? > > Carlos' chapter was good. Does it reflect official Brazilian policy > today? I don't know. > >> Why so high standards for chastity for developing countries? When you >> are so so very forgiving and 'understanding' of what US does and why >> wrt global IG - domestic considerations and all…. > > Now I'm an advocate of chastity? Huh. Anyway, yes, the Indian > government made a proposal (which Indian CS and business people I > talked to said they had no warning of and did not support, but > anyway..). And it enjoyed quite a bit of prominence in these parts > for awhile, you cannot claim it didn't get a hearing. It had a number > of elements in it that were highly problematic (and which reportedly > led Mr. Govind to declare India was dropping them as "not well thought > out"), which opponents naturally focused on, and some elements that > might be sensible depending on xyz factors. But overall, while I know > you feel personally invested in it, you do have to admit, there was no > great rush to the side of the proposal. Even Brazil and South Africa > backed away. Where were the others? I never heard endorsements from > other developing country governments, and recall asking you if there > had been any in the UNGA when they introduced it, since you were > following that more closely. No reply. >> >> It is, in fact, the so called global IG civil society that has always >> failed to constructively engage with the positions or views proposed >> by developing countries (even when they are not authoritarian >> countries) rejecting them summarily as simply obnoxious and not >> worthy to even talk about. (And we see this tendency continue from >> the current thread of discussion) > > Why when I say the proponent of change should propose something > plausible do you keep turing it around to attack people with > nonsequitors? If we can stick to the issues we can talk, if it's > going to be throwing stuff at people I'm not interested. >> >> As for IT for Change offering alternatives; you can hardly say we shy >> from doing so..... We proposed a UN Committee like CIRP even before >> India did (though we did not list the oversight function in our >> proposal, we were, and remain, more interested in the functions that >> OECD's CCICP does), we have proposed WG on enhanced cooperation (EC), >> We have insisted on IGF discussions on EC long before the current >> enthusiasm for IGF discussion on EC (whose timing and opportunism is >> questionable).... At the CSTD 2012 meeting we proposed that India's >> CIRP proposal be modified to take out the oversight function, which >> should be taken to a different body........ on the IGC list too, >> during the 'oversight' discussion in June, we proposed some models, >> we encouraged Norbert to complete his proposal and commented on, in >> the current thread we have been proposing means to redistribute >> ownership of root ops, even yesterday in my email to Ian I proposed >> the outlines of an alternative for root zone authorisation........ >> You got it completely wrong here Bill. > > Got what wrong? I didn't say IT for Change hasn't made any proposals > on IG. I said to that if there's this big global coalition of > countries/peoples who are stewing over root zone signings, please > indicate who they are and how you know, so I understand the basis of > your claims; and that if you/they want to make this the priority > battle and overcome all the various elements of resistance I noted > would have to be overcome, advancing a plausible proposal that would > provide assurances to those not already in agreement with you would be > a logical first step. I really don't see why that should agitate you > or lead to accusations that I'm issuing untruths about your position > (case unproven, BTW), putting down people who may think like you, or > turning a blind eye to problems with US policy. Why not respond to > what I was saying, rather than to what I wasn't? Do you want to score > points against imaginary enemies, or have a conversation about what > would be required to effectively promote a change in the model? > > Bill > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 10 09:04:11 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:04:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5025008E.4040700@itforchange.net> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> <5025008E.4040700@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2B999EEA-CBF5-4B02-8C2D-9C4A932D60BE@uzh.ch> On Aug 10, 2012, at 2:37 PM, parminder wrote: > When someone says that anyone wanting a change has to "outline said plausible alternative and why its risks/costs are less than the certainties/benefits of the SQ", and carries on at length to show - as most of your email does - that there isnt any clear demand for change, and when that someone is not an appointed neutral referee or something but a political player in the arena, then that person's politics is legitimately called as status quoist. I stick to my position. Which willfully misrepresents my clearly stated position, On Aug 10, 2012, at 9:18 AM, William Drake wrote: > While, like many in CS and the TC, I support the concept of decoupling root change authorizations from sole USG responsibility if and when a plausibly reliable alternative can be identified, realistically it has to recognized that this would need to be an evolutionary process that plays out over some years, with dialogue and collective learning rather than posturing and demanding as the lead edge. So I guess we're done. You can now get back to sending dozens of long multiscreen messages claiming to be the tribune of the whole global South which all is just having a collective brain embolism over zone file signing and berating anyone who dares to ask for evidence. It's a proven winner with respect to building the caucus' internal consensus and external influence. Best, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 10 09:09:30 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:09:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <2B999EEA-CBF5-4B02-8C2D-9C4A932D60BE@uzh.ch> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> <5025008E.4040700@itforchange.net> <2B999EEA-CBF5-4B02-8C2D-9C4A932D60BE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM, William Drake wrote: > On Aug 10, 2012, at 2:37 PM, parminder wrote: > > When someone says that anyone wanting a change has to "outline said > plausible alternative and why its risks/costs are less than the > certainties/benefits of the SQ", and carries on at length to show - as most > of your email does - that there isnt any clear demand for change, and when > that someone is not an appointed neutral referee or something but a > political player in the arena, then that person's politics is legitimately > called as status quoist. I stick to my position. > > > Which willfully misrepresents my clearly stated position, > > On Aug 10, 2012, at 9:18 AM, William Drake wrote: > > While, like many in CS and the TC, I support the concept of decoupling > root change authorizations from sole USG responsibility if and when a > plausibly reliable alternative can be identified, realistically it has to > recognized that this would need to be an evolutionary process that plays > out over some years, with dialogue and collective learning rather than > posturing and demanding as the lead edge. > > > So I guess we're done. You can now get back to sending dozens of long > multiscreen messages claiming to be the tribune of the whole global South > which all is just having a collective brain embolism over zone file signing > and berating anyone who dares to ask for evidence. > or ignoring folk who ask questions like "have you asked the people who you have proposed to take over rootserver functions if they want to/can do/have the money to do that ?" -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Aug 10 09:16:29 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:16:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <2B999EEA-CBF5-4B02-8C2D-9C4A932D60BE@uzh.ch> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> <5025008E.4040700@itforchange.net> <2B999EEA-CBF5-4B02-8C2D-9C4A932D60BE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <502509AD.1060303@gmail.com> Bill. I will avoid the issue of how your views are characterised. That said... I do not think Parminder represents the entire Third World. Nor has be made claims to that effect - but it is a particular concern coming from some third world people and states. What is the problem with the references Parminder has provided? More important for me, is democracy or consensus the only route to a legitimate viewpoint? If we reason by way of popularity alone, then it is clear why we were led into the "predictable" financial crisis this that led to the financial crisis where reason and thought was a popularity contest (very lucrative if one is a neoliberal apparently) and everyone else was a Dr Doom. Robust engagement is cool, but not if reason is hostage... Riaz On 2012/08/10 03:04 PM, William Drake wrote: > On Aug 10, 2012, at 2:37 PM, parminder wrote: > >> When someone says that anyone wanting a change has to "outline said >> plausible alternative and why its risks/costs are less than the >> certainties/benefits of the SQ", and carries on at length to show - >> as most of your email does - that there isnt any clear demand for >> change, and when that someone is not an appointed neutral referee or >> something but a political player in the arena, then that person's >> politics is legitimately called as status quoist. I stick to my position. > > Which willfully misrepresents my clearly stated position, > > On Aug 10, 2012, at 9:18 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> While, like many in CS and the TC, I support the concept of >> decoupling root change authorizations from sole USG responsibility if >> and when a plausibly reliable alternative can be >> identified, realistically it has to recognized that this would need >> to be an evolutionary process that plays out over some years, with >> dialogue and collective learning rather than posturing and demanding >> as the lead edge. > > So I guess we're done. You can now get back to sending dozens of long > multiscreen messages claiming to be the tribune of the whole global > South which all is just having a collective brain embolism over zone > file signing and berating anyone who dares to ask for evidence. It's > a proven winner with respect to building the caucus' internal > consensus and external influence. > > Best, > > Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Aug 10 09:27:09 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 15:27:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> <5025008E.4040700@itforchange.net> <2B999EEA-CBF5-4B02-8C2D-9C4A932D60BE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <50250C2D.5070404@gmail.com> no reason why a process solution cannot include this as an agenda... especially if evolutionary change is the means adopted to ensure stability as well as political legitimacy... Maggie Thatcher once said, TINA - there is no alternative. Many in the South said TAHA - there are hundreds of alternatives... time to decolonise the evolutionary imagination perhaps? India, Brazil etc have resources if they need to assign it to functions essential to sovereignty... if they make a proposal, then perhaps they have an idea what it entails... it would not do to go around asking for capabilities if the general political mood is that this will never happen... as a separate matter, perhaps to the lurkers on this list.. is it not amazing how people who raise CIR legitimacy issues have to deal with double standards (perhaps I am not the only reactionary on this list)... why not ask why is the status quo legitimate? One need not buy into Parminder's position but to force him into a corner like this and then to complain about tenor is simply ridiculous... perhaps your arguments will be more convincing if more of you all gang up on him? On 2012/08/10 03:09 PM, McTim wrote: > or ignoring folk who ask questions like "have you asked the people who > you have proposed to take over rootserver functions if they want > to/can do/have the money to do that ?" -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Fri Aug 10 10:04:31 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:04:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <502509AD.1060303@gmail.com> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> <5025008E.4040700@itforchange.net> <2B999EEA-CBF5-4B02-8C2D-9C4A932D60BE@uzh.ch>,<502509AD.1060303@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B2B24@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Riaz, since this never ends let's kick start it in a direction that may give grounds to a discussion that defuses adjectivation and talks about the technology. Do you believe that the OSI network model, the ETNO proposal to the ITU for WCIT, or some version of what never gets finally defined as NGN can better accomodate Third World concerns than the presently evolving architecture of the Internet? Nobody is taking away from you the exploration of legitimacy or any other aspect of the Internet. The discussion reaches a cul de sac when it arrives at a point where it is purely political: "remove the US's asymmetric role in the control of updates to the root zone of the DNS." Many wish so, in different degrees and forms, though this list has explored virtually all and any of the imaginable alternatives and failed to find one that's so obvioulsy better than today's evolving situation. So maybe indeed the model cannnot accomodate that kind of change. Do other models open the door, how, at what balance of cost, benefit, and risk? Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 10 de agosto de 2012 08:16 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake Asunto: Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) Bill. I will avoid the issue of how your views are characterised. That said... I do not think Parminder represents the entire Third World. Nor has be made claims to that effect - but it is a particular concern coming from some third world people and states. What is the problem with the references Parminder has provided? More important for me, is democracy or consensus the only route to a legitimate viewpoint? If we reason by way of popularity alone, then it is clear why we were led into the "predictable" financial crisis this that led to the financial crisis where reason and thought was a popularity contest (very lucrative if one is a neoliberal apparently) and everyone else was a Dr Doom. Robust engagement is cool, but not if reason is hostage... Riaz On 2012/08/10 03:04 PM, William Drake wrote: On Aug 10, 2012, at 2:37 PM, parminder wrote: When someone says that anyone wanting a change has to "outline said plausible alternative and why its risks/costs are less than the certainties/benefits of the SQ", and carries on at length to show - as most of your email does - that there isnt any clear demand for change, and when that someone is not an appointed neutral referee or something but a political player in the arena, then that person's politics is legitimately called as status quoist. I stick to my position. Which willfully misrepresents my clearly stated position, On Aug 10, 2012, at 9:18 AM, William Drake wrote: While, like many in CS and the TC, I support the concept of decoupling root change authorizations from sole USG responsibility if and when a plausibly reliable alternative can be identified, realistically it has to recognized that this would need to be an evolutionary process that plays out over some years, with dialogue and collective learning rather than posturing and demanding as the lead edge. So I guess we're done. You can now get back to sending dozens of long multiscreen messages claiming to be the tribune of the whole global South which all is just having a collective brain embolism over zone file signing and berating anyone who dares to ask for evidence. It's a proven winner with respect to building the caucus' internal consensus and external influence. Best, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Aug 10 10:54:26 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 16:54:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B2B24@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> <5025008E.4040700@itforchange.net> <2B999EEA-CBF5-4B02-8C2D-9C4A932D60BE@uzh.ch>,<502509AD.1060303@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B2B24@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <502520A2.6030706@gmail.com> I am reading up on this again, but would defer to the likes of Auerbach, and note the concerns of others on the viability of ITU approach (noting that the _rumours_ in Geneva at the time of the new SG were that if he pursued the CIR thing they would make his term look like a bad one), as well as issues for reform of GAC and IANA (as raised by Parminder). I am of the predisposition, to use a Rumsfeld term, for full spectrum engagement, of course not an any means necessary one as resources are limited. So varied proposals need to be supported that implicitly or explicitly support issues that increase legitimacy. Partnerships with the likes of progressives in these fora need to be built, but I would advise caution as some reformists are merely minimal accomodationists instead of pursuing something transformatory. Further, I would love to hear what China is planning nationally (have cash and capability - perhaps not everything, but emulation is a possibility) as well as on Enhanced Cooperation. It would be great to see a paper on how the CIR and root and relationships have evolved (as a response to or inspite of) legitimacy concerns as this would give a spread of the issues. What proposals are you working on "on the inside" and what do you think are useful avenues? On 2012/08/10 04:04 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Riaz, > > since this never ends let's kick start it in a direction that may give > grounds to a discussion that defuses adjectivation and talks about the > technology. > > Do you believe that the OSI network model, the ETNO proposal to the > ITU for WCIT, or some version of what never gets finally defined as > NGN can better accomodate Third World concerns than the presently > evolving architecture of the Internet? > > Nobody is taking away from you the exploration of legitimacy or any > other aspect of the Internet. The discussion reaches a cul de sac when > it arrives at a point where it is purely political: "remove the US's > asymmetric role in the control of updates to the root zone of the > DNS." Many wish so, in different degrees and forms, though this list > has explored virtually all and any of the imaginable alternatives and > failed to find one that's so obvioulsy better than today's evolving > situation. > > So maybe indeed the model cannnot accomodate that kind of change. Do > other models open the door, how, at what balance of cost, benefit, and > risk? > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Desde:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob > [riaz.tayob at gmail.com] > *Enviado el:* viernes, 10 de agosto de 2012 08:16 > *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake > *Asunto:* Re: [governance] India's communications minister - root > server misunderstanding (still...) > > Bill. > > I will avoid the issue of how your views are characterised. That said... > > I do not think Parminder represents the entire Third World. Nor has be > made claims to that effect - but it is a particular concern coming > from some third world people and states. > > What is the problem with the references Parminder has provided? > > More important for me, is democracy or consensus the only route to a > legitimate viewpoint? > > If we reason by way of popularity alone, then it is clear why we were > led into the "predictable" financial crisis this that led to the > financial crisis where reason and thought was a popularity contest > (very lucrative if one is a neoliberal apparently) and everyone else > was a Dr Doom. Robust engagement is cool, but not if reason is hostage... > > Riaz > > > > > On 2012/08/10 03:04 PM, William Drake wrote: >> On Aug 10, 2012, at 2:37 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> When someone says that anyone wanting a change has to "outline said >>> plausible alternative and why its risks/costs are less than the >>> certainties/benefits of the SQ", and carries on at length to show - >>> as most of your email does - that there isnt any clear demand for >>> change, and when that someone is not an appointed neutral referee or >>> something but a political player in the arena, then that person's >>> politics is legitimately called as status quoist. I stick to my >>> position. >> >> Which willfully misrepresents my clearly stated position, >> >> On Aug 10, 2012, at 9:18 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> While, like many in CS and the TC, I support the concept of >>> decoupling root change authorizations from sole USG responsibility >>> if and when a plausibly reliable alternative can be >>> identified, realistically it has to recognized that this would need >>> to be an evolutionary process that plays out over some years, with >>> dialogue and collective learning rather than posturing and demanding >>> as the lead edge. >> >> So I guess we're done. You can now get back to sending dozens of >> long multiscreen messages claiming to be the tribune of the whole >> global South which all is just having a collective brain embolism >> over zone file signing and berating anyone who dares to ask for >> evidence. It's a proven winner with respect to building the caucus' >> internal consensus and external influence. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 11:57:46 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 18:57:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Multiplication of virus cases built by and for states ... In-Reply-To: <20120810132339.14641kx04im2jvaz@mail1.itu.ch> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <20120810132339.14641kx04im2jvaz@mail1.itu.ch> Message-ID: This is the cyber age... Fahd On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:23 PM, wrote: > Gauss – Nation-state cyber-surveillance meets banking Trojan > http://www.securelist.com/en/**blog?weblogid=208193767 > > Gauss, a new virus (or worm because its decryption is not done) was > identified by Kaspersky. The fourth after Stuxnet, Flame and Duqu. > > I wondered if it's not time sounding the alarm because it could be that > many more malware exist but those who created them or the victims do not > dare talk about for their image and of sovereignty reasons. > > What benefits can be envisaged for end users in what appears to be a > cybernetics war that started before it was predicted by experts. > > Where countries may protest at global level? I believe that ICT governance > is truly threatened and we may be surprized by all implications as for now > it's clear that everything is possible in the cyberspace. > > Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED, Comoros > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Fri Aug 10 12:15:40 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 13:15:40 -0300 Subject: [governance] RES: [At-Large] R: gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l In-Reply-To: References: <8A9F122E-AD3F-4A9D-8D8C-59EF62DB2748@acm.org> <5023AAF8.40600@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <033201cd7713$662a13d0$327e3b70$@uol.com.br> I am with Robert, and others here, regarding the trade marks. I can tell you that private banks, for instance, have self and public interest in having a TLD for their names: there is a very interesting marketing approach in developing countries ( less educated clients) on have the last word on the digital sentence ( as the TLDs). It becomes easier to alert clients against fraud . Normally the client allow frauds for not understand correctly how to check the name of the sender. With the name of the bank as the TLD , will facilitate clients to check the sender, and not open other pages or messages. So, there are other reasons for trademarks apply for private TLD. However, I agree that makes no sense to prioritize a private generic name, if there are other candidates offering similar string for the public I believe this one should have priority. Best, vanda -----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Roberto Gaetano Enviada em: quinta-feira, 9 de agosto de 2012 21:56 Para: 'At-Large Worldwide' Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: [At-Large] R: gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l I am with Evan on this. My comment to parminder (" I see no reason why private tlds should be allowed, and what public interest is served by allowing them") is that, while I am sympathetic to the cause of new TLDs serving the public interest, I see no problem in allowing new TLDs that are not serving a public interest, as long as they do not harm the public interest. Maybe we should learn to see things not necessarily as an opposition between the private and public interest, but also an opportunity to build a public-private partnership. There have been successful cases in this respect, and the whole multi-stakeholder model of ICANN calls for this approach. Cheers, R. -----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Evan Leibovitch Inviato: giovedì 9 agosto 2012 16:36 A: At-Large Worldwide Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] gTLD Review Group decisions regarding the comments on objection grounds on the ".book" application by Amazon EU s.a.r.l Thank you Dev and Avri for your following this issue. I look forward to engagement on it as required. On 9 August 2012 08:20, parminder wrote: > Yes, private tlds is by far the biggest issue/ problem with the new > gtld process. Thanks to anyone who is raising this issue. Actually, anyone who read my comments on InternetNZ's objection would see that I am vigorously defending Amazon's proposed practise. And I am no great fan of Amazon. Throughout my time in ICANN At-Large I have been generally cynical about the explosion of gTLDs in general. But, now that it has happened anyway, the "private TLD" applications are a natural (and IMO desirable) consequence. If we must have this many new TLDs we may as well have a few that experiment with truly new models of DNS use and distribution, especially ones that hold the potential to be free of speculators, phishers and defencive registrations. IMO simply having 500 new would-be clones of dot-com is not an end-user-friendly result of the expansion process; truly innovative approaches to TLD use must be allowed. As we have seen from the sheer number of applications, there will be many, many alternatives for registrants who do not want (or do not have access to) such private TLDs. The current two dozen gTLDs are hardly at capacity -- not to mention ccTLDs. So many choices exist even before the expansion takes place, and hundreds more will be available afterwards. It also seems a little late and hypocritical to object now, as private TLDs such ".int" and ".museum" have already established a precedent and nobody has complained about them. There were also no red flags raised when the application guidelines were under development; perhaps this debate may have been more worthwhile at that time. ICANN's core principles have never had a problem with allowing private owners to have exclusive access to generic words at any level. It is too late to shut those doors, especially now that the boundaries for the expansion program have been laid down and applicants have responded to them in good faith. And finally -- and arguably most importantly -- it is vital that ICANN not wade in to the realm of judging the content or purpose of sites using the names it administers. Its role is evaluating the stability, security, sustainability and potential for confusion in applications. Evaluation of suitability of purpose is rightfully beyond ICANN's scope and well beyond its competency, as we clearly saw in how it handled .XXX. - Evan > I > see no reason why private tlds should be allowed, and what public > interest is served by allowing them. > > Some may make a case to allow private gltds for very well established > and proven trade marks or registered names, when the name is very > clearly exclusive, and unlikely to provide a new form of unfair > monopoly (like, maybe IBM). However, I dont see why even that may be > so necessary! But that is a relatively lesser issue. Private gltds > using generic names like .book must be an absolute NO...... I dont > know how any such proposal survived so many committee, reviews etc > that may have gone into the decision about new gtlds... > > parminder > > > > > > > I have added the text quoted above as a note on that entry in the > > work > table . > Please let me know if there is more action required at this time. > > > > thanks > > > > avri > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 10 13:33:18 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 23:03:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <2B999EEA-CBF5-4B02-8C2D-9C4A932D60BE@uzh.ch> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> <5025008E.4040700@itforchange.net> <2B999EEA-CBF5-4B02-8C2D-9C4A932D60BE@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <502545DE.8070804@itforchange.net> On Friday 10 August 2012 06:34 PM, William Drake wrote: > On Aug 10, 2012, at 2:37 PM, parminder wrote: > >> When someone says that anyone wanting a change has to "outline said >> plausible alternative and why its risks/costs are less than the >> certainties/benefits of the SQ", and carries on at length to show - >> as most of your email does - that there isnt any clear demand for >> change, and when that someone is not an appointed neutral referee or >> something but a political player in the arena, then that person's >> politics is legitimately called as status quoist. I stick to my position. > > Which willfully misrepresents my clearly stated position, > > On Aug 10, 2012, at 9:18 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> While, like many in CS and the TC, I support the concept of >> decoupling root change authorizations from sole USG responsibility if >> and when a plausibly reliable alternative can be identified, And who will identify this 'plausible reliable alternative' ?? Since you are very particular others should give precise models - evne when others indeed are giving them - what is your 'plausible reliable alternative' on which your supposedly non status quo position is based.... >> realistically it has to recognized that this would need to be an >> evolutionary process that plays out over some years, Either you have a plan for change, or you agree largely with the status quo. Bill, frankly, I still am not understanding what you are saying here. No status quoist ever says, nothing even evolutionary will happen at all, especially when what is that 'evolutionary' thing is not stated... That does not make someone 'non status quoist'. If you are one, please tell what is your plan of change - lets hear it. >> with dialogue and collective learning rather than posturing and >> demanding as the lead edge. :). So you can call my politics as aggressive (you did the name calling first!) - 'posturing and demanding' - and I cant call yours status quoist.... I know some quarters take on such inequality rather instinctively... > > So I guess we're done. Dont go without tell us your own plan of change please :) , since you are so touchy about being labelled with status quoism. > You can now get back to sending dozens of long multiscreen messages You are not the first to speak with such deep derision about my engagements on this list, even in this thread. I had learnt to deal with that kind of thing long ago. But maybe at some point I can stop talking, and few others who do sometime take up Southern politics here will too.... > claiming to be the tribune of the whole global South and when we stop talking , you can return to posing as the most progressive IG voice globally ..... > which all is just having a collective brain embolism over zone file > signing No, most of us in the South consider non CIR public policy - of economic, social, cultural and political kind - even more important than CIR, and I have said this often. But I hardly ever find anyone here show interest in the kind of 'global' Internet policy that OECD's CICCP does, an issue I have tried to invoke often. CIR fixation in fact is on the other side. I havent been able to attract your attention on institutional model for non CIR policies - or am I mistaken. Want to take the discussion to non CIR policies side of enhanced cooperation? I am very willing. > and berating anyone who dares to ask for evidence. but then why are you reacting so sharply if I dare ask you evidence about your position..... parminder > It's a proven winner with respect to building the caucus' internal > consensus and external influence. > > Best, > > Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Aug 10 15:35:44 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 12:35:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <502545DE.8070804@itforchange.net> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> <5025008E.4040700@itforchange.net> <2B999EEA-CBF5-4B02-8C2D-9C4A932D60BE@uzh.ch> <502545DE.8070804@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1D283A44-AE35-46C0-B511-D30C5DD66034@virtualized.org> Parminder, On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:33 AM, parminder wrote: > Either you have a plan for change, or you agree largely with the status quo. You have gone on at significant length about "the South" demands things must change (and oddly, I haven't seen anyone, North or South, argue that things must remain the same), but I haven't seen your plan. End goals such as "less US government involvement in CIR" or "more root servers outside the US" are not plans as far as I am aware. Being relatively new to this list, I'm sure I missed it somewhere. What is your plan for change? Thanks, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Fri Aug 10 15:47:25 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 22:47:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] New gTLD Application Comment Period Extended In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-10aug12-en.htm This is great news. It gives us more space to make our comments. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Aug 10 16:51:05 2012 From: sergioalvesjunior at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Alves_Jr=2E?=) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:51:05 -0300 Subject: [governance] Brazilian preparation to WCIT-12 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: fyi, it's on the regulator's webpage (www.anatel.gov.br). Anyone interested in the debate can contribute via email (cbc1 at anatel.gov.br) and open meetings. Abraços, Sérgio *"Participe da preparação brasileira* A Comissão Brasileira de Comunicações 1 "Governança e Regimes Internacionais" (CBC1) convida a sociedade brasileira a participar do processo preparatório para a Conferência Mundial de Telecomunicações Internacionais 2012 (CMTI-12 / *WCIT-12*), da União Internacional de Telecomunicações (UIT). A CMTI-12 será realizada entre 3 e 14 de dezembro de 2012, em Dubai, Emirados Árabes, com o objetivo de revisar os Regulamentos de Telecomunicações Internacionais (*International Telecommunication Regulations* / ITRs), tratado firmado em 1988 para facilitar as negociações comerciais e técnicas internacionais entre as operadoras de telecomunicações. As propostas dos diversos Estados Membros e Membros de Setor da UIT para a CMTI-12 abordam temas como: - Direito humano de acesso às comunicações - Segurança no uso de TICs - Proteção de recursos críticos nacionais - Marcos regulatórios internacionais - Cobrança e contabilidade, incluindo tributação - Interconexão e interoperabilidade - Qualidade do serviço - Convergência O Grupo de Trabalho do Conselho da UIT para a CMTI-12 ( CWG-WCIT12) consolidou todas as propostas de revisão dos ITRs já apresentadas em um documento único intitulado "Minuta dos Futuros ITRs (* Draft of the Future ITRs* )". Seguindo a pratica multissetorial das Comissões Brasileiras de Comunicações (CBCs), a Anatel e a CBC1 convidam a sociedade brasileira a oferecer suas ponderações sobre a Conferência e, em particular, o aludido documento que servirá de base para as negociações da CMTI-12. *As contribuições devem ser encaminhadas para cbc1 at anatel.gov.br até 3 de outubro de 2012.* Similarmente, a UIT conduzirá consultas de opiniões públicas. Em breve, o canal para comunicação estará disponível em http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/public.aspx. Maiores informações no site da Conferência em http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx. " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 10 17:35:33 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 17:35:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Multiplication of virus cases built by and for states ... In-Reply-To: <20120810132339.14641kx04im2jvaz@mail1.itu.ch> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <20120810132339.14641kx04im2jvaz@mail1.itu.ch> Message-ID: <023501cd7740$2462a7f0$6d27f7d0$@gmail.com> The other threads may have exhausted themselves by now but I'm seeing in this another area of possible interest from the perspective of "enhanced cooperation". As I understand it in the area of viruses, worms etc.etc. there is a "spy vs. spy" syndrome at work... The "bad guys" (or seemingly in some cases "the good guys") launch something into the wild and then the opposite side moves forward to counter this and then the other side counters and so on and so on... This is all played out in the technical/security domain with the policy folks urging their side onward ever onward... With these viruses as below (and including Stuxnet etc.) we seem to be moving into Sci Fi domains where one side (or the other) is in a position to wreck catastrophe on the other side (and v.v.) with us helplessly sitting in the middle watching crucial infrastructure (electricity, water, digital communications etc.) being increasinly threatened with "executive action" i.e. assassination... The need for global consolidated action at the policy/legal level is almost certainly the only way in which some modicum of security might be achieved (some sort of electronic version of the SALT treaty for example) particularly since the possibility (likelihood) of wildcard non-state actors being parties to the sabotage and thus making it in the interests of all state actors to achieve some measure of control in the area. I have no idea what the solution might be here but I would expect that it would involve some considerable measure of technical intervention ("management of the Internet"?) combined with policy driven international state to state agreements presumably with the active involvement of both the technical and non-technical private sector and civil society (to try to keep the overall process "honest... Perhaps rather than trying to square the circle of management of the inputs (digital flows) it might be easier as a way into (or around) the Global Internet Governance area to look to manage for the outcomes since as we are beginning to realize if these go seriously awry they could quite easily affect the digital space and thus personal well-being of all of us rather more immediately and with greater damage than some of the other issue areas we have been discussing -- wherever we might reside -- assuming that we are all connected to the same Internet. Comments? Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 7:24 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Multiplication of virus cases built by and for states ... Gauss – Nation-state cyber-surveillance meets banking Trojan http://www.securelist.com/en/blog?weblogid=208193767 Gauss, a new virus (or worm because its decryption is not done) was identified by Kaspersky. The fourth after Stuxnet, Flame and Duqu. I wondered if it's not time sounding the alarm because it could be that many more malware exist but those who created them or the victims do not dare talk about for their image and of sovereignty reasons. What benefits can be envisaged for end users in what appears to be a cybernetics war that started before it was predicted by experts. Where countries may protest at global level? I believe that ICT governance is truly threatened and we may be surprized by all implications as for now it's clear that everything is possible in the cyberspace. Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED, Comoros -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 10 17:56:22 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:56:22 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] Application Comment Period extended to 26 September 2012 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dev Anand Teelucksingh Date: Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 9:51 AM Subject: [At-Large] Application Comment Period extended to 26 September 2012 To: newgtldrg at atlarge-lists.icann.org, gTLD WG < gtld-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide < at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: LACRALO discussion list http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-10aug12-en.htm ICANN has extended the public comment period for new generic top-level domains applications for an additional 45 days. The new end date is now 26 September 2012. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 10 22:47:57 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 02:47:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] Speaking of no Internet... Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B11EADE@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> FYI, Maybe of interest to some, a worst case scenario app. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=125135&org=NSF&from=news Lee -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Fri Aug 10 23:05:47 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 03:05:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Multiplication of virus cases built by and for states ... In-Reply-To: <023501cd7740$2462a7f0$6d27f7d0$@gmail.com> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <20120810132339.14641kx04im2jvaz@mail1.itu.ch>,<023501cd7740$2462a7f0$6d27f7d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B30EF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Michael, your proposal for the IGC to deal with virus and other cybersecurity attacks under the label "enhanced cooperation" brings to mind a couple of questions, which would be useful to absolve before trying to get into a discussion: 1. in what way do your first elements of proposal ("need for global consolidated action at the policy/legal level") relate to (differ from, are similar to) the proposals before the ITU for WCIT that the ITRs begin to include cybersecurity? A corollary: how successful (more, equally, less) do you forecast this to be? 2. what assets are under risk, what is the risk/cost/benefit equation for them? A discussion of this type of subject can be very productive if it identifies assets, quantifies their value, quantifies the risk, the attacker's potential conduct, and the vulnerabilities; then for each risk identified quantifies probability and impact, which are orthogonal coordinates; and then runs the successive disciplines of risk avoidance, transfer, detection, mitigation, response, damage repair, and business or operational continuity. SOP for pros in the field. 3. the statement that started this thread refers to "virus cases built by and for states." That is a strong statement. Scholars, strategists, officials, and tacticians, civil and military, dealing with the problem called "cyberwar" are pretty much stuck right now with the problems of attribution of the attack, proportional response, and rules generally known under "Geneva convention" like "response to an act of war must be proportional to the attack, not damage non-combatants", and so on. Wouldn't it be useful to go through the state of the art before embarking in this? 4. limiting the response of whoever goes into the fray to "manage for the outcomes" may be a bit lame. Paradoxically going any further takes you to 1, 2, and 3 above. 5. a useful exercise, which you already started, is "removing the Internet" from the problem. You went to SALT for precedent. Does it apply? does it scale? Can you create a global agreement that includes all non-state actors? a global cyberpolice, or at least global cyberbluehelmets? Bots to undo the damage of state-directed virus inflicted on the general population only, like... repairing damaged water supplies? Open field for the wildest imagination. 6. in a form similar to today's formulations but in the 2003-2005 timeframe, the WGIG debated this issue. What work is needed to update the conclusions from then? (let's hope the discussion, if any ensues, doesn't have it's own "it feels like 2004" moment!) Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 10 de agosto de 2012 16:35 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: RE: [governance] Multiplication of virus cases built by and for states ... The other threads may have exhausted themselves by now but I'm seeing in this another area of possible interest from the perspective of "enhanced cooperation". As I understand it in the area of viruses, worms etc.etc. there is a "spy vs. spy" syndrome at work... The "bad guys" (or seemingly in some cases "the good guys") launch something into the wild and then the opposite side moves forward to counter this and then the other side counters and so on and so on... This is all played out in the technical/security domain with the policy folks urging their side onward ever onward... With these viruses as below (and including Stuxnet etc.) we seem to be moving into Sci Fi domains where one side (or the other) is in a position to wreck catastrophe on the other side (and v.v.) with us helplessly sitting in the middle watching crucial infrastructure (electricity, water, digital communications etc.) being increasinly threatened with "executive action" i.e. assassination... The need for global consolidated action at the policy/legal level is almost certainly the only way in which some modicum of security might be achieved (some sort of electronic version of the SALT treaty for example) particularly since the possibility (likelihood) of wildcard non-state actors being parties to the sabotage and thus making it in the interests of all state actors to achieve some measure of control in the area. I have no idea what the solution might be here but I would expect that it would involve some considerable measure of technical intervention ("management of the Internet"?) combined with policy driven international state to state agreements presumably with the active involvement of both the technical and non-technical private sector and civil society (to try to keep the overall process "honest... Perhaps rather than trying to square the circle of management of the inputs (digital flows) it might be easier as a way into (or around) the Global Internet Governance area to look to manage for the outcomes since as we are beginning to realize if these go seriously awry they could quite easily affect the digital space and thus personal well-being of all of us rather more immediately and with greater damage than some of the other issue areas we have been discussing -- wherever we might reside -- assuming that we are all connected to the same Internet. Comments? Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 7:24 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Multiplication of virus cases built by and for states ... Gauss – Nation-state cyber-surveillance meets banking Trojan http://www.securelist.com/en/blog?weblogid=208193767 Gauss, a new virus (or worm because its decryption is not done) was identified by Kaspersky. The fourth after Stuxnet, Flame and Duqu. I wondered if it's not time sounding the alarm because it could be that many more malware exist but those who created them or the victims do not dare talk about for their image and of sovereignty reasons. What benefits can be envisaged for end users in what appears to be a cybernetics war that started before it was predicted by experts. Where countries may protest at global level? I believe that ICT governance is truly threatened and we may be surprized by all implications as for now it's clear that everything is possible in the cyberspace. Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED, Comoros -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sat Aug 11 00:48:55 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:48:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Igfregionals] IGF initiatives reports - Inter-regional dialogue session In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This came to IGF regional mailing list. izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: IGF Date: 2012/8/10 Subject: [Igfregionals] IGF initiatives reports - Inter-regional dialogue session To: igfregionals Dear All, To be listed as an IGF initiative on the IGF website, and contribute to the inter-regional dialogue session ( held during the IGF annual meetings), IGF initiatives are required to provide a report of their past activities. The reports should be sent to the IGF Secretariat every year, 3 to 6 weeks after the initiative's meeting . If the initiative’s meeting is not held prior to the IGF annual meeting, a brief report about the organizational matters and activities during the year should be sent to the IGF Secretariat one month prior to the IGF annual meeting. Please note that those initiatives that have not sent their 2011 annual report to the IGF Secretariat will be removed from the IGF website. During the IGF initiatives informal meeting, held in May 2012, it was suggested to set some guidelines and create a template for drafting the initiatives annual reports. I hereby encourage you to use this mailing list to develop a set of guidelines and a template. For the time being, IGF initiatives are kindly requested to include the following in their report: 1. Steps taken to formulate an inclusive and multi – stakeholder initiative 2. The format of the meeting, the thematic sessions and the other events that were held during the meeting 3. The name of the organizers of the meeting, their affiliation and their stakeholder groups Best regards, IGF Secretariat _______________________________________________ Igfregionals mailing list Igfregionals at intgovforum.org http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfregionals_intgovforum.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 11 01:19:17 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 10:49:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <1D283A44-AE35-46C0-B511-D30C5DD66034@virtualized.org> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> <5025008E.4040700@itforchange.net> <2B999EEA-CBF5-4B02-8C2D-9C4A932D60BE@uzh.ch> <502545DE.8070804@itforchange.net> <1D283A44-AE35-46C0-B511-D30C5DD66034@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <5025EB55.1070609@itforchange.net> David On Saturday 11 August 2012 01:05 AM, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > On Aug 10, 2012, at 10:33 AM, parminder wrote: >> Either you have a plan for change, or you agree largely with the status quo. > You have gone on at significant length about "the South" demands things must change (and oddly, I haven't seen anyone, North or South, argue that things must remain the same), but I haven't seen your plan. End goals such as "less US government involvement in CIR" or "more root servers outside the US" are not plans as far as I am aware. > > Being relatively new to this list, I'm sure I missed it somewhere. What is your plan for change? I can gladly describe it as I have done often before, of course, as long as you do not ask me to follow IETF RFC template, or even further, as Alexandro would want me to, show a demo type in practice beforehand...... First of all, I would like to approach CIR issues and non CIR issues separately, vis a vis the needed institutional changes that are required. Non CIR issues are the non technical global public policy issues related to the Internet which can be best understood by looking at the activities of OECD's Committee on Information, Communication and Computers Policies (CICCP). This committee looks at issues like role of Internet intermediaries, economy of personal data, general principles for Internet policy making (largely not touching CIR area), cross border cooperation on security, privacy, data flows...... and so on......... _CIR side_ The main issue of concern here is the role of the US government. Its role should be taken up by a new international body, outside the UN, can be called Internet Oversight Body, as a placeholder, which will have very limited and very constrained functions, largely as are of the US gov today vis a vis CIR management. Its members are selected through a non-national and non-gov, regional process relying on larger stakeholder constituencies.... (details can be discussed). While the ICANN + system does require some reform, the overall current distributed CIR management model should be retained, and get agreed to and sanctioned by appropriate agreements among all. Carlos Afonso had made very through proposal in this regard in 2005, which Bill said yesterday 'was good' ( to quote him precisely, he said 'Carlos's chapter was good'). There is some overlap between Carlos's proposal and Brazil gov proposal made around the same time. Both are contained in the enclosed doc which is the 'Carlos's chapter' mentioned by Bill. I have been encouraging Carlos and the Brazilian gov reps over the last few months to revive these proposals. I repeat that appeal. I see them as a good basis to /start/ working on for proposing a improved institutional model for CIR management. _Non CIR, or general public policy (GPP) side_ Unlike what its critiques took it to be, the main thrust of the India's CIRP proposal was not CIR oversight but looking at larger Internet related public policies - non technical issues of economic, social, cultural and political significance. Just the kind of work that OECD's CICCP does. Anyway, I think that the CIRP proposal should forgo an CIR oversight role for the CIRP, and focus only on the general public policy issues. In fact, CIRP structure directly takes from the CICCP structure, but further improves it, by making stakeholder participation more clear, concrete and thus effective. Furthermore, CIRP proposes to give IGF an important role in initial policy development preparatory work, and agenda shaping. (With OECD's CICCP having no corresponding system). Therefore an (1) Internet Oversight Board (or as per Carlos's proposal a International Internet Coordination and Evaluation Council ) takes over the oversight role over the CIR management system (2) A UN Committee on Internet Related Policies takes up non CIR general public policies, on the same pattern as OECD's CICCP, whereby while today OECD makes general Internet related policies that by default get applied to the whole world, we have a similar committee but with all countries represented doing EXACTLY the same work.... (I am unable to see how one can object to this). This is just a template to begun a serious discussion. As long as, as you say, no one argues 'that things should remain the same", we can together chart a path to the new system. That is my change model. parminder > > Thanks, > -drc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: carlos proposal 2005.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 148359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 11 03:45:21 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 03:45:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Multiplication of virus cases built by and for states ... In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B30EF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <20120810132339.14641kx04im2jvaz@mail1.itu.ch>,<023501cd7740$2462a7f0$6d27f7d0$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B30EF@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <035201cd7795$534bc740$f9e355c0$@gmail.com> Hi Alejandro... Answers interspersed below... -----Original Message----- From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 11:06 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Multiplication of virus cases built by and for states ... Michael, your proposal for the IGC to deal with virus and other cybersecurity attacks under the label "enhanced " brings to mind a couple of questions, which would be useful to absolve before trying to get into a discussion: 1. in what way do your first elements of proposal ("need for global consolidated action at the policy/legal level") relate to (differ from, are similar to) the proposals before the ITU for WCIT that the ITRs begin to include cybersecurity? A corollary: how successful (more, equally, less) do you forecast this to be? [MG>] I'm not sure that it does differ from this my point is that this is a realistic, practical and quite immediate set of issues which we as CS might want to be developing a position on. I have no idea how successful this initiative might be at the WCIT but my suspicion is that there is a lot more incentive for success in this area across more national governments than in areas such as those we are currently discussing in the IGC and that "enhanced cooperation" in this area might lead to "enhanced cooperation" in other areas as well. 2. what assets are under risk, what is the risk/cost/benefit equation for them? A discussion of this type of subject can be very productive if it identifies assets, quantifies their value, quantifies the risk, the attacker's potential conduct, and the vulnerabilities; then for each risk identified quantifies probability and impact, which are orthogonal coordinates; and then runs the successive disciplines of risk avoidance, transfer, detection, mitigation, response, damage repair, and business or operational continuity. SOP for pros in the field. [MG>] Well for a start there is apparently a risk in the instance below to the integrity of the global banking system (and perhaps as important the risk of the perception of risk to the global banking system)... I'm not sure what the quantitative measure of that would be but if you add to that risks to the electrical grid, the infrastructure dependent on the electrical grid (water supply, pipelines etc.etc.) the risk would seem to be shall we say, rather large and would give large quantitative factors to each of the other elements you are pointing to in your #2 above. 3. the statement that started this thread refers to "virus cases built by and for states." That is a strong statement. Scholars, strategists, officials, and tacticians, civil and military, dealing with the problem called "cyberwar" are pretty much stuck right now with the problems of attribution of the attack, proportional response, and rules generally known under "Geneva convention" like "response to an act of war must be proportional to the attack, not damage non-combatants", and so on. Wouldn't it be useful to go through the state of the art before embarking in this? [MG>] Certainly that would be one way to start but I see no particular reason why one couldn't start at the other end i.e. the "outcomes" of these virus cases rather than trying to determine the "inputs" to them which may be rather more difficult to identify. 4. limiting the response of whoever goes into the fray to "manage for the outcomes" may be a bit lame. Paradoxically going any further takes you to 1, 2, and 3 above. [MG>] Sorry I don't understand what you are saying here. 5. a useful exercise, which you already started, is "removing the Internet" from the problem. You went to SALT for precedent. Does it apply? does it scale? Can you create a global agreement that includes all non-state actors? a g[MG>] global cyberpolice, or at least global cyberbluehelmets? Bots to undo the damage of state-directed virus inflicted on the general population only, like... repairing damaged water supplies? Open field for the wildest imagination. [MG>] I've no idea of the modalities that might be identified for achieving an effective response... there are presumably many, some involving Sci Fi remedies others not... But threats of the magnitude indicated would seem to me to be such as to focus the mind and stimulate the imagination and evidently tates seem to be taking these risks very seriously especially since we have already seen a few limited examples of (to carry forward the SALT analogy) nuclear "incidents" with the threat of many many more including from non-State actors. 6. in a form similar to today's formulations but in the 2003-2005 timeframe, the WGIG debated this issue. What work is needed to update the conclusions from then? (let's hope the discussion, if any ensues, doesn't have it's own "it feels like 2004" moment!) [MG>] My suspicion is that the earlier discussion may, at least to many, have been rather more speculative whereas we/they would now be dealing with concrete and moderately visible examples. Best, M Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 10 de agosto de 2012 16:35 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: RE: [governance] Multiplication of virus cases built by and for states ... The other threads may have exhausted themselves by now but I'm seeing in this another area of possible interest from the perspective of "enhanced cooperation". As I understand it in the area of viruses, worms etc.etc. there is a "spy vs. spy" syndrome at work... The "bad guys" (or seemingly in some cases "the good guys") launch something into the wild and then the opposite side moves forward to counter this and then the other side counters and so on and so on... This is all played out in the technical/security domain with the policy folks urging their side onward ever onward... With these viruses as below (and including Stuxnet etc.) we seem to be moving into Sci Fi domains where one side (or the other) is in a position to wreck catastrophe on the other side (and v.v.) with us helplessly sitting in the middle watching crucial infrastructure (electricity, water, digital communications etc.) being increasinly threatened with "executive action" i.e. assassination... The need for global consolidated action at the policy/legal level is almost certainly the only way in which some modicum of security might be achieved (some sort of electronic version of the SALT treaty for example) particularly since the possibility (likelihood) of wildcard non-state actors being parties to the sabotage and thus making it in the interests of all state actors to achieve some measure of control in the area. I have no idea what the solution might be here but I would expect that it would involve some considerable measure of technical intervention ("management of the Internet"?) combined with policy driven international state to state agreements presumably with the active involvement of both the technical and non-technical private sector and civil society (to try to keep the overall process "honest... Perhaps rather than trying to square the circle of management of the inputs (digital flows) it might be easier as a way into (or around) the Global Internet Governance area to look to manage for the outcomes since as we are beginning to realize if these go seriously awry they could quite easily affect the digital space and thus personal well-being of all of us rather more immediately and with greater damage than some of the other issue areas we have been discussing -- wherever we might reside -- assuming that we are all connected to the same Internet. Comments? Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 7:24 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Multiplication of virus cases built by and for states ... Gauss – Nation-state cyber-surveillance meets banking Trojan http://www.securelist.com/en/blog?weblogid=208193767 Gauss, a new virus (or worm because its decryption is not done) was identified by Kaspersky. The fourth after Stuxnet, Flame and Duqu. I wondered if it's not time sounding the alarm because it could be that many more malware exist but those who created them or the victims do not dare talk about for their image and of sovereignty reasons. What benefits can be envisaged for end users in what appears to be a cybernetics war that started before it was predicted by experts. Where countries may protest at global level? I believe that ICT governance is truly threatened and we may be surprized by all implications as for now it's clear that everything is possible in the cyberspace. Karim ATTOUMANI MOHAMED, Comoros = -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 11 07:02:44 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:02:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] US position on ITRs Message-ID: Strong words: "the Internet has evolved to operate in a separate and distinct environment that is beyond the scope or mandate of the ITRs or the International Telecommunication Union." Supports the current "multi-stakeholder" organizations naming ISOC, IETF, W3C, RIRs and ICANN. Global communications market is competitive, ITRs have been important in achieving this, as a result they need minimal, if any, changes. Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 11 11:15:02 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 15:15:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E3936@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> In any event, the one thing we ought to be able to agree on is that this[root zone control] has absolutely no place in the ITRs. The ITRs are not a framework agreement on IG, they're a high-level treaty of rather questionable utility that pertains to how traditional telecom services offered to the general public should be organized at the political level. DNS matters absolutely do not fit in here even if the Russians and some Arab countries would like to stir it into the pot, and its inclusion would be a regressive step that would correctly engender such extensive Reservations as to make it meaningless. [Milton L Mueller] Yes, yes yes! And it is not just the Russians and Arab countries who are responsible for this conflation of the ITRs and IG. One of the utterly counterproductive things U.S. civil society and business seem to be doing in their attack on the WCIT is inadvertently feeding the idea that the ITRs revisions _are_ actually about the root zone, ICANN, etc., and that the ITRs actually CAN effectively do something about them. In fact, the ITRs have nothing to do with that and even if there were support to make them about it, as Bill points out any attempt to do so cannot be effective as it would generate so many reservations as to destroy the whole treaty. There is actually very little effort to make the ITRs about IG CIR, even among the worst states. Russia seems to be making some half-hearted efforts to put IP addressing in there, but they failed miserably in Guadalajara in 2010, and have no more support, possibly less, this time. A Russian proposal to revive the ITU country internet registry idea, for example, was made 18 months ago and did not appear in TD-64, the basis for negotiations, which means it has no real support. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 11 14:54:44 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 06:54:44 +1200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E3936@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E3936@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 3:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > In any event, the one thing we ought to be able to agree on is that this* > [*root zone control] has absolutely no place in the ITRs. The ITRs are > not a framework agreement on IG, they're a high-level treaty of rather > questionable utility that pertains to how traditional telecom services > offered to the general public should be organized at the political level. > You can also go directly to http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/WCIT-backgroundbriefs.aspx. The fact that countries are raising these issues and proposals means that they care about these issues. These are the WCIT Briefing Papers, see below: Background Briefs: 1. What are the International Telecommunication Regulations — and why do they matter ? عربي | 中文 | Español | Français | Русский 2. Communications as a Human Right عربي | 中文 | Español | Français | Русский 3. Convergence عربي | 中文 | Español | Français | Русский 4. Interconnection and Interoperability عربي | 中文 | Español | Français | Русский 5. Protecting Critical National Infrastructure عربي | 中文 | Español | Français | Русский 6. Cybersecurity عربي | 中文 | Español | Français | Русский 7. Telecommunication Origin Identification عربي | 中文 | Español | Français | Русский 8. Accounting Rates عربي | 中文 | Español | Français | Русский 9. Taxation عربي | 中文 | Español | Français | Русский 10. International Mobile Roaming عربي | 中文 | Español | Français | Русский 11. Quality of Service and “Net Neutrality” عربي | 中文 | Español | Français | Русский 12. Environment and Climate Change 13. Making ICTs accessible to people with disabilities -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 11 15:15:56 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:15:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Salanieta, On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > >> Alejandro, while I have no negative stance against the ICANN board or any >> board member in particular, there remains two unanswered questions for me: >> >> 1. How did the board approve .xxx while the community was against it. >> >> To examine and analyse this discretionary power and authority one has to > go to the ICANN By laws. Is the Board obliged to accept the advice of > Advisory Committees or do they have their own discretionary capacity. > Leaving the bylaws aside, it is widely known that board members always work in the best interest of the various stakeholders involved. ICANN approved .xxx as means to move forward in the New gTLD program, or else they would have jeopardized been dragged to court on claims of bias. In addition, the GAC was against the whole approval, but no body listened to them. > >> 1. How did the board approve the New gTLD program while many answers >> and concerns were unanswered. Even after the program was launched, the "TAS >> glitch" caused lots of controversy. Even worst, ICANN is talking about the >> next New gTLD round (initially planed for 2013) when current issues have >> not been resolved yet. >> >> If you revisit the Transcripts of the ICANN Meeting in Singapore, there > was one sole dissenter (I could be wrong, maybe there were two, it would be > worthwhile to check) and the lone dissenter raised objections with his > rationale. However at the same time, to be fair the commercial world > thrives on risks and the Board in this instance had the ultimate discretion > to make the call. The obligation to manage and mitigate the risks is > another issue. There is a delicate balance between listening to the > community and feedback and making decisions. I still recall Tina Dam > raising at the San Jose meeting her reservations about "Digital Archery" > which was ultimately scrapped. However, one thing must be said is that > ICANN is a community that is open and you can write or make submissions as > an "affected party". For Governments, the GAC, for non- commercial > stakeholders and At Large. There are other avenues other than commercial > stakeholders where people can raise their concerns. > My concern here was not about the board vote, but rather the entire process. Some people at the Singapore meeting questioned ICANN's correspondence publishing policy in which some claimed that some correspondences rejecting the New gTLD program launch were never published on the ICANN website under correspondences. I would never disagree that ICANN is an "Open Community", but there is lots of lobbying, and ICANN must get its gears intact. > One of the remarkable things about the current Board is that they are also > going out of their way to extract feedback from the global community. They > are also bound by core values within the ICANN By Laws and if people are > not happy with how this is unfolding, then there are mechanisms in place to > raise these concerns etc. > This is the new board under Dr. Stephen Crocker, but not the previous ones (no hard feelings to past board members). One of the best sources of information at ICANN meetings is not published data, but rather the side talks with key industry players. You get to hears lots of petrifying issues going on behind the scene. > > What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their capacity >> as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective >> employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past >> board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere >> (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). >> >> Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of > "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled > down to personal integrity and ethics as legally. This was of course > through rigorous consultations with the global community addressed so that > it never happens again. > In summary, there is lots to be done for ICANN to prove its legitimacy and and relaunch a brighter image for itself. The New gTLD program has caused enough controversy for ICANN to start thinking of repositioning its hidden strategies. With the new CEO, he has an uphill of tasks to re-direct ICANN into the right direction. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 11 15:18:34 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:18:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: I think it would need a very strong international figure. However, some economists see the New gTLD program as means to refresh world economy especially up North and reduce the impact of the financial recession. Fahd On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:12 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Is it possible that someone with the right kind of legal backing and > financial strength can drag ICANN to court and get an injunction at any > point on both of the .xxx and new gtld go ahead to limit further activities > on both? > > Fouad Bajwa > On Aug 5, 2012 12:52 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Slight edits: >> >> Fahd: What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their >> capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective >> employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past >> board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere >> (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). >> >> Sal: Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of >> "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled >> down to personal integrity and ethics as there was nothing in writing >> concerning that specific situation. This was of course addressed >> through rigorous consultations with the global community so that it never >> happens again. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 11 15:25:13 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:25:13 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AAA2C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AAA2C@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Thank you Alejandro. On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan at unam.mx> wrote: > Fahd, > > I'll try to be brief and objective in replying: > > > Alejandro, while I have no negative stance against the ICANN board or any > board member in particular, there remains two unanswered questions for me: > > 1. How did the board approve .xxx while the community was against it. > > The Board I served on rejected it. > I know that .xxx was under debate for almost 10 years, and it cost millions of USD in legal trials. > > The decision-review process which .xxx won leaves very little room to do > other than allowing .xxx to go forward. > > What do you think would have been a worse outcry against ICANN? for > going forward following its established rules, or for going against them? > True. In fact, some claim that .xxx was approved to push forward with the New gTLD program. > > > 1. How did the board approve the New gTLD program while many answers > and concerns were unanswered. Even after the program was launched, the "TAS > glitch" caused lots of controversy. Even worst, ICANN is talking about the > next New gTLD round (initially planed for 2013) when current issues have > not been resolved yet. > > What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their capacity > as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective > employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. > > AP: this blank statement is wrong. A number of people who would have > been in that situation recused themselves from voting and even discussing > the decisions of the new gTLD program that would have meant a benefit for > them or their employers. > You might want to get a brief on the finances of ICANN SVSF meeting and the speech given by Bill Clinton; i.e., who funded the meeting that ICANN was unable to fund (unless the people who gave me these facts are liars). > > Even more, some past board members jumped to greener shores with > business ventures elsewhere (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). > > AP: strictly I can only guess and say that there is at least one prominent > instance which I have deplored deeply. Sala has already pointed to the > strong community reaction and how it's causing better conflict of interest > rules to be enacted, and a higher level of community vigilance to appear. > > You know conflict of interest and duties towards the organization vary a > lot cross-culturally. I am in favor of great clarity so people know where > Directors etc. stand when they vote, and when they shape a decision. > > The argument has been made that certain stricter rules "are US-centric" > and should not apply, say, to French nationals. Maybe someone in this list > can explore that further. I don't really buy it and find the argument > disgraceful. > > Hope this is useful. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > After all, shouldn't the board work in the best of the "Public Interest"? > > Fahd > > On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < > apisan at unam.mx> wrote: > >> Riaz, >> >> I can tell you from my eight years tenure in the ICANN Board that once >> the sustainability of the organization was achieved, the terms of contracts >> like the ones with Verisign were analyzed by the Board on a very principled >> basis. Their budgetary impact for ICANN itself was never a primary >> consideration. >> >> From knowledge of present Directors I tend to presume mostly a similar >> trend. >> >> Yours, >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> ! !! !!! !!!! >> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >> >> >> >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO >> >> SMS +525541444475 >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, >> http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> ________________________________________ >> Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Riaz K Tayob [ >> riaz.tayob at gmail.com] >> Enviado el: sábado, 04 de agosto de 2012 02:07 >> Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fouad Bajwa >> Asunto: Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from >> New .com Deal >> >> This can be understood in terms of path dependency as well as Public >> Choice theory... at some level of abstraction. >> >> >> On 2012/08/03 02:48 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> > The financial aspect and opportunities will always be there because at >> > the end of the day, we see a lot of stuff that inclines towards >> > benefiting the domain industry. >> > >> > Best >> > >> > Fouad >> > >> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh >> > wrote: >> >> >> http://domainincite.com/9845-icann-to-get-8-million-more-from-new-com-deal >> >> >> >> I wonder if this was the reason why ICANN renewed the .com agreement in >> >> favor of VeriSign Inc., causing lots of controversy and question marks >> >> within the ICANN community. >> >> >> >> Fahd >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> list mailing list >> >> list at igfarab.org >> >> http://mail.igfarab.org/mailman/listinfo/list >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 11 15:35:54 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:35:54 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DD066@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DD066@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > 1. How did the board approve .xxx while the community was against it.** > ** > > *[Milton L Mueller] That’s easy. First, there was no unified view on > .xxx. The term “the community” should never be used, certainly not with a > definite article, because there is never unanimity in a global > constituency. It is like asking whether “the community” is Christian, > Muslim, or Buddhist or Atheist. The answer is Yes. And if you want to avoid > the kind of religious warfare and repression that devastated Europe for two > centuries and which still haunts the middle east, you will avoid the whole > notion that there is a homogeneous community that can impose its will on > all of us.* > > *That leads to the second point. New TLDs are a form of expression and no > community, no matter how large the majority, has the right to censor them > unless their use violates some other human right or breaks some law. If you > don’t like the kinds of things that might be registered under .xxx, don’t > go to the websites. Simple as that.* > I am neither against .xxx, nor against New gTLDs :-) However, the debate surrounding them were not treated in the best interest of the "majority" (since you would prefer not using the term "The Community"). The process must have been more open and transparent (5 years of working on the New gTLD program and designing it does not mean that it was open and transparent). Mind you, do not focus much on some of the terms I use (such as "The Community") as when you were deeply involved with discussions related to ICANN and IG, I was still an undergraduate student trying to get a good education :-) > > 1. How did the board approve the New gTLD program while many answers > and concerns were unanswered. **** > > *[Milton L Mueller] This is an unrealistic perspective. There will always > be uncertainty and opposition when anything important is involved. If > governments or businesses were not allowed to make a move unless all > uncertainties were removed and no one had any “concerns,” then no one would > be able to do anything.* > Agree. I was just trying to make a point there. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 11 15:41:31 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 22:41:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More from New .com Deal In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DD080@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <501CCA49.5030605@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483AA715@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DD080@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > On conflict of interest, I think you are overstating the problem. > Well, I might. But I think this person could have used his instincts better and realized that what he was getting himself into would cause lots of rage. **** > > ** ** > > One board member – who had been an advocate of new gTLDs for literally > TWELVE YEARS before the decision was made – joined a new TLD company AFTER > he stepped down as Board chair. I think it is false to suggest that this > person supported the policy simply because of business opportunities that > were presented to him later. > I never mentioned that this person was supporting the policy for future business opportunities. As I stated earlier, he could have used his instincts better. I know money always attracts almost anyone, but common sense must prevail (I know, maybe I am sounding like as though we are living in an ideal world). ** ** > > I will admit that the optics were bad and that ICANN should have a “time > out” policy regarding its Board members in the future, but I also am tired > of the idea that the whole new gTLD program can be attributed to a sleazy > conflict of interest. This issue has been discussed and debated > interminably since 1996. There would have been stronger accusations of > massive conflicts of interest had ICANN _*not*_ approved a new gTLD > program (protecting the monopolies of existing players). > I agree. ICANN should have done much better on this matter and taken a proactive approach by gaining experience from the initial New gTLD rounds. **** > > > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 3:52 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fahd A. Batayneh > *Cc:* Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: [Arab IGF] ICANN to get $8 Million More > from New .com Deal**** > > ** ** > > Slight edits:**** > > ** ** > > Fahd: What makes things even worst is that many board members (in their > capacity as employers of their respective firms) benifited their respective > employers with the approval of the New gTLD program. Even more, some past > board members jumped to greener shores with business ventures elsewhere > (and I am sure you know what I exactly mean). **** > > ** ** > > Sal: Yes, that literally enraged the wider global community in terms of > "conflict of interest" management. The reality is that situation boiled > down to personal integrity and ethics as there was nothing in writing > concerning that specific situation. This was of course addressed through > rigorous consultations with the global community so that it never happens > again. **** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 11 15:42:06 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 15:42:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E3936@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E3936@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5026B58E.7040906@communisphere.com> Milton, It would appear from my August 9 email on this _S_ubject: has me standing with the "worst states" and conflating IG and CIRs with the upcoming ITRs. That was not my intent, and thank you for pointing that out. Let me make clear that I am not a proponent of expanding the December ITR meetings to include root resources. However, I do believe that civil society should make clear the desirability of a more inclusive governance process for the CIRs. That we should advocate for a thorough exploration of the technical and process requirements enabling same, via an expansion of the root resources, their reallocation, or otherwise. And that we should make it an ongoing goal of the IGC to introduce and advocate these policy recommendations in all appropriate venues. Without a shove, there's little prospect of the U.S. relinquishing its root controls. With the U.S. the leading global power (financial, military, media, donor nation...), there's little likelihood of an uprising or coalescing of less powerful states demanding a loosening of those strings. And with this being an arcane and complex subject, who but civil society can lead the way? Best, Tom Lowenhaupt On 8/11/2012 11:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > In any event, the one thing we ought to be able to agree on is that > this*/[/*root zone control] has absolutely no place in the ITRs. The > ITRs are not a framework agreement on IG, they're a high-level treaty > of rather questionable utility that pertains to how traditional > telecom services offered to the general public should be organized at > the political level. DNS matters absolutely do not fit in here even > if the Russians and some Arab countries would like to stir it into the > pot, and its inclusion would be a regressive step that would correctly > engender such extensive Reservations as to make it meaningless. > > *//* > > */[Milton L Mueller] Yes, yes yes! And it is not just the Russians and > Arab countries who are responsible for this conflation of the ITRs and > IG. One of the utterly counterproductive things U.S. civil society and > business seem to be doing in their attack on the WCIT is inadvertently > feeding the idea that the ITRs revisions _are_ actually about the root > zone, ICANN, etc., and that the ITRs actually CAN effectively do > something about them. In fact, the ITRs have nothing to do with that > and even if there were support to make them about it, as Bill points > out any attempt to do so cannot be effective as it would generate so > many reservations as to destroy the whole treaty. There is actually > very little effort to make the ITRs about IG CIR, even among the worst > states. Russia seems to be making some half-hearted efforts to put IP > addressing in there, but they failed miserably in Guadalajara in 2010, > and have no more support, possibly less, this time. A Russian proposal > to revive the ITU country internet registry idea, for example, was > made 18 months ago and did not appear in TD-64, the basis for > negotiations, which means it has no real support./* > > *//* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 11 17:02:25 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 09:02:25 +1200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5026B58E.7040906@communisphere.com> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E3936@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5026B58E.7040906@communisphere.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > Milton, > > It would appear from my August 9 email on this *S*ubject: has me standing > with the "worst states" and conflating IG and CIRs with the upcoming ITRs. > That was not my intent, and thank you for pointing that out. Let me make > clear that I am not a proponent of expanding the December ITR meetings to > include root resources. > > However, I do believe that civil society should make clear the > desirability of a more inclusive governance process for the CIRs. That we > should advocate for a thorough exploration of the technical and process > requirements enabling same, via an expansion of the root resources, their > reallocation, or otherwise. And that we should make it an ongoing goal of > the IGC to introduce and advocate these policy recommendations in all > appropriate venues. > > Without a shove, there's little prospect of the U.S. relinquishing its > root controls. With the U.S. the leading global power (financial, military, > media, donor nation...), there's little likelihood of an uprising or > coalescing of less powerful states demanding a loosening of those strings. > And with this being an arcane and complex subject, who but civil society > can lead the way? > Question: Do Critical Internet Resources fall under Critical Infrastructure? US Department of Homeland Security define critical infrastructure as "Critical infrastructure are the assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, public health or safety, or any combination thereof." See: http://www.dhs.gov/critical-infrastructure. In fact it goes on to define the various sectors one of which includes Communications Sector which includes the IT Sector which provides provides critical control systems and services, physical architecture and Internet infrastructure, see: http://www.dhs.gov/communications-sector. Worth noting is that the IT Sector is one of the 18 critical infrastructure sectors established under the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7). If one looks at the Briefing papers for the WCIT, one of the topics of discussion is Critical Information Infrastructure Protection. This is something that countries have been looking at whether they are countries within Europe (see: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/nis/strategy/activities/ciip/index_en.htm, Australia ( see: http://www.tisn.gov.au/Documents/Australian+Government+s+Critical+Infrastructure+Resilience+Strategy.pdf), Asia (Japan/Korea etc etc) etc In terms of Internet Governance, the issues then become:- - who is in control? - who is in control of what? - what is being controlled? - why is it being controlled? > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > > > On 8/11/2012 11:15 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > In any event, the one thing we ought to be able to agree on is that this* > [*root zone control] has absolutely no place in the ITRs. The ITRs are > not a framework agreement on IG, they're a high-level treaty of rather > questionable utility that pertains to how traditional telecom services > offered to the general public should be organized at the political level. > DNS matters absolutely do not fit in here even if the Russians and some > Arab countries would like to stir it into the pot, and its inclusion would > be a regressive step that would correctly engender such extensive > Reservations as to make it meaningless.**** > > ** > > *[Milton L Mueller] Yes, yes yes! And it is not just the Russians and > Arab countries who are responsible for this conflation of the ITRs and IG. > One of the utterly counterproductive things U.S. civil society and business > seem to be doing in their attack on the WCIT is inadvertently feeding the > idea that the ITRs revisions _are_ actually about the root zone, ICANN, > etc., and that the ITRs actually CAN effectively do something about them. > In fact, the ITRs have nothing to do with that and even if there were > support to make them about it, as Bill points out any attempt to do so > cannot be effective as it would generate so many reservations as to destroy > the whole treaty. There is actually very little effort to make the ITRs > about IG CIR, even among the worst states. Russia seems to be making some > half-hearted efforts to put IP addressing in there, but they failed > miserably in Guadalajara in 2010, and have no more support, possibly less, > this time. A Russian proposal to revive the ITU country internet registry > idea, for example, was made 18 months ago and did not appear in TD-64, the > basis for negotiations, which means it has no real support.* > > * * > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 11 19:03:52 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda Scartezini) Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 23:03:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] US position on ITRs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1295314343-1344726225-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1574283025-@b11.c4.bise7.blackberry> Liked! Vanda Scartezini from BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake Sender: apeake at gmail.com Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:02:44 To: Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Adam Peake Subject: [governance] US position on ITRs Strong words: "the Internet has evolved to operate in a separate and distinct environment that is beyond the scope or mandate of the ITRs or the International Telecommunication Union." Supports the current "multi-stakeholder" organizations naming ISOC, IETF, W3C, RIRs and ICANN. Global communications market is competitive, ITRs have been important in achieving this, as a result they need minimal, if any, changes. Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Aug 12 10:08:12 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:08:12 +0500 Subject: [governance] US position on ITRs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Panicking and ITU/WCIT/ITR Fever.....! -- Foo On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Strong words: "the Internet has evolved to operate in a separate and > distinct environment that is beyond the scope or mandate of the ITRs > or the International Telecommunication Union." Supports the current > "multi-stakeholder" organizations naming ISOC, IETF, W3C, RIRs and > ICANN. Global communications market is competitive, ITRs have been > important in achieving this, as a result they need minimal, if any, > changes. > > > > Adam > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 12 10:24:52 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:24:52 -0300 Subject: [governance] US position on ITRs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5027BCB4.9080706@cafonso.ca> Hmmm, the same introduction also reads: "...the United States will not support proposals that would increase the exercise of control over Internet governance or content. The United States will oppose efforts to broaden the scope of the ITRs to empower any censorship of content or impede the free flow of information and ideas." Like hiding their own tail -- the USA leads in proposals like SOPA, PIPA, TPP. Is like they are saying: "no increased control, no censorship or interference in the free flow of information and ideas... except when exercised by us." --c.a. On 08/11/2012 08:02 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Strong words: "the Internet has evolved to operate in a separate and > distinct environment that is beyond the scope or mandate of the ITRs > or the International Telecommunication Union." Supports the current > "multi-stakeholder" organizations naming ISOC, IETF, W3C, RIRs and > ICANN. Global communications market is competitive, ITRs have been > important in achieving this, as a result they need minimal, if any, > changes. > > > > Adam > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Aug 12 10:37:44 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 17:37:44 +0300 Subject: [governance] US position on ITRs In-Reply-To: <5027BCB4.9080706@cafonso.ca> References: <5027BCB4.9080706@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: +1 Would also like to add another classical example of "Arab Spring via Social Media" vs. "Wikileaks and Julian Assange". Both are considered to be Openness, but each was dealt with differently. Fahd On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hmmm, the same introduction also reads: "...the United States will not > support proposals that would increase the exercise of control over > Internet governance or content. The United States will oppose efforts to > broaden the scope of the ITRs to empower any censorship of content or > impede the free flow of information and ideas." > > Like hiding their own tail -- the USA leads in proposals like SOPA, > PIPA, TPP. Is like they are saying: "no increased control, no censorship > or interference in the free flow of information and ideas... except when > exercised by us." > > --c.a. > > On 08/11/2012 08:02 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > Strong words: "the Internet has evolved to operate in a separate and > > distinct environment that is beyond the scope or mandate of the ITRs > > or the International Telecommunication Union." Supports the current > > "multi-stakeholder" organizations naming ISOC, IETF, W3C, RIRs and > > ICANN. Global communications market is competitive, ITRs have been > > important in achieving this, as a result they need minimal, if any, > > changes. > > > > > > > > Adam > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 12 10:42:58 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:42:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] US position on ITRs In-Reply-To: References: <5027BCB4.9080706@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5027C0F2.6040304@cafonso.ca> Unless my memory fails, we can also compare the Daniel Ellsberg/Anthony Russo case (the Pentagon papers in the Nixon era) with the current Assange/Manning case. If the Ellsberg/Russo case happened today, probably both would be in jail with no trial... --c.a. On 08/12/2012 11:37 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > +1 > > Would also like to add another classical example of "Arab Spring via Social > Media" vs. "Wikileaks and Julian Assange". Both are considered to be > Openness, but each was dealt with differently. > > Fahd > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Hmmm, the same introduction also reads: "...the United States will not >> support proposals that would increase the exercise of control over >> Internet governance or content. The United States will oppose efforts to >> broaden the scope of the ITRs to empower any censorship of content or >> impede the free flow of information and ideas." >> >> Like hiding their own tail -- the USA leads in proposals like SOPA, >> PIPA, TPP. Is like they are saying: "no increased control, no censorship >> or interference in the free flow of information and ideas... except when >> exercised by us." >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/11/2012 08:02 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> Strong words: "the Internet has evolved to operate in a separate and >>> distinct environment that is beyond the scope or mandate of the ITRs >>> or the International Telecommunication Union." Supports the current >>> "multi-stakeholder" organizations naming ISOC, IETF, W3C, RIRs and >>> ICANN. Global communications market is competitive, ITRs have been >>> important in achieving this, as a result they need minimal, if any, >>> changes. >>> >>> >>> >>> Adam >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.pk Sun Aug 12 10:52:22 2012 From: shahzad at bytesforall.pk (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 19:52:22 +0500 Subject: [governance] New Research: Digital Security for Journalists & Bloggers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, We are very pleased to share with you our new research from Pakistan http://content.bytesforall.pk/node/62. Produced by Bytes for All and commissioned by the Internews Center for Innovation & Learning, the research shows, how journalists and bloggers in Pakistan aren¹t aware of the ways to protect themselves, their data, and their sources online. You may like to share it with other colleagues as well, who may be interested in this. The report is accessible here . Best wishes and regards Shahzad Ahmad www.bytesforall.pk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg Sun Aug 12 13:31:57 2012 From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 01:31:57 +0800 Subject: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - day 2, discussion of ITRs] In-Reply-To: <501A37CA.9010907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Thank you for your email. I cannot imagine ignoring your email. (In fact, the 2011 email shows that neither you nor the issue was ever "completely ignored.") As the evidence in the email trail and the conversations you agreed we show that neither you nor the issue have been ignored. It's on the record. I’m not going to answer every question but to address the larger question that in essence you and I are agreed on: we need to be doing the right thing in the right way. I believe we are agreed that organizing an APrIGF is the right thing. Exactly what is the right way is where we are having some difference. You havent told me why UNESCAP was not approached when most other regional IGF involve the regional UN commissions, I reacted to this right away when you told me this the first time in 2010 by emailing you either immediately or very soon after I got your email. I remember you saying that with the endorsement of UNESCAP we could then use the IGF logo. I also remember asking with astonishment why we had to get the endorsement of UNESCAP in order to use the IGF moniker. There was no rule for or against holding an IGF. We spoke at the APrIGF in Hongkong and I remember asking you who says so. You could not give me a good answer. In my mind therefore, you and I had therefore come to a stalemate (glass half-empty POV) or an understanding (glass half-full POV). That was why I sent you the invite in 2011. Now, before you hasten to think that I am being especially non understanding and harsh on you, pl know that I ask the same questions from the global IGF (in fact IGC has been doing it consistently) and I/ we also did our best to get much of this into the report of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. So, if I dont ask these question vis a vis an event calling itself the regional AP IGF, I will be being very inconsistent (which unfortunately, some people on this list are being) With the greatest of due respect, I think your consistency is misplaced. The first two APrIGFs were in essence startups. For the 2010 meeting, Edmon was raising funds, organizing logistics, chairing the programme committee, designing the website, sending out the publicity, etc. And Edmon actually had three overlapping meetings happening in that week. In the following year, Edmon certainly helped but most of what he did the year earlier was handed over to me. With any new effort, it is natural that people are cautious about how much weight to give to it. The most obvious group to appeal to are those directly involved in the more technical matters of the Internet. It is the also a point of having a regional meeting—to publicise Internet governance to the larger community. This year was a lot better as there were three different groups—the local organising committee in Tokyo to handle logistics, the secretariat handled by Edmon’s dotAsia and the programme committee that I chaired. With the workload more spread out, it’s easier to give more thought to some of the issues you have raised. In this background, your claim that your AP rIGF is legitimate because 'now' it is under a loose unclear technical community umbrella group sounds to me rather revisionist from a civil society point of view. What do you propose as a solution then? >1.This year, there was a call for panels and some of the panelists were funded. The next APrIGF will have a similar CFP. No, that is not enough. There has to a representative, participative, transparent process from the very start. I am most surprised that you are still not committing to one. You are just saying there was a call for proposals, and next year too there will be one. Also, I want information of which panels were funded and on what creteria. Who can disagree with representative participation and a transparent process? Fwiw, the organisers of the 2012 meeting will have meeting to discuss ways to improve the APrIGF. Izumi has been at the forefront in sending the group a wish list of things that the next committee should look into. You are welcome to send us your wish list. Regards, Peng Hwa PS. For those who want to know more about AP*, the APStar.org website gives more details about the group. AP* is a loose grouping of mostly technical associations in the Asia Pacific region involved with the Internet, a sort of association of associations. From: Parminder Singh > Date: Thursday, August 2, 2012 4:18 PM To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, AngPH >, Izumi Aizu > Subject: Re: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - day 2, discussion of ITRs] Peng Hwa (and Izumi) On Tuesday 24 July 2012 05:17 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: Parminder, Back from a meeting between the emails. First things first. Thank you for your email. I cannot imagine ignoring your email. (In fact, the 2011 email shows that neither you nor the issue was ever "completely ignored.") It is not about ignoring me. It is about the issues that not only were ignored, they are still being ignored. You still havent answered, any of the questions that I raised in my 2010 conversations, 2011 email or even in the present exchange. You havent told me why UNESCAP was not approached when most other regional IGF involve the regional UN commissions, you havent told me why efforts were not made to connect to non-technical community NGOs before preparation begun, including those persons/ groups who were involved with WSIS Asia Pacific caucus for instance, why almost no government seems to be involved, i have no clear information on who were on the organising committee (simple information, isnt it, why not share it), who set up the organising committee, who all funded the event, how many and which all participants to the event were funded and on what criteria etc...... Now, before you hasten to think that I am being especially non understanding and harsh on you, pl know that I ask the same questions from the global IGF (in fact IGC has been doing it consistently) and I/ we also did our best to get much of this into the report of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. So, if I dont ask these question vis a vis an event calling itself the regional AP IGF, I will be being very inconsistent (which unfortunately, some people on this list are being) I like to think that I would have answered at least some of your suggestions but I honestly cannot recall it now. No, you did not. The proof of it is, you still havent even when I ask again. Be that as it may, I may have felt that you were "mollified" (aka agree to disagree) because at that time, you had questioned the legitimacy of the APrIGF. I had said that the legitimacy argument would in fact play into the hands of those who question the legitimacy of civil society, an argument that I thought you accepted. Hence the friendly invite for 2011. I'm wondering if the debate is now moot because: 1. The IGF Secretariat has now come up with the guidelines for what a regional or national IGF should contain. (The Secretariat itself clearly has no problems with others using the IGF to indicate their national or regional IGF is part of the UN-level IGF.) This is a rather low bar and the APrIGF meets it. It is not enough if they set the bar low , it is not that civil society is just sitting to receive with fulsome gratitude whatever the IGF secretariat does or communicates (no, that is not how we have worked traditionally) . We make and let know our positions. The question is, are you fine with the low bar set for regional IGFs? If so, why did we fight so much for raising the bar for the global IGF through our engagements with the WG on IGF improvements, Will be very grateful for an answer, especially from Izumi who was on the WG. 1. The APrIGF is now under AP*. Some processes have been put in place for approval of the venue, chair of the PC, etc. I dont think many people here know what AP* is, and therefore you will have to elaborate. I see it as a group largely of organisations that tend to see themselves as the technical community, right! So, perhaps, the equivalent of what you are declaring as the grounds of legitimacy for the so call AP IGF will be someone saying global IGF is now very fine and immune from criticism because' it is now under ISOC'..... I dont know whether you are aware of it or not, but some such proposal, to put IGF under the ISOCs, were mooted during the IGF, but most civil society strongly opposed it. In this background, your claim that your AP rIGF is legitimate because 'now' it is under a loose unclear technical community umbrella group sounds to me rather revisionist from a civil society point of view. 1. This year, there was a call for panels and some of the panelists were funded. The next APrIGF will have a similar CFP. No, that is not enough. There has to be a representative, participative, transparent process from the very start. I am most surprised that you are still not committing to one. You are just saying there was a call for proposals, and next year too there will be one. Also, I want information of which panels were funded and on what creteria. thanks for your engagement, parminder You can expect the APrIGF to be more transparent in the future. And of course your suggestions to improve its governance and processes are always welcome. Regards, Peng Hwa From: Parminder Singh > Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:30 PM To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, AngPH > Subject: Re: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - day 2, discussion of ITRs] Peng Hwa, You have mentioned in your email how I had raised a number of issues when you had first organised the so-called APrIGF in Hongkong in 2010. Indeed, after a few exchanges IT for Change agreed to be present at the meeting on the condition that we would basically say the same things at the meeting about its legitimacy etc as we had been arguing. You kindly consented and we did attend the meeting and made our point. However, what surprises me is your conclusion that we were somehow mollified by our conversations with you at Hongkong and then at Vilnius. There is no question of such mollification without the issues we raised being addressed, and as is evident, they never were. What is even more surprising are your comments, quote below from your email of the last week, about the second so called APrIGF in Singapore. "When I organized the meeting in Singapore, you did not raise any objection." and, again later in the email " In Singapore, you did not raise any objections. And I thought that's where the issue stood." (Peng Hwa) It has obviously entirely skipped your memory, but when you wrote to me inviting me for the Singapore meeting, I wrote a detailed email to you which not only raised the same issues that I had raised earlier, but also suggested, in considerable detail, what in our opinion is the right way to go about organising the APrIGF (so much so for all this talk from various parties that I should be constructive etc, which I must say is a more than a bit patronising). I reproduce below my email to you before Singapore. I would not make your response public which is up to you to decide whatever to do about. I however must say that I had even at that time asked for your permission to make my email public but was persuaded not to, pending further f2f discussions etc which never happened. parminder My email in response to an invitation to attend the Singapore so called APrIGF is below. On 5/3/11 12:36 AM, "Parminder Singh" wrote: Dear Peng Hwa, It is always nice to hear from you, and hope you are doing well! Thank you for inviting me to chair a session during the proposed meeting. I do quite appreciate the utmost sincerely and serious application that you bring to your efforts to keep a dialogue on Internet Governance alive in the Asia Pacific region. However, for the reason mentioned below in some detail , I am constrained to decline your kind invitation. As mentioned in our conversations before the similar meeting last year, I do not think it legitimate to call any meeting as a regional IGF without a minimum standard of broad participation and 'ownership', especially of public interest actors. Last year I was told that it was the first time and the meeting has been planned in haste, and that things should improve for subsequent meetings. However, in this invite for the 2011 meeting I see no indication about who all are on the organizing committee, how was the agenda and speaker selection arrived at, etc. Apart from the basic legitimacy question, holding of such meetings under the banner of national/regional IGFs has a negative reverse impact on the global IGF to make it look like it too was just another annual conference on IG, which I do not think it is (though some people do) . I think that the global IGF is, or at least is supposed to be, an innovative experiment in deliberative and participatory democracy for global governance of the Internet. At least some basic features of the global IGF suggests the possibility that the global IGF can, if we have the political will for it, hopefully evolve to be something close to this ideal. These features are; strong mooring in a public institution - or a set of them, a good amount of public funding (though not at all of the kind, and extent, that can be considered satisfactory), a multistakeholder group deciding the agenda of the meeting and the speakers through an intensively consultative process, and such. While some of us are struggling to ensure that the annual IGF has an even greater public and democratic character, organization of completely private meetings opaquely planned and executed, with unknown sponsors and key drivers, like the proposed meeting being called the Asia Pacific Regional IGF, is to us a retrograde step. It is for this reason that we cannot associate with it, and in fact oppose it to be held under its proposed name. I do understand how difficult it is to be innovative and entrepreneurial in such matters and actually pull an event like this together; and in relation how facile it may be considered to criticize such almost valiant efforts. I must therefore engage constructively and suggest what could alternatively have been done and would, in my opinion, have been the better option. Though I cannot suggest funding options right away, it is possible that the Asia Pacific UN regional commission (ESCAP) could have shown some interest in this event. Was it even approached at all? Funding from governments of some countries could also been explored apart from sourcing 'monopoly funds' (akin to Internet tax) that are collected by registrars and such registries that use the commons resources of geo-political expressions like ctlds. In any case, wider participation of public interest actors is always possible to seek. There was this Asia Pacific Civil Society Caucus at WSIS, which is now defunct but one can recollect some key names of those - individuals and organizations - who participated actively. Then there are Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus members from Asia Pacific quite active in the Internet Governance Caucus. There are also MAG members from this region. I have no indication that these actors had any role at all in shaping an activity which is being called the Asia Pacific Regional IGF. I must once again mention that I hold you and your sincere efforts towards a continued dialogue on Internet governance in our region in great esteem. And this statement is made most sincerely because I have known you and your work closely. The proposed meeting should simply have been named something like 'an regional dialogue on IG' or some such thing rather than a regional IGF. In this regard we have the example of EURODIG. I do hope that such a change can still be made so that it leaves no room for confusion regarding the nature of the proposed meeting. We should do nothing to contribute to promoting privatized realms of governance for such an important social, economic, political and cultural phenomenon as the Internet. We fear that through privatized governance models for the Internet, what is really being done is to challenge the very essentials of democratic thought and ideals for all aspects of our social life. I look forward to hear your response to the issues that I have raised, and discuss them at as much length as may be required. However, meanwhile, I may have to take the contents of this letter to the public domain, since it really is not a response to you individually but a much larger engagement with issues concerning democracy and public interest, specifically about the nature of institutions that can serve these ideals. With respect, and the very best regards Parminder On Thursday 28 April 2011 06:38 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: APrIGF Dear Parminder, Greetings from Singapore! I append below the draft programme for the coming APrIGF in Singapore. This will be jus before the ICANN meeting. 1. Can you make it? 2. Can you participate in a panel or chair one? We have the plenaries as well as the workshops. 3. Regards, Peng Hwa ________________________________ 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From eiriarte at alfa-redi.org Sun Aug 12 13:45:53 2012 From: eiriarte at alfa-redi.org (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 12:45:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Batallas contra las leyes de delitos informaticos - Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru References: Message-ID: <9606B213-6E72-4072-8038-438F5A041E92@alfa-redi.org> FYI Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > De: Erick Iriarte Ahon > Fecha: 12 de agosto de 2012 12:13:17 GMT-05:00 > Para: "Foro de Derecho Informático." > Cc: LatinoamerICANN LatinoamerICANN > Asunto: Batallas contra las leyes de delitos informaticos - Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru > > Costa Rica: http://es.globalvoicesonline.org/2012/07/23/costa-rica-ley-de-delitos-informaticos-amenaza-la-libertad-en-internet/ > Ecuador: http://www.mediatelecom.com.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26020&catid=111&Itemid=112 > Peru: http://lexdigitalis.lamula.pe/2012/08/03/congreso-del-peru-puede-aprobar-ley-contra-el-internetlibre-by-e-iriarte/lexdigitalis > > A ver.. esto se esta poniendo demasiado complicado... es momento de una lucha frontal. > > Erick > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Sun Aug 12 14:40:14 2012 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 14:40:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Las declaraciones de Beingolea In-Reply-To: <9606B213-6E72-4072-8038-438F5A041E92@alfa-redi.org> References: <9606B213-6E72-4072-8038-438F5A041E92@alfa-redi.org> Message-ID: <20120812144014.91075lct7yazyefi@www.ciencitec.com> Señores del Foro. Antes de estar en una pose subversiva y de jalar agua para el protagonismo personal de algun individuo, escuchemos que dice al respecto el Congresista, Alberto Beingolea Gracias, por vuestra atencion Atentamente José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com Erick Iriarte Ahon escribió: > FYI > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > >> De: Erick Iriarte Ahon >> Fecha: 12 de agosto de 2012 12:13:17 GMT-05:00 >> Para: "Foro de Derecho Informático." >> Cc: LatinoamerICANN LatinoamerICANN >> Asunto: Batallas contra las leyes de delitos informaticos - Costa >> Rica, Ecuador, Peru >> Peru: A ver.. esto se esta poniendo demasiado complicado... es momento de una lucha frontal. >> >> Erick -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From eiriarte at alfa-redi.org Sun Aug 12 14:50:04 2012 From: eiriarte at alfa-redi.org (Erick Iriarte) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 13:50:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Las declaraciones de Beingolea In-Reply-To: <20120812144014.91075lct7yazyefi@www.ciencitec.com> References: <9606B213-6E72-4072-8038-438F5A041E92@alfa-redi.org> <20120812144014.91075lct7yazyefi@www.ciencitec.com> Message-ID: <7E04ECAC-8509-4654-9CC0-08F9C9BFF791@alfa-redi.org> A ti: Es bastante sencillo de responder, aquí un video del congresista en respuesta a un video (http://lahabitaciondehenryspencer.com/2012/08/09/video-que-es-la-ley-beingolea-internet-libre-congreso-del-peru/) que yo expuse previamente sobre lo atentaría de su ley a la democracia y el internet Aquí el video del congresista Beingolea: http://lahabitaciondehenryspencer.com/2012/08/11/video-congresista-alberto-beingolea-sobre-polemica-ley-beingolea-internet-peru/ Yo estoy x el internet libre no importa quien lo defienda o salga a dar la cara, y sin duda tu no estarás en contra de dicho internet libre y has intentado liderar el capítulo de Isoc de perú. Si quieren seguir el debate #leybeingolea Saludos Erick Enviado desde mi iPhone El 12/08/2012, a las 13:40, jfcallo at ciencitec.com escribió: > Señores del Foro. > Antes de estar en una pose subversiva y de jalar agua para el protagonismo personal de algun individuo, escuchemos que dice al respecto el Congresista, Alberto Beingolea > Gracias, por vuestra atencion > Atentamente > > José F. Callo Romero > CEO ciencitec.com > > > Erick Iriarte Ahon escribió: > >> FYI >> >> Inicio del mensaje reenviado: >> >>> De: Erick Iriarte Ahon >>> Fecha: 12 de agosto de 2012 12:13:17 GMT-05:00 >>> Para: "Foro de Derecho Informático." >>> Cc: LatinoamerICANN LatinoamerICANN >>> Asunto: Batallas contra las leyes de delitos informaticos - Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru >>> > Peru: > A ver.. esto se esta poniendo demasiado complicado... es momento de > una lucha frontal. >>> >>> Erick > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Sun Aug 12 15:14:24 2012 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 15:14:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Conversar con el Congresista In-Reply-To: <7E04ECAC-8509-4654-9CC0-08F9C9BFF791@alfa-redi.org> References: <9606B213-6E72-4072-8038-438F5A041E92@alfa-redi.org> <20120812144014.91075lct7yazyefi@www.ciencitec.com> <7E04ECAC-8509-4654-9CC0-08F9C9BFF791@alfa-redi.org> Message-ID: <20120812151424.2806104v7p4ymgsw@www.ciencitec.com> Sres del Foro: Lo mas importante para toda discusion es el respeto, lamento que quien se dirige a mi lo hace en forma despectiva, lo que lo descalifica para tomar una iniciativa de dialogo y exposicion de motivos. Sugiero se converse con el Congresista Alberto Beingolea, para exponerle claramente los motivos y no ir con el pie levantado como algunos sugieren y pretenden convertirse en lideres, siendo unos simplones agitadores. Gracias por vuestra tolerancia José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Aug 12 15:57:09 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 00:57:09 +0500 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Article=3A_Watch=3A_The_moment_Kim_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Dotcom=92s_mansion_got_raided_by_police?= Message-ID: A New Zealand news outlet has released video footage of the controversial police raid of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom showing multiple helicopters and several police vehicles converging on his mansion. A reporter for 3news, which published a video containing footage of the operation interspers... http:// thenextweb.com /insider/2012/08/08/watch-the-moment- kim - dotcoms -mansion-got-raided-by-police/ Foo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Aug 12 18:29:04 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 01:29:04 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Article=3A_Watch=3A_The_moment_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Kim_Dotcom=92s_mansion_got_raided_by_police?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Really interesting. While all this was planed and done to Kim Dotcom, what would be done to Julian Assange once they get their hands on him?! I guess that day would be called by some as "Openness Crackdown Day". Fahd On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > A New Zealand news outlet has released video footage of the controversial > police raid of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom showing multiple helicopters > and several police vehicles converging on his mansion. > > A reporter for 3news, which published a video containing footage of the > operation interspers... > > http:// > thenextweb.com > /insider/2012/08/08/watch-the-moment- > kim > - > dotcoms > -mansion-got-raided-by-police/ > > > Foo > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 12 20:24:42 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2012 20:24:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: <5025EB55.1070609@itforchange.net> References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> <5025008E.4040700@itforchange.net> <2B999EEA-CBF5-4B02-8C2D-9C4A932D60BE@uzh.ch> <502545DE.8070804@itforchange.net> <1D283A44-AE35-46C0-B511-D30C5DD66034@virtualized.org> <5025EB55.1070609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 1:19 AM, parminder wrote: > David > > > Therefore an > > (1) Internet Oversight Board (or as per Carlos's proposal a International > Internet Coordination and Evaluation Council ) takes over the oversight > role over the CIR management system > What about those of us who think that NO oversight is needed? > > (2) A UN Committee on Internet Related Policies takes up non CIR general > public policies, on the same pattern as OECD's CICCP, whereby while today > OECD makes general Internet related policies that by default get applied to > the whole world, we have a similar committee but with all countries > represented doing EXACTLY the same work.... (I am unable to see how one can > object to this). > What about those of us who do not want the OECD (or any intergovernmental body) to be making Internet policy? > > This is just a template to begun a serious discussion. As long as, as you > say, no one argues 'that things should remain the same", we can together > chart a path to the new system. That is my change model. > We have a "new system", it is significantly different than what we had just a few years ago. The way of doing things is changing by evolution, not revolution. I would urge you to re-read Bill's long post in this thread with an open mind. There are significant challenges to be faced in doing (1). -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Aug 12 21:18:17 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 06:18:17 +0500 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Article=3A_Watch=3A_The_moment_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Kim_Dotcom=92s_mansion_got_raided_by_police?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It would be called the leaks plumbered day ;o) I was amazed by the excessive force applied by authorities over a civilian that had no prior history of violence etc., poor guy. Best Foo On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > Really interesting. While all this was planed and done to Kim Dotcom, what > would be done to Julian Assange once they get their hands on him?! I guess > that day would be called by some as "Openness Crackdown Day". > > Fahd > > On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> A New Zealand news outlet has released video footage of the controversial >> police raid of Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom showing multiple helicopters >> and several police vehicles converging on his mansion. >> >> A reporter for 3news, which published a video containing footage of the >> operation interspers... >> >> >> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/08/08/watch-the-moment-kim-dotcoms-mansion-got-raided-by-police/ >> >> >> Foo >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Aug 12 21:27:21 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 06:27:21 +0500 Subject: [governance] Its Internet Content Censorship, Blocking and Filtering Season again here! Woohoo! Message-ID: The Pakistani Telecom Regulator, its Ministry of IT and the Interministerial parliamentary committee are ordering and implementing online content and URL filtering blocking. This time it has somehow gone a bit too public while the same guy and president of the Internet Service Providers association who first advised and helped the association to support the government to issue an RFP for the implementation earlier this year for implementing a National Firewall for the country is now opposing blanket censorship crackdowns since he isn't in the loop ;o) So is there a censorship mechanism in place, we would suppose so. Anyways, its Online content blocking and censorship season again and this time its not even the usually suspected content but more of some intimate phone calls between politicians and heads of government departments hidden marriages and leaks!!! http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-16721-PTA-orders-blocking-of-scandalous-stuff-on-internet Who needs to talk to the authorities about ITU, WCIT, ITRs etc when they are good at managing critical internet resources ;o) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sun Aug 12 22:15:38 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:15:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Its Internet Content Censorship, Blocking and Filtering Season again here! Woohoo! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B3965@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Fouad, sounds like the perfect complaint to take to the UN GA, UNESCO, or closer to home, the G77. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Enviado el: domingo, 12 de agosto de 2012 20:27 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] Its Internet Content Censorship, Blocking and Filtering Season again here! Woohoo! The Pakistani Telecom Regulator, its Ministry of IT and the Interministerial parliamentary committee are ordering and implementing online content and URL filtering blocking. This time it has somehow gone a bit too public while the same guy and president of the Internet Service Providers association who first advised and helped the association to support the government to issue an RFP for the implementation earlier this year for implementing a National Firewall for the country is now opposing blanket censorship crackdowns since he isn't in the loop ;o) So is there a censorship mechanism in place, we would suppose so. Anyways, its Online content blocking and censorship season again and this time its not even the usually suspected content but more of some intimate phone calls between politicians and heads of government departments hidden marriages and leaks!!! http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-16721-PTA-orders-blocking-of-scandalous-stuff-on-internet Who needs to talk to the authorities about ITU, WCIT, ITRs etc when they are good at managing critical internet resources ;o) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Aug 12 22:44:32 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 07:44:32 +0500 Subject: [governance] Creating the Anti-Network Effect Message-ID: anti-network effects which “occur when a community which has already achieved critical mass begins to lose value with each additional signup. The reason is that the core community that created the value to begin with starts to get marginalized and leaves.” Source: Dalton Caldwell's App.net Meets Funding Goal To Launch Paid Twitter Alternative - Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2012/08/12/dalton-caldwells-app-net-meets-funding-goal-to-launch-paid-twitter-alternative/ Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Aug 12 23:08:38 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:08:38 +0500 Subject: [governance] Its Internet Content Censorship, Blocking and Filtering Season again here! Woohoo! In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B3965@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B3965@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: The question is how? Fo On Aug 13, 2012 7:11 AM, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" wrote: > Fouad, > > sounds like the perfect complaint to take to the UN GA, UNESCO, or closer > to home, the G77. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Fouad Bajwa [ > fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Enviado el: domingo, 12 de agosto de 2012 20:27 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: [governance] Its Internet Content Censorship, Blocking and > Filtering Season again here! Woohoo! > > The Pakistani Telecom Regulator, its Ministry of IT and the > Interministerial parliamentary committee are ordering and implementing > online content and URL filtering blocking. > > This time it has somehow gone a bit too public while the same guy and > president of the Internet Service Providers association who first > advised and helped the association to support the government to issue > an RFP for the implementation earlier this year for implementing a > National Firewall for the country is now opposing blanket censorship > crackdowns since he isn't in the loop ;o) So is there a censorship > mechanism in place, we would suppose so. > > Anyways, its Online content blocking and censorship season again and > this time its not even the usually suspected content but more of some > intimate phone calls between politicians and heads of government > departments hidden marriages and leaks!!! > > > http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-16721-PTA-orders-blocking-of-scandalous-stuff-on-internet > > Who needs to talk to the authorities about ITU, WCIT, ITRs etc when > they are good at managing critical internet resources ;o) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sun Aug 12 23:22:22 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:22:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Its Internet Content Censorship, Blocking and Filtering Season again here! Woohoo! In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B3965@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B39B9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Fouad, maybe through the representation of the country? - it has a tradition of leadership in the G77 (Chair during the WSIS period, same man was also Chair of some amazing WSIS closing sessions including the final vote.) Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Enviado el: domingo, 12 de agosto de 2012 22:08 Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: RE: [governance] Its Internet Content Censorship, Blocking and Filtering Season again here! Woohoo! The question is how? Fo On Aug 13, 2012 7:11 AM, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" > wrote: Fouad, sounds like the perfect complaint to take to the UN GA, UNESCO, or closer to home, the G77. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Enviado el: domingo, 12 de agosto de 2012 20:27 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] Its Internet Content Censorship, Blocking and Filtering Season again here! Woohoo! The Pakistani Telecom Regulator, its Ministry of IT and the Interministerial parliamentary committee are ordering and implementing online content and URL filtering blocking. This time it has somehow gone a bit too public while the same guy and president of the Internet Service Providers association who first advised and helped the association to support the government to issue an RFP for the implementation earlier this year for implementing a National Firewall for the country is now opposing blanket censorship crackdowns since he isn't in the loop ;o) So is there a censorship mechanism in place, we would suppose so. Anyways, its Online content blocking and censorship season again and this time its not even the usually suspected content but more of some intimate phone calls between politicians and heads of government departments hidden marriages and leaks!!! http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-16721-PTA-orders-blocking-of-scandalous-stuff-on-internet Who needs to talk to the authorities about ITU, WCIT, ITRs etc when they are good at managing critical internet resources ;o) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Aug 13 03:56:35 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:56:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] Its Internet Content Censorship, Blocking and Filtering Season again here! Woohoo! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: While summer is coming to an end (at least in my part of the world), it seems that censorship is spreading like a heat wave. In Jordan, the ministry of ICT has been pushing for this issue as they have been pressurized by many Jordanian citizens to do so. Even worst, some local hackers have threatened to hack all governmental web content if the government does not filter web content (mainly porno content). Fahd On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > The Pakistani Telecom Regulator, its Ministry of IT and the > Interministerial parliamentary committee are ordering and implementing > online content and URL filtering blocking. > > This time it has somehow gone a bit too public while the same guy and > president of the Internet Service Providers association who first advised > and helped the association to support the government to issue an RFP for > the implementation earlier this year for implementing a National Firewall > for the country is now opposing blanket censorship > crackdowns since he isn't in the loop ;o) So is there a censorship > mechanism in place, we would suppose so. > > Anyways, its Online content blocking and censorship season again and this > time its not even the usually suspected content but more of some intimate > phone calls between politicians and heads of government departments hidden > marriages and leaks!!! > > > http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-16721-PTA-orders-blocking-of-scandalous-stuff-on-internet > > Who needs to talk to the authorities about ITU, WCIT, ITRs etc when they > are good at managing critical internet resources ;o) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 13 05:14:13 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 11:14:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] India's communications minister - root server misunderstanding (still...) In-Reply-To: References: <50238F98.2010005@itforchange.net> <5024353D.2080702@communisphere.com> <5024DE01.8020504@itforchange.net> <65DF8F84-12A2-4028-9DE0-70DCA58FB65B@uzh.ch> <5025008E.4040700@itforchange.net> <2B999EEA-CBF5-4B02-8C2D-9C4A932D60BE@uzh.ch> <502545DE.8070804@itforchange.net> <1D283A44-AE35-46C0-B511-D30C5DD66034@virtualized.org> <5025EB55.1070609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5028C565.7060206@gmail.com> Well we have just had no oversight or deregulation or light touch regulation in the financial sector... hows the crisis coming along... perhaps this is an indication of a preview of forthcoming attractions... of such views... to put it in extremist positions, these "anarchic" solutions simply mean self-supervision, which imho essentially is domination by the big corporates... and given the tired discussions on MSG and the role of corporates... 'nuf said... and no need to raise this tired debate again... we can agree to disagree On 2012/08/13 02:24 AM, McTim wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 1:19 AM, parminder > wrote: > > David > > > > > Therefore an > > (1) Internet Oversight Board (or as per Carlos's proposal a > International Internet Coordination and Evaluation Council ) takes > over the oversight role over the CIR management system > > > > What about those of us who think that NO oversight is needed? > > > (2) A UN Committee on Internet Related Policies takes up non CIR > general public policies, on the same pattern as OECD's CICCP, > whereby while today OECD makes general Internet related policies > that by default get applied to the whole world, we have a similar > committee but with all countries represented doing EXACTLY the > same work.... (I am unable to see how one can object to this). > > > > What about those of us who do not want the OECD (or any > intergovernmental body) to be making Internet policy? > > > This is just a template to begun a serious discussion. As long as, > as you say, no one argues 'that things should remain the same", we > can together chart a path to the new system. That is my change model. > > > > We have a "new system", it is significantly different than what we had > just a few years ago. The way of doing things is changing by > evolution, not revolution. I would urge you to re-read Bill's long > post in this thread with an open mind. There are > significant challenges to be faced in doing (1). > > > -- > 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 13 07:18:07 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:18:07 -0300 Subject: [governance] visas for azerbaijan on arrival In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5028E26F.6020805@cafonso.ca> Hi people, Maybe most of you have already seen this info. I've just got confirmation email of my registration for Baku IGF reminding me of the info regarding visas in the IGF 2012 website. I think the issues regarding visas are settled now (see below). There is no info on costs though. frt rgds --c.a. http://igf2012.com/?mod=content&sub=bottom&id=116&lang=en General information Foreigners or stateless persons coming to the Republic of Azerbaijan for Internet Governance Forum-2012, which will be held in Baku, can receive visas from the structural sections of the Consular Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which are located in the Baku Heydar Aliyev International Airport or from the Consular Depatments of the Republic of Azerbaijan located in foreign countries. The upon arrival visa application period starts from 15 October to 8 November, 2012. There are two supporting documents which will serve as the basis for granting the visa: a) ‘Confirmation of registration’-form which will be provided by the IGF Secretariat at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ and b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation of registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host country's IGF visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 13 08:29:51 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:29:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] visas for azerbaijan on arrival In-Reply-To: <5028E26F.6020805@cafonso.ca> References: <5028E26F.6020805@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi people, > > Maybe most of you have already seen this info. > > I've just got confirmation email of my registration for Baku IGF > reminding me of the info regarding visas in the IGF 2012 website. I > think the issues regarding visas are settled now (see below). There is > no info on costs though. > My understanding is that the visa will be free. However, checking this and will get back with confirmation. Adam > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > http://igf2012.com/?mod=content&sub=bottom&id=116&lang=en > > General information > > Foreigners or stateless persons coming to the Republic of Azerbaijan for > Internet Governance Forum-2012, which will be held in Baku, can receive > visas from the structural sections of the Consular Department of the > Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which are > located in the Baku Heydar Aliyev International Airport or from the > Consular Depatments of the Republic of Azerbaijan located in foreign > countries. > > The upon arrival visa application period starts from 15 October to 8 > November, 2012. There are two supporting documents which will serve as > the basis for granting the visa: > > a) ‘Confirmation of registration’-form which will be provided by the IGF > Secretariat at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ > and > b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the > participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation of > registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host country's > IGF visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Mon Aug 13 08:55:21 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 08:55:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] visas for azerbaijan on arrival In-Reply-To: References: <5028E26F.6020805@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: [Sigh of relief] Thanks! m. On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Hi people, >> >> Maybe most of you have already seen this info. >> >> I've just got confirmation email of my registration for Baku IGF >> reminding me of the info regarding visas in the IGF 2012 website. I >> think the issues regarding visas are settled now (see below). There is >> no info on costs though. >> > > > My understanding is that the visa will be free. However, checking > this and will get back with confirmation. > > Adam > > > >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> http://igf2012.com/?mod=content&sub=bottom&id=116&lang=en >> >> General information >> >> Foreigners or stateless persons coming to the Republic of Azerbaijan for >> Internet Governance Forum-2012, which will be held in Baku, can receive >> visas from the structural sections of the Consular Department of the >> Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which are >> located in the Baku Heydar Aliyev International Airport or from the >> Consular Depatments of the Republic of Azerbaijan located in foreign >> countries. >> >> The upon arrival visa application period starts from 15 October to 8 >> November, 2012. There are two supporting documents which will serve as >> the basis for granting the visa: >> >> a) ‘Confirmation of registration’-form which will be provided by the IGF >> Secretariat at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ >> and >> b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the >> participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation of >> registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host country's >> IGF visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Aug 13 09:46:07 2012 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 15:46:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] visas for azerbaijan on arrival In-Reply-To: References: <5028E26F.6020805@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hello, For countries that have no diplomatic representation, is it possible to have the visa on arrival? I think these are provisions that must be considered! Baudouin 2012/8/13 Mawaki Chango > [Sigh of relief] Thanks! > > m. > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Hi people, > >> > >> Maybe most of you have already seen this info. > >> > >> I've just got confirmation email of my registration for Baku IGF > >> reminding me of the info regarding visas in the IGF 2012 website. I > >> think the issues regarding visas are settled now (see below). There is > >> no info on costs though. > >> > > > > > > My understanding is that the visa will be free. However, checking > > this and will get back with confirmation. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > >> frt rgds > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> http://igf2012.com/?mod=content&sub=bottom&id=116&lang=en > >> > >> General information > >> > >> Foreigners or stateless persons coming to the Republic of Azerbaijan for > >> Internet Governance Forum-2012, which will be held in Baku, can receive > >> visas from the structural sections of the Consular Department of the > >> Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which are > >> located in the Baku Heydar Aliyev International Airport or from the > >> Consular Depatments of the Republic of Azerbaijan located in foreign > >> countries. > >> > >> The upon arrival visa application period starts from 15 October to 8 > >> November, 2012. There are two supporting documents which will serve as > >> the basis for granting the visa: > >> > >> a) ‘Confirmation of registration’-form which will be provided by the IGF > >> Secretariat at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ > >> and > >> b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the > >> participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation of > >> registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host country's > >> IGF visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Mon Aug 13 11:35:19 2012 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:35:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Batallas contra las leyes de delitos informaticos - Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru In-Reply-To: <9606B213-6E72-4072-8038-438F5A041E92@alfa-redi.org> References: <9606B213-6E72-4072-8038-438F5A041E92@alfa-redi.org> Message-ID: Disculpen si soy impertinente...pero llame a solidarizarnos contra la entrega de renovación de concesión por 18 años a telefónica por parte de OSIPTEL...y que paso, por ahí alguien salio a decir que no era posible estar mandando cartitas y que ademas era una suerte de subversión...mejor dicho el espacio solamente es una suerte de un club en donde sus miembros solamente miran y no opinan...¿Por temor al que dirán...o les llego el aceite...ó tienen temor de perder su chamba? En tu caso Erick en el cual estas pidiendo la unión y la acción en contra de un Internet intervenido amenazando la libertad de expresión y digital... ya salieron a decirte...que estas en una pose subversiva, que estas jalando agua para tu protagonismo personal y otras cosas Yo me pregunto, sacar la cara por el Perú para que no lo depreden empresarios o empresas sin escrúpulos; cómo telefónica o la intervención en contra de la libre información, es tener pose subversiva o de estar jalando agua para el protagonismo personal...que risa... personalmente para mí, solamente los cobardes y los corruptos son los que no dan la cara y prefieren vivir bajo un modelo de libertad restringida. Cordialmente. José Félix Arias Ynche Investigador Social para el Desarrollo El 12 de agosto de 2012 12:45, Erick Iriarte Ahon escribió: > FYI > > Inicio del mensaje reenviado: > > *De: *Erick Iriarte Ahon > *Fecha: *12 de agosto de 2012 12:13:17 GMT-05:00 > *Para: *"Foro de Derecho Informático." > *Cc: *LatinoamerICANN LatinoamerICANN > *Asunto: **Batallas contra las leyes de delitos informaticos - Costa > Rica, Ecuador, Peru* > > Costa Rica: > http://es.globalvoicesonline.org/2012/07/23/costa-rica-ley-de-delitos-informaticos-amenaza-la-libertad-en-internet/ > Ecuador: > http://www.mediatelecom.com.mx/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26020&catid=111&Itemid=112 > Peru: > http://lexdigitalis.lamula.pe/2012/08/03/congreso-del-peru-puede-aprobar-ley-contra-el-internetlibre-by-e-iriarte/lexdigitalis > > A ver.. esto se esta poniendo demasiado complicado... es momento de una > lucha frontal. > > Erick > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 13 12:12:26 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 13:12:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] visas for azerbaijan on arrival In-Reply-To: References: <5028E26F.6020805@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5029276A.1080101@cafonso.ca> Hmmm, important to recheck this, but the directive even contemplates "stateless persons", so I think it is a matter of having UN endorsement (via the Confirmation of Registration) and a valid passport. frt rgds --c.a. On 08/13/2012 10:46 AM, Baudouin Schombe wrote: > Hello, > For countries that have no diplomatic representation, is it possible to > have the visa on arrival? I think these are provisions that must be > considered! > > Baudouin > > 2012/8/13 Mawaki Chango > >> [Sigh of relief] Thanks! >> >> m. >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> Hi people, >>>> >>>> Maybe most of you have already seen this info. >>>> >>>> I've just got confirmation email of my registration for Baku IGF >>>> reminding me of the info regarding visas in the IGF 2012 website. I >>>> think the issues regarding visas are settled now (see below). There is >>>> no info on costs though. >>>> >>> >>> >>> My understanding is that the visa will be free. However, checking >>> this and will get back with confirmation. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> frt rgds >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> http://igf2012.com/?mod=content&sub=bottom&id=116&lang=en >>>> >>>> General information >>>> >>>> Foreigners or stateless persons coming to the Republic of Azerbaijan for >>>> Internet Governance Forum-2012, which will be held in Baku, can receive >>>> visas from the structural sections of the Consular Department of the >>>> Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which are >>>> located in the Baku Heydar Aliyev International Airport or from the >>>> Consular Depatments of the Republic of Azerbaijan located in foreign >>>> countries. >>>> >>>> The upon arrival visa application period starts from 15 October to 8 >>>> November, 2012. There are two supporting documents which will serve as >>>> the basis for granting the visa: >>>> >>>> a) ‘Confirmation of registration’-form which will be provided by the IGF >>>> Secretariat at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ >>>> and >>>> b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the >>>> participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation of >>>> registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host country's >>>> IGF visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Mon Aug 13 12:22:14 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:22:14 +0500 Subject: [governance] Its Internet Content Censorship, Blocking and Filtering Season again here! Woohoo! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Somebody on the other side of the border thought I was government too and they defaced and knocked out my website which I found funny but the amusing thing was they replaced my index.php file with their matrix movie animated wallpaper and a patriotic song by A.R.Rehman calling us lazy geeks pakiots lol! Fôöòóōõœø On Aug 13, 2012 12:56 PM, "Fahd A. Batayneh" wrote: > While summer is coming to an end (at least in my part of the world), it > seems that censorship is spreading like a heat wave. In Jordan, the > ministry of ICT has been pushing for this issue as they have been > pressurized by many Jordanian citizens to do so. Even worst, some local > hackers have threatened to hack all governmental web content if the > government does not filter web content (mainly porno content). > > Fahd > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> The Pakistani Telecom Regulator, its Ministry of IT and the >> Interministerial parliamentary committee are ordering and implementing >> online content and URL filtering blocking. >> >> This time it has somehow gone a bit too public while the same guy and >> president of the Internet Service Providers association who first advised >> and helped the association to support the government to issue an RFP for >> the implementation earlier this year for implementing a National Firewall >> for the country is now opposing blanket censorship >> crackdowns since he isn't in the loop ;o) So is there a censorship >> mechanism in place, we would suppose so. >> >> Anyways, its Online content blocking and censorship season again and this >> time its not even the usually suspected content but more of some intimate >> phone calls between politicians and heads of government departments hidden >> marriages and leaks!!! >> >> >> http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-16721-PTA-orders-blocking-of-scandalous-stuff-on-internet >> >> Who needs to talk to the authorities about ITU, WCIT, ITRs etc when they >> are good at managing critical internet resources ;o) >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katycarvt at gmail.com Mon Aug 13 12:22:21 2012 From: katycarvt at gmail.com (Katy P) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 09:22:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] visas for azerbaijan on arrival In-Reply-To: <5029276A.1080101@cafonso.ca> References: <5028E26F.6020805@cafonso.ca> <5029276A.1080101@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Is it possible to get visas ahead of time but still for free? Those on the more activist side of things would probably prefer to have a visa in hand before flying. On Aug 13, 2012 9:13 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Hmmm, important to recheck this, but the directive even contemplates > "stateless persons", so I think it is a matter of having UN endorsement > (via the Confirmation of Registration) and a valid passport. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 08/13/2012 10:46 AM, Baudouin Schombe wrote: > > Hello, > > For countries that have no diplomatic representation, is it possible to > > have the visa on arrival? I think these are provisions that must be > > considered! > > > > Baudouin > > > > 2012/8/13 Mawaki Chango > > > >> [Sigh of relief] Thanks! > >> > >> m. > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: > >>>> Hi people, > >>>> > >>>> Maybe most of you have already seen this info. > >>>> > >>>> I've just got confirmation email of my registration for Baku IGF > >>>> reminding me of the info regarding visas in the IGF 2012 website. I > >>>> think the issues regarding visas are settled now (see below). There is > >>>> no info on costs though. > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> My understanding is that the visa will be free. However, checking > >>> this and will get back with confirmation. > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> frt rgds > >>>> > >>>> --c.a. > >>>> > >>>> http://igf2012.com/?mod=content&sub=bottom&id=116&lang=en > >>>> > >>>> General information > >>>> > >>>> Foreigners or stateless persons coming to the Republic of Azerbaijan > for > >>>> Internet Governance Forum-2012, which will be held in Baku, can > receive > >>>> visas from the structural sections of the Consular Department of the > >>>> Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which are > >>>> located in the Baku Heydar Aliyev International Airport or from the > >>>> Consular Depatments of the Republic of Azerbaijan located in foreign > >>>> countries. > >>>> > >>>> The upon arrival visa application period starts from 15 October to 8 > >>>> November, 2012. There are two supporting documents which will serve as > >>>> the basis for granting the visa: > >>>> > >>>> a) ‘Confirmation of registration’-form which will be provided by the > IGF > >>>> Secretariat at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ > >>>> and > >>>> b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the > >>>> participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation of > >>>> registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host country's > >>>> IGF visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Aug 14 03:01:40 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (william.drake at uzh.ch) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:01:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Its Internet Content Censorship, Blocking and Filtering Season again here! Woohoo! In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: In related news… http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/world/asia/critics-see-south-korea-internet-curbs-as-censorship.html?_r=1&ref=technology -----governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org schrieb: ----- An: Fouad Bajwa Von: "Fahd A. Batayneh" Gesendet von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Datum: 13.08.2012 09:57 Kopie: IG Caucus Betreff: Re: [governance] Its Internet Content Censorship, Blocking and Filtering Season again here! Woohoo! While summer is coming to an end (at least in my part of the world), it seems that censorship is spreading like a heat wave. In Jordan, the ministry of ICT has been pushing for this issue as they have been pressurized by many Jordanian citizens to do so. Even worst, some local hackers have threatened to hack all governmental web content if the government does not filter web content (mainly porno content). Fahd On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:27 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: The Pakistani Telecom Regulator, its Ministry of IT and the Interministerial parliamentary committee are ordering and implementing online content and URL filtering blocking. This time it has somehow gone a bit too public while the same guy and president of the Internet Service Providers association who first advised and helped the association to support the government to issue an RFP for the implementation earlier this year for implementing a National Firewall for the country is now opposing blanket censorship crackdowns since he isn't in the loop ;o) So is there a censorship mechanism in place, we would suppose so. Anyways, its Online content blocking and censorship season again and this time its not even the usually suspected content but more of some intimate phone calls between politicians and heads of government departments hidden marriages and leaks!!! http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-13-16721-PTA-orders-blocking-of-scandalous-stuff-on-internet Who needs to talk to the authorities about ITU, WCIT, ITRs etc when they are good at managing critical internet resources ;o) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Aug 14 05:38:07 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:38:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] visas for azerbaijan on arrival In-Reply-To: References: <5028E26F.6020805@cafonso.ca> <5029276A.1080101@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hello My question remains. But I will go to the team of visa issues. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/8/13 Katy P > Is it possible to get visas ahead of time but still for free? > > Those on the more activist side of things would probably prefer to have a > visa in hand before flying. > On Aug 13, 2012 9:13 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > >> Hmmm, important to recheck this, but the directive even contemplates >> "stateless persons", so I think it is a matter of having UN endorsement >> (via the Confirmation of Registration) and a valid passport. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/13/2012 10:46 AM, Baudouin Schombe wrote: >> > Hello, >> > For countries that have no diplomatic representation, is it possible to >> > have the visa on arrival? I think these are provisions that must be >> > considered! >> > >> > Baudouin >> > >> > 2012/8/13 Mawaki Chango >> > >> >> [Sigh of relief] Thanks! >> >> >> >> m. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Carlos A. Afonso >> wrote: >> >>>> Hi people, >> >>>> >> >>>> Maybe most of you have already seen this info. >> >>>> >> >>>> I've just got confirmation email of my registration for Baku IGF >> >>>> reminding me of the info regarding visas in the IGF 2012 website. I >> >>>> think the issues regarding visas are settled now (see below). There >> is >> >>>> no info on costs though. >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> My understanding is that the visa will be free. However, checking >> >>> this and will get back with confirmation. >> >>> >> >>> Adam >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> frt rgds >> >>>> >> >>>> --c.a. >> >>>> >> >>>> http://igf2012.com/?mod=content&sub=bottom&id=116&lang=en >> >>>> >> >>>> General information >> >>>> >> >>>> Foreigners or stateless persons coming to the Republic of Azerbaijan >> for >> >>>> Internet Governance Forum-2012, which will be held in Baku, can >> receive >> >>>> visas from the structural sections of the Consular Department of the >> >>>> Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which are >> >>>> located in the Baku Heydar Aliyev International Airport or from the >> >>>> Consular Depatments of the Republic of Azerbaijan located in foreign >> >>>> countries. >> >>>> >> >>>> The upon arrival visa application period starts from 15 October to 8 >> >>>> November, 2012. There are two supporting documents which will serve >> as >> >>>> the basis for granting the visa: >> >>>> >> >>>> a) ‘Confirmation of registration’-form which will be provided by the >> IGF >> >>>> Secretariat at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ >> >>>> and >> >>>> b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the >> >>>> participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation of >> >>>> registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host >> country's >> >>>> IGF visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>>> >> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>>> >> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>> >> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Aug 14 05:56:17 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:56:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] visas for azerbaijan on arrival In-Reply-To: References: <5028E26F.6020805@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Baudouin, Hi. On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Baudouin Schombe wrote: > Hello, > For countries that have no diplomatic representation, is it possible to have > the visa on arrival? > Yes, exactly. If your country does not have and Azerbaijan embassy/consular office you can get a visa on arrival. See the link Carlos provided for more information about the forms you need. Adam > > I think these are provisions that must be considered! > > Baudouin > > 2012/8/13 Mawaki Chango >> >> [Sigh of relief] Thanks! >> >> m. >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> Hi people, >> >> >> >> Maybe most of you have already seen this info. >> >> >> >> I've just got confirmation email of my registration for Baku IGF >> >> reminding me of the info regarding visas in the IGF 2012 website. I >> >> think the issues regarding visas are settled now (see below). There is >> >> no info on costs though. >> >> >> > >> > >> > My understanding is that the visa will be free. However, checking >> > this and will get back with confirmation. >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> > >> >> frt rgds >> >> >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> >> http://igf2012.com/?mod=content&sub=bottom&id=116&lang=en >> >> >> >> General information >> >> >> >> Foreigners or stateless persons coming to the Republic of Azerbaijan >> >> for >> >> Internet Governance Forum-2012, which will be held in Baku, can receive >> >> visas from the structural sections of the Consular Department of the >> >> Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which are >> >> located in the Baku Heydar Aliyev International Airport or from the >> >> Consular Depatments of the Republic of Azerbaijan located in foreign >> >> countries. >> >> >> >> The upon arrival visa application period starts from 15 October to 8 >> >> November, 2012. There are two supporting documents which will serve as >> >> the basis for granting the visa: >> >> >> >> a) ‘Confirmation of registration’-form which will be provided by the >> >> IGF >> >> Secretariat at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ >> >> and >> >> b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the >> >> participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation of >> >> registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host country's >> >> IGF visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Aug 14 07:39:49 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 16:39:49 +0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Blackout Day Malaysia Message-ID: If you have missed it: http://stop114a.wordpress.com/ -- Regards. -------------------------- FoOoOoOoOoO -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 15 05:09:19 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:09:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8-7-12%20Letter%20from%20Senate%20and%20House%20Judiciary%20Committees.pdf wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Aug 15 11:16:53 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:16:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] ITU open's public comment page for WCIT Message-ID: Public comment site Not clear how comments will be included in the process, thou section on terms and conditions says: "9. Use of submitted content by ITU Member States I hereby acknowledge that the ITU Member States (of which there are 193) have been urged to consider and, as appropriate, take account of submitted content in their preparations for WCIT 12. Consequently, I hereby agree to word my submitted content appropriately and accordingly. Furthermore, I hereby grant each and every ITU Member State perpetual and unrestricted authorization to use my submitted content, royalty free, in connection with its preparations for WCIT-12." Adam Public consultation opens for World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) Stakeholders from across industry, civil society and general public are encouraged to make their voices heard Geneva, 15 August 2012 -- The public consultation process for WCIT-12 opened today, with interested parties able to make their written contributions to the WCIT-12 discussions via ITU's website in any of the six official UN languages. The site opened for contributions today at 15:00 CET. It can be accessed at www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/public.aspx The site is the result of a decision by ITU Council on 11 July 2012 to make a draft of the principal input document to the WCIT-12 conference publicly accessible, and to establish a website where all stakeholders can express their views and opinions on the content of that document or any other matter related to WCIT. There is no restriction on the number of contributions any party may make, and contributions may be either nominative or anonymous. The site will remain open for contributions until 3 November 2012, 23.59 hours CET (Geneva time). These inputs will then be made available to ITU's 193 Member States, which have been urged to consider and take account of submitted content in their preparations for WCIT-12. WCIT-12 is a landmark global treaty-making conference that will define the general principles for the provision and operation of international telecommunications networks around the world. An FAQ and comprehensive set of Background Briefs covering the main topics likely to be discussed at the conference can be found at: www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/WCIT-backgroundbriefs.aspx. The main conference preparatory document can be found at: www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-public.pdf. The current ITRs can be found at: www.itu.int/oth/T3F01000001. The WCIT-12 Newsroom can be found at: www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/newsroom.aspx. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 15 11:48:51 2012 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:48:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU and "cyber-peace" Message-ID: <502BC4E3.7070009@communisphere.com> From Kaspersky's Securelist.com on Gauss, "the most recent cyber-surveillance operation in the Stuxnet, Duqu and Flame saga." /"Gauss was discovered during the course of the ongoing investigation initiated by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), which is part of a sustained effort to mitigate the risks posed by emerging cyber-threats, and*ensure cyber-peace*."/ While I added the *bold *to the above, it is hardy needed as Kaspersky has positioned the ITU on the side of the angels. 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 12:07:31 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 19:07:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: A very strong letter, and a comprehensive list of requirements. One thing that drew my attention is that while ICANN have relocated their offices in California (their address has changed as a consequence - of course), the address shown in the letter is the old ICANN office address at MDR. Strange that nobody was aware of this or that nobody paid attention to it (assuming that the letter was typed before the relocation and was signed later). Fahd On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > > FYI > > > http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8-7-12%20Letter%20from%20Senate%20and%20House%20Judiciary%20Committees.pdf > > wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 17:02:17 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:02:17 +0300 Subject: [governance] UN & Information Security In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD094@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD094@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: An interesting paper. It mentions that "*With respect to military applications of information technology, the US considered an international convention to be ‘completely unnecessary’ as ‘the law of armed conflict and its principles of necessity, proportionality and limitation of collateral damage already govern the use of such technologies’*". The report also states later on that "*After the first GGE process, the dynamics of the First Committee discussions on international information security changed considerably. Russia opened the resolution for co-sponsorship, while the United States started voting against it in subsequent years. Between 2005 and 2008 the US was the sole country to vote against the Resolution that attracted co-sponsors during the same time*". It goes on to say that "*Recommendations also met the request of several nations to elaborate common terms and definitions relevant to the Resolution. Further, information exchange on national legislation and national ICT security strategies, policies and best practices were recommended as well as identification of measures to support capacity-building in less developed countries*" And we all wonder why there is no proper solution to cyber-security... Fahd On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 10:09 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > FYI > > http://ict4peace.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Eneken-GGE-2012-Brief.pdf > > wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 15 17:05:01 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 00:05:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] UN & Information Security In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD094@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: An interesting paper. It mentions that "*With respect to military applications of information technology, the US considered an international convention to be ‘completely unnecessary’ as ‘the law of armed conflict and its principles of necessity, proportionality and limitation of collateral damage already govern the use of such technologies’*". The report also states later on that "*After the first GGE process, the dynamics of the First Committee discussions on international information security changed considerably. Russia opened the resolution for co-sponsorship, while the United States started voting against it in subsequent years. Between 2005 and 2008 the US was the sole country to vote against the Resolution that attracted co-sponsors during the same time*". It goes on to say that "*Recommendations also met the request of several nations to elaborate common terms and definitions relevant to the Resolution. Further, information exchange on national legislation and national ICT security strategies, policies and best practices were recommended as well as identification of measures to support capacity-building in less developed countries*" And we all wonder why there is no proper initiatives in hand to combat and reduce cyber-threats, and increase levels of security online. Fahd On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 10:09 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > FYI > > http://ict4peace.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Eneken-GGE-2012-Brief.pdf > > wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Aug 16 06:57:13 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 19:57:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] ITU open's public comment page for WCIT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I asked Alex Ntoko how comments would be included in the process, his reply below. Seems that Member States will either be encouraged to read the comment page or interested Member States will receive a compilation (unedited etc.) And up to each Member State how they consider the comments in their own national consultations. Adam At 4:45 PM +0000 8/15/12, Ntoko, Alexander wrote: > >Dear Adam, > >Governments are encouraged to consult with their citizens on actions >leading to decisions that could have an impact on the citizens. This >is not limited to WCIT-12 and is not specific to ITU matters. For >WCIT-12 preparations, some governments have done so through national >consultations while others have not. ITU, through a decision by its >Council and based on a proposal by ITU Secretary-General, is >providing a mechanism for those who might not have been involved in >national consultations. > >Accepted inputs will be posted on ITU's website as submitted and >Member States will not filter the content. Member States are urged >to give due consideration to the relevant inputs as they (Member >States) make their proposals to the Conference. The inputs as they >have been posted (without any changes), will be available to >interested Member States as a compilation. That is why participants >who want their views to be considered (that is up to the Member >States) should provide input that is relevant to the ultimate >objective of this exercise which is - the review of one of ITU's >treaty instruments - The International Telecommunication Regulations >(ITRs). > >It is also important for participants to have some basic knowledge >about ITU, this ITU treaty (the ITRs), the core mandate of ITU and >how ITU makes decisions so that they are not misled by almost daily >publication of misinformation written about ITU, the ITRs and the >WCIT. > >Thanks, > >Alex > >Alexander NTOKO >Chief, Operations and Planning Department >Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) >International Telecommunication Union (ITU) >Email: alexander.ntoko at itu.int >Web: www.itu.int >Public comment site > >Not clear how comments will be included in the process, thou section >on terms and conditions says: > >"9. Use of submitted content by ITU Member States >I hereby acknowledge that the ITU Member States (of which there are >193) have been urged to consider and, as appropriate, take account of >submitted content in their preparations for WCIT 12. Consequently, I >hereby agree to word my submitted content appropriately and >accordingly. Furthermore, I hereby grant each and every ITU Member >State perpetual and unrestricted authorization to use my submitted >content, royalty free, in connection with its preparations for >WCIT-12." > >Adam > > >Public consultation opens for World Conference on International >Telecommunications (WCIT-12) > >Stakeholders from across industry, civil society and general public >are encouraged to make their voices heard > >Geneva, 15 August 2012 -- The public consultation process for WCIT-12 >opened today, with interested parties able to make their written >contributions to the WCIT-12 discussions via ITU's website in any of >the six official UN languages. > >The site opened for contributions today at 15:00 CET. It can be >accessed at www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/public.aspx > >The site is the result of a decision by ITU Council on 11 July 2012 to >make a draft of the principal input document to the WCIT-12 conference >publicly accessible, and to establish a website where all stakeholders >can express their views and opinions on the content of that document >or any other matter related to WCIT. > >There is no restriction on the number of contributions any party may >make, and contributions may be either nominative or anonymous. > >The site will remain open for contributions until 3 November 2012, >23.59 hours CET (Geneva time). These inputs will then be made >available to ITU's 193 Member States, which have been urged to >consider and take account of submitted content in their preparations >for WCIT-12. > >WCIT-12 is a landmark global treaty-making conference that will define >the general principles for the provision and operation of >international telecommunications networks around the world. > >An FAQ and comprehensive set of Background Briefs covering the main >topics likely to be discussed at the conference can be found at: >www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/WCIT-backgroundbriefs.aspx. > >The main conference preparatory document can be found at: >www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-public.pdf. > >The current ITRs can be found at: www.itu.int/oth/T3F01000001. > >The WCIT-12 Newsroom can be found at: >www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/newsroom.aspx. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 07:00:49 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:00:49 +0500 Subject: [governance] Tough times for diplomacy in post-WikiLeaks world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - If ministers and diplomats have learned a single lesson from the WikiLeaks saga, it is this: write nothing down. Behind the closed doors of a supposedly confidential Davos forum panel discussion, policymakers, diplomats, journalists and a buzz of social networkers gathered this weekend to ponder the uncertain future of diplomacy in the digital age. http:// mobile.reuters.com /article/idUSTRE70T2NY20110131? irpc =932 Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 07:06:59 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:06:59 +0500 Subject: [governance] UN & Information Security In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD094@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Why do you think the single vote is always against it. Everyone talks about cyber protection but one wants to retain counter cyber protection rights and act beyond. Fouad Bajwa On Aug 16, 2012 2:05 AM, "Fahd A. Batayneh" wrote: > An interesting paper. > > It mentions that "*With respect to military applications of information > technology, the US considered an international convention to be ‘completely > unnecessary’ as ‘the law of armed conflict and its principles of necessity, > proportionality and limitation of collateral damage already govern the use > of such technologies’*". > > The report also states later on that "*After the first GGE process, the > dynamics of the First Committee discussions on international information > security changed considerably. Russia opened the resolution for > co-sponsorship, while the United States started voting against it in > subsequent years. Between 2005 and 2008 the US was the sole country to vote > against the Resolution that attracted co-sponsors during the same time*". > > It goes on to say that "*Recommendations also met the request of several > nations to elaborate common terms and definitions relevant to the > Resolution. Further, information exchange on national legislation and > national ICT security strategies, policies and best practices were > recommended as well as identification of measures to support > capacity-building in less developed countries*" > > And we all wonder why there is no proper initiatives in hand to combat and > reduce cyber-threats, and increase levels of security online. > > Fahd > > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 10:09 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < > wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > >> FYI >> >> http://ict4peace.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Eneken-GGE-2012-Brief.pdf >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 07:13:41 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:13:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] UN & Information Security In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD094@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Maybe because having an insecure Internet means ease of cyber attacking other nations (such as the StuxNet, Flame, and Gauss). We all know what was the purpose of these worms. In other words, an insecure Internet paves the way for a platform where cyber-wars can take place as opposed to physical wars. Fahd On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Why do you think the single vote is always against it. Everyone talks > about cyber protection but one wants to retain counter cyber protection > rights and act beyond. > > Fouad Bajwa > On Aug 16, 2012 2:05 AM, "Fahd A. Batayneh" > wrote: > >> An interesting paper. >> >> It mentions that "*With respect to military applications of information >> technology, the US considered an international convention to be ‘completely >> unnecessary’ as ‘the law of armed conflict and its principles of necessity, >> proportionality and limitation of collateral damage already govern the use >> of such technologies’*". >> >> The report also states later on that "*After the first GGE process, the >> dynamics of the First Committee discussions on international information >> security changed considerably. Russia opened the resolution for >> co-sponsorship, while the United States started voting against it in >> subsequent years. Between 2005 and 2008 the US was the sole country to vote >> against the Resolution that attracted co-sponsors during the same time*". >> >> It goes on to say that "*Recommendations also met the request of several >> nations to elaborate common terms and definitions relevant to the >> Resolution. Further, information exchange on national legislation and >> national ICT security strategies, policies and best practices were >> recommended as well as identification of measures to support >> capacity-building in less developed countries*" >> >> And we all wonder why there is no proper initiatives in hand to combat >> and reduce cyber-threats, and increase levels of security online. >> >> Fahd >> >> On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 10:09 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < >> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: >> >>> FYI >>> >>> http://ict4peace.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Eneken-GGE-2012-Brief.pdf >>> >>> wolfgang >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 07:20:51 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:20:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tough times for diplomacy in post-WikiLeaks world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I liked the part that said "*Don't think. If you must think, don't speak. If you must speak, don't write anything down. And if you write something down, don't sign it. And if you do all that, don't be surprised.*" Fahd On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) - If ministers and diplomats have learned a > single lesson from the WikiLeaks saga, it is this: write nothing down. > > Behind the closed doors of a supposedly confidential Davos forum panel > discussion, policymakers, diplomats, journalists and a buzz of social > networkers gathered this weekend to ponder the uncertain future of > diplomacy in the digital age. > > http:// > mobile.reuters.com > /article/idUSTRE70T2NY20110131? > irpc > =932 > > Fouad Bajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 16 07:31:48 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:31:48 +1200 Subject: [governance] Brief Note Message-ID: Dear All, I hope you are all well. I thought that I should mention that I am an Independent Contractor and from time to time accept instructions from the ITU as an International Cyber Legislation Expert. I am not an employee nor agent of the ITU. This involves working closely with countries (public sector, private sector and civil society) as they develop their Policies and Laws and running trainings. I am also a member of PICISOC which as a member of ISOC and am not an employee nor agent of ISOC. Whilst I am a member of the ALAC within ICANN, I am not an employee nor agent of ICANN. When I stood for elections as co-coordinator, I had published the principles that I subscribed to and those have not changed. Being from a region where internet penetration in some countries lie between 1.3% in some countries and others at 34%, I recognise the continued need to address barriers of trade and impediments and challenges that the developing world faces. What first attracted me about the Internet Governance Forum was its attraction power to draw diverse stakeholders around the table to discuss diverse issues from a plethora of dynamic and different contexts. It is awesome to see the wide range of panorama of perspectives and these perspectives has helped me to see the world better, to understand diverse issues and contexts and appreciate where perspectives are coming from. It has helped me to understand the diverse fears and diverse concerns. In a world with continued and competing demands for resources, we see the diverse crises besetting our world whether they are energy, food or water, I begin to appreciate that the challenges that lie in our tomorrow cannot be addressed if we do not come around the table to dialogue. One of the interesting observations that I have made about the multistakeholder concept is that it is something that requires wisdom. It was not too long ago when there was some discussion on diverse perspectives and the illustration of a picture where some would see an old woman, others would see a young girl. My favourite however is the poem by John Godfrey Saxe on the Blind Men and the Elephant, see: http://homepage.usask.ca/~wae123/misc/prose/hinustan.htm With the diverse complex and competing priorities and debates surrounding internet governance, it is absolutely natural to hear our voice (reasoning, intellect, intelligence). However, it is also important that we also take the time to "pause" to hear other voices. Recognising that there is room for everyone. Much wisdom will be needed to steer us into the days ahead and there is always room for dialogue. With warm regards from Fiji, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 16 07:43:17 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:43:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU open's public comment page for WCIT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 19:57:13 on Thu, 16 Aug 2012, Adam Peake writes >I asked Alex Ntoko how comments would be included in the process, his >reply below. Seems that Member States will either be encouraged to >read the comment page or interested Member States will receive a >compilation (unedited etc.) And up to each Member State how they >consider the comments in their own national consultations. That's exactly what was said a month or more ago when the comment feature was announced. Whether we approve the scheme or not, at least there's no goalpost shifting happening here. >At 4:45 PM +0000 8/15/12, Ntoko, Alexander wrote: >> >>Dear Adam, >> >>Governments are encouraged to consult with their citizens on actions >>leading to decisions that could have an impact on the citizens. This >>is not limited to WCIT-12 and is not specific to ITU matters. For >>WCIT-12 preparations, some governments have done so through national >>consultations while others have not. ITU, through a decision by its >>Council and based on a proposal by ITU Secretary-General, is providing >>a mechanism for those who might not have been involved in national consultations. >> >>Accepted inputs will be posted on ITU's website as submitted and >>Member States will not filter the content. Member States are urged to >>give due consideration to the relevant inputs as they (Member States) >>make their proposals to the Conference. The inputs as they have been >>posted (without any changes), will be available to interested Member >>States as a compilation. That is why participants who want their >>views to be considered (that is up to the Member States) should >>provide input that is relevant to the ultimate objective of this >>exercise which is - the review of one of ITU's treaty instruments - >>The International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). >> >>It is also important for participants to have some basic knowledge >>about ITU, this ITU treaty (the ITRs), the core mandate of ITU and >>how ITU makes decisions so that they are not misled by almost daily >>publication of misinformation written about ITU, the ITRs and the WCIT. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Alex >> >>Alexander NTOKO >>Chief, Operations and Planning Department >>Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) >>International Telecommunication Union (ITU) >>Email: alexander.ntoko at itu.int >>Web: www.itu.int > > > > >>Public comment site >> >>Not clear how comments will be included in the process, thou section >>on terms and conditions says: >> >>"9. Use of submitted content by ITU Member States >>I hereby acknowledge that the ITU Member States (of which there are >>193) have been urged to consider and, as appropriate, take account of >>submitted content in their preparations for WCIT 12. Consequently, I >>hereby agree to word my submitted content appropriately and >>accordingly. Furthermore, I hereby grant each and every ITU Member >>State perpetual and unrestricted authorization to use my submitted >>content, royalty free, in connection with its preparations for >>WCIT-12." >> >>Adam >> >> >>Public consultation opens for World Conference on International >>Telecommunications (WCIT-12) >> >>Stakeholders from across industry, civil society and general public >>are encouraged to make their voices heard >> >>Geneva, 15 August 2012 -- The public consultation process for WCIT-12 >>opened today, with interested parties able to make their written >>contributions to the WCIT-12 discussions via ITU's website in any of >>the six official UN languages. >> >>The site opened for contributions today at 15:00 CET. It can be >>accessed at www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/public.aspx >> >>The site is the result of a decision by ITU Council on 11 July 2012 to >>make a draft of the principal input document to the WCIT-12 conference >>publicly accessible, and to establish a website where all stakeholders >>can express their views and opinions on the content of that document >>or any other matter related to WCIT. >> >>There is no restriction on the number of contributions any party may >>make, and contributions may be either nominative or anonymous. >> >>The site will remain open for contributions until 3 November 2012, >>23.59 hours CET (Geneva time). These inputs will then be made >>available to ITU's 193 Member States, which have been urged to >>consider and take account of submitted content in their preparations >>for WCIT-12. >> >>WCIT-12 is a landmark global treaty-making conference that will define >>the general principles for the provision and operation of >>international telecommunications networks around the world. >> >>An FAQ and comprehensive set of Background Briefs covering the main >>topics likely to be discussed at the conference can be found at: >>www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/WCIT-backgroundbriefs.aspx. >> >>The main conference preparatory document can be found at: >>www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-public.pdf. >> >>The current ITRs can be found at: www.itu.int/oth/T3F01000001. >> >>The WCIT-12 Newsroom can be found at: >>www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/newsroom.aspx. >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Aug 16 07:46:08 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:46:08 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] ITU open's public comment page for WCIT References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD108@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Does somebody know what an "accepted input" is? Wikl there be a list of "unaccepted inputs"? wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake Gesendet: Do 16.08.2012 12:57 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] ITU open's public comment page for WCIT I asked Alex Ntoko how comments would be included in the process, his reply below. Seems that Member States will either be encouraged to read the comment page or interested Member States will receive a compilation (unedited etc.) And up to each Member State how they consider the comments in their own national consultations. Adam At 4:45 PM +0000 8/15/12, Ntoko, Alexander wrote: > >Dear Adam, > >Governments are encouraged to consult with their citizens on actions >leading to decisions that could have an impact on the citizens. This >is not limited to WCIT-12 and is not specific to ITU matters. For >WCIT-12 preparations, some governments have done so through national >consultations while others have not. ITU, through a decision by its >Council and based on a proposal by ITU Secretary-General, is >providing a mechanism for those who might not have been involved in >national consultations. > >Accepted inputs will be posted on ITU's website as submitted and >Member States will not filter the content. Member States are urged >to give due consideration to the relevant inputs as they (Member >States) make their proposals to the Conference. The inputs as they >have been posted (without any changes), will be available to >interested Member States as a compilation. That is why participants >who want their views to be considered (that is up to the Member >States) should provide input that is relevant to the ultimate >objective of this exercise which is - the review of one of ITU's >treaty instruments - The International Telecommunication Regulations >(ITRs). > >It is also important for participants to have some basic knowledge >about ITU, this ITU treaty (the ITRs), the core mandate of ITU and >how ITU makes decisions so that they are not misled by almost daily >publication of misinformation written about ITU, the ITRs and the >WCIT. > >Thanks, > >Alex > >Alexander NTOKO >Chief, Operations and Planning Department >Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) >International Telecommunication Union (ITU) >Email: alexander.ntoko at itu.int >Web: >www.itu.int >Public comment site > >Not clear how comments will be included in the process, thou section >on terms and conditions says: > >"9. Use of submitted content by ITU Member States >I hereby acknowledge that the ITU Member States (of which there are >193) have been urged to consider and, as appropriate, take account of >submitted content in their preparations for WCIT 12. Consequently, I >hereby agree to word my submitted content appropriately and >accordingly. Furthermore, I hereby grant each and every ITU Member >State perpetual and unrestricted authorization to use my submitted >content, royalty free, in connection with its preparations for >WCIT-12." > >Adam > > >Public consultation opens for World Conference on International >Telecommunications (WCIT-12) > >Stakeholders from across industry, civil society and general public >are encouraged to make their voices heard > >Geneva, 15 August 2012 -- The public consultation process for WCIT-12 >opened today, with interested parties able to make their written >contributions to the WCIT-12 discussions via ITU's website in any of >the six official UN languages. > >The site opened for contributions today at 15:00 CET. It can be >accessed at www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/public.aspx > >The site is the result of a decision by ITU Council on 11 July 2012 to >make a draft of the principal input document to the WCIT-12 conference >publicly accessible, and to establish a website where all stakeholders >can express their views and opinions on the content of that document >or any other matter related to WCIT. > >There is no restriction on the number of contributions any party may >make, and contributions may be either nominative or anonymous. > >The site will remain open for contributions until 3 November 2012, >23.59 hours CET (Geneva time). These inputs will then be made >available to ITU's 193 Member States, which have been urged to >consider and take account of submitted content in their preparations >for WCIT-12. > >WCIT-12 is a landmark global treaty-making conference that will define >the general principles for the provision and operation of >international telecommunications networks around the world. > >An FAQ and comprehensive set of Background Briefs covering the main >topics likely to be discussed at the conference can be found at: >www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/WCIT-backgroundbriefs.aspx. > >The main conference preparatory document can be found at: >www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-public.pdf. > >The current ITRs can be found at: www.itu.int/oth/T3F01000001. > >The WCIT-12 Newsroom can be found at: >www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/newsroom.aspx. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 16 08:18:01 2012 From: Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at (Philipp Mirtl) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:18:01 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] UN & Information Security In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34185DB7DF5958@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9458F1E2-E18A-48CE-ACD9-BC4DA0DF7DAB@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DC9A4@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21DCB2F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD094@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A06A534B@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> Maybe this is also of some interest: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19271083; http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2012/08/15/bibis-secret-war-plan/. Best regards, Philipp Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Fahd A. Batayneh Gesendet: Donnerstag, 16. August 2012 13:14 An: Fouad Bajwa Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] UN & Information Security Maybe because having an insecure Internet means ease of cyber attacking other nations (such as the StuxNet, Flame, and Gauss). We all know what was the purpose of these worms. In other words, an insecure Internet paves the way for a platform where cyber-wars can take place as opposed to physical wars. Fahd On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:06 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: Why do you think the single vote is always against it. Everyone talks about cyber protection but one wants to retain counter cyber protection rights and act beyond. Fouad Bajwa On Aug 16, 2012 2:05 AM, "Fahd A. Batayneh" wrote: An interesting paper. It mentions that "With respect to military applications of information technology, the US considered an international convention to be 'completely unnecessary' as 'the law of armed conflict and its principles of necessity, proportionality and limitation of collateral damage already govern the use of such technologies'". The report also states later on that "After the first GGE process, the dynamics of the First Committee discussions on international information security changed considerably. Russia opened the resolution for co-sponsorship, while the United States started voting against it in subsequent years. Between 2005 and 2008 the US was the sole country to vote against the Resolution that attracted co-sponsors during the same time". It goes on to say that "Recommendations also met the request of several nations to elaborate common terms and definitions relevant to the Resolution. Further, information exchange on national legislation and national ICT security strategies, policies and best practices were recommended as well as identification of measures to support capacity-building in less developed countries" And we all wonder why there is no proper initiatives in hand to combat and reduce cyber-threats, and increase levels of security online. Fahd On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 10:09 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: FYI http://ict4peace.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Eneken-GGE-2012-Brief.pdf wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 16 08:19:18 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:19:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Brief Note In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sala, This note is very informative and gives a well structured your person committed and determined to be useful to his community and to humanity. It is noted also that mankind in one of these critical phases of evolution because, having reached the stage management, production, dissemination and preservation of information and knowledge. The Internet governance is the cornerstone and achopement point of the whole issue of digital technology in the early third millennium. The challenges are multiple, myriad questions that arise, different interests, concerns many .. It is obvious that each day as it comes. Personally, I see that we will need your expert design and development of cyber laws in our country (in Africa). SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/8/16 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Dear All, > > I hope you are all well. I thought that I should mention that I am an > Independent Contractor and from time to time accept instructions from the > ITU as an International Cyber Legislation Expert. I am not an employee nor > agent of the ITU. This involves working closely with countries (public > sector, private sector and civil society) as they develop their Policies > and Laws and running trainings. I am also a member of PICISOC which as a > member of ISOC and am not an employee nor agent of ISOC. Whilst I am a > member of the ALAC within ICANN, I am not an employee nor agent of ICANN. > > When I stood for elections as co-coordinator, I had published the > principles that I subscribed to and those have not changed. > > Being from a region where internet penetration in some countries lie > between 1.3% in some countries and others at 34%, I recognise the > continued need to address barriers of trade and impediments and challenges > that the developing world faces. What first attracted me about the Internet > Governance Forum was its attraction power to draw diverse stakeholders > around the table to discuss diverse issues from a plethora of dynamic and > different contexts. It is awesome to see the wide range of panorama of > perspectives and these perspectives has helped me to see the world better, > to understand diverse issues and contexts and appreciate where perspectives > are coming from. It has helped me to understand the diverse fears and > diverse concerns. > > In a world with continued and competing demands for resources, we see the > diverse crises besetting our world whether they are energy, food or water, > I begin to appreciate that the challenges that lie in our tomorrow cannot > be addressed if we do not come around the table to dialogue. One of the > interesting observations that I have made about the multistakeholder > concept is that it is something that requires wisdom. > > It was not too long ago when there was some discussion on diverse > perspectives and the illustration of a picture where some would see an old > woman, others would see a young girl. My favourite however is the poem by > John Godfrey Saxe on the Blind Men and the Elephant, see: > http://homepage.usask.ca/~wae123/misc/prose/hinustan.htm > > With the diverse complex and competing priorities and debates surrounding > internet governance, it is absolutely natural to hear our voice (reasoning, > intellect, intelligence). However, it is also important that we also take > the time to "pause" to hear other voices. Recognising that there is room > for everyone. Much wisdom will be needed to steer us into the days ahead > and there is always room for dialogue. > > With warm regards from Fiji, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Thu Aug 16 09:23:10 2012 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:23:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Please help CDT find a New Director for Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Message-ID: >Delivered-To: george.sadowsky at gmail.com >From: Leslie Harris >Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 09:14:26 -0400 >Subject: Please help CDT find a New Director for Global Internet >Policy and Human Rights >To: Leslie Harris > >Dear Friends, > >As many of you may know, Cynthia Wong has accepted a new position at >Human RIghts Watch. We are looking for an individual with the >experience, leadership and vision to lead this important project >and take it to the next level. Please share the announcement with >your networks and encourage people to apply. > >Thanks, > >Leslie > > > >Leslie Harris, President/ CEO >Center for Democracy & Technology >1634 I St. N.W. 11th Floor >Washington, DC 20006 >(P)202-637-9800 x113 >(D) 202-4078813 >(F) 202-6370968 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: %CDT Global Internet HR Director 2012.pdf Type: application/applefile Size: 141 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CDT Global Internet HR Director 2012.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 175432 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Thu Aug 16 10:46:56 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:46:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] ITU open's public comment page for WCIT In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD108@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: ,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD108@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B657E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Wolfgang, don't worry. Alex Ntoko, in that statement, is saying what they will ignore. And it's most of what they get: whatever he thinks sounds like "propaganda" or "not informed enough." Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Enviado el: jueves, 16 de agosto de 2012 06:46 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: AW: [governance] ITU open's public comment page for WCIT Does somebody know what an "accepted input" is? Wikl there be a list of "unaccepted inputs"? wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake Gesendet: Do 16.08.2012 12:57 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] ITU open's public comment page for WCIT I asked Alex Ntoko how comments would be included in the process, his reply below. Seems that Member States will either be encouraged to read the comment page or interested Member States will receive a compilation (unedited etc.) And up to each Member State how they consider the comments in their own national consultations. Adam At 4:45 PM +0000 8/15/12, Ntoko, Alexander wrote: > >Dear Adam, > >Governments are encouraged to consult with their citizens on actions >leading to decisions that could have an impact on the citizens. This >is not limited to WCIT-12 and is not specific to ITU matters. For >WCIT-12 preparations, some governments have done so through national >consultations while others have not. ITU, through a decision by its >Council and based on a proposal by ITU Secretary-General, is >providing a mechanism for those who might not have been involved in >national consultations. > >Accepted inputs will be posted on ITU's website as submitted and >Member States will not filter the content. Member States are urged >to give due consideration to the relevant inputs as they (Member >States) make their proposals to the Conference. The inputs as they >have been posted (without any changes), will be available to >interested Member States as a compilation. That is why participants >who want their views to be considered (that is up to the Member >States) should provide input that is relevant to the ultimate >objective of this exercise which is - the review of one of ITU's >treaty instruments - The International Telecommunication Regulations >(ITRs). > >It is also important for participants to have some basic knowledge >about ITU, this ITU treaty (the ITRs), the core mandate of ITU and >how ITU makes decisions so that they are not misled by almost daily >publication of misinformation written about ITU, the ITRs and the >WCIT. > >Thanks, > >Alex > >Alexander NTOKO >Chief, Operations and Planning Department >Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) >International Telecommunication Union (ITU) >Email: alexander.ntoko at itu.int >Web: >www.itu.int >Public comment site > >Not clear how comments will be included in the process, thou section >on terms and conditions says: > >"9. Use of submitted content by ITU Member States >I hereby acknowledge that the ITU Member States (of which there are >193) have been urged to consider and, as appropriate, take account of >submitted content in their preparations for WCIT 12. Consequently, I >hereby agree to word my submitted content appropriately and >accordingly. Furthermore, I hereby grant each and every ITU Member >State perpetual and unrestricted authorization to use my submitted >content, royalty free, in connection with its preparations for >WCIT-12." > >Adam > > >Public consultation opens for World Conference on International >Telecommunications (WCIT-12) > >Stakeholders from across industry, civil society and general public >are encouraged to make their voices heard > >Geneva, 15 August 2012 -- The public consultation process for WCIT-12 >opened today, with interested parties able to make their written >contributions to the WCIT-12 discussions via ITU's website in any of >the six official UN languages. > >The site opened for contributions today at 15:00 CET. It can be >accessed at www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/public.aspx > >The site is the result of a decision by ITU Council on 11 July 2012 to >make a draft of the principal input document to the WCIT-12 conference >publicly accessible, and to establish a website where all stakeholders >can express their views and opinions on the content of that document >or any other matter related to WCIT. > >There is no restriction on the number of contributions any party may >make, and contributions may be either nominative or anonymous. > >The site will remain open for contributions until 3 November 2012, >23.59 hours CET (Geneva time). These inputs will then be made >available to ITU's 193 Member States, which have been urged to >consider and take account of submitted content in their preparations >for WCIT-12. > >WCIT-12 is a landmark global treaty-making conference that will define >the general principles for the provision and operation of >international telecommunications networks around the world. > >An FAQ and comprehensive set of Background Briefs covering the main >topics likely to be discussed at the conference can be found at: >www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/WCIT-backgroundbriefs.aspx. > >The main conference preparatory document can be found at: >www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-public.pdf. > >The current ITRs can be found at: www.itu.int/oth/T3F01000001. > >The WCIT-12 Newsroom can be found at: >www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/newsroom.aspx. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Aug 16 10:50:41 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:50:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] ITU open's public comment page for WCIT In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B657E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD108@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B657E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: I would be very surprised if they deleted anything other than spam and obvious abuse. But I understand there is light moderation for that purpose (they are a UN agency, sex ads and all the rubbish open comments attract... not good.) Can't imagine anyone being so daft as to not allow a genuine comment, even if negative. Not after the fuss of the past 3/4 months. Adam On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Wolfgang, > > don't worry. Alex Ntoko, in that statement, is saying what they will ignore. And it's most of what they get: whatever he thinks sounds like "propaganda" or "not informed enough." > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Enviado el: jueves, 16 de agosto de 2012 06:46 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: AW: [governance] ITU open's public comment page for WCIT > > Does somebody know what an "accepted input" is? Wikl there be a list of "unaccepted inputs"? > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake > Gesendet: Do 16.08.2012 12:57 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] ITU open's public comment page for WCIT > > > > I asked Alex Ntoko how comments would be included in the process, his > reply below. Seems that Member States will either be encouraged to > read the comment page or interested Member States will receive a > compilation (unedited etc.) And up to each Member State how they > consider the comments in their own national consultations. > > Adam > > > > At 4:45 PM +0000 8/15/12, Ntoko, Alexander wrote: >> >>Dear Adam, >> >>Governments are encouraged to consult with their citizens on actions >>leading to decisions that could have an impact on the citizens. This >>is not limited to WCIT-12 and is not specific to ITU matters. For >>WCIT-12 preparations, some governments have done so through national >>consultations while others have not. ITU, through a decision by its >>Council and based on a proposal by ITU Secretary-General, is >>providing a mechanism for those who might not have been involved in >>national consultations. >> >>Accepted inputs will be posted on ITU's website as submitted and >>Member States will not filter the content. Member States are urged >>to give due consideration to the relevant inputs as they (Member >>States) make their proposals to the Conference. The inputs as they >>have been posted (without any changes), will be available to >>interested Member States as a compilation. That is why participants >>who want their views to be considered (that is up to the Member >>States) should provide input that is relevant to the ultimate >>objective of this exercise which is - the review of one of ITU's >>treaty instruments - The International Telecommunication Regulations >>(ITRs). >> >>It is also important for participants to have some basic knowledge >>about ITU, this ITU treaty (the ITRs), the core mandate of ITU and >>how ITU makes decisions so that they are not misled by almost daily >>publication of misinformation written about ITU, the ITRs and the >>WCIT. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Alex >> >>Alexander NTOKO >>Chief, Operations and Planning Department >>Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) >>International Telecommunication Union (ITU) >>Email: alexander.ntoko at itu.int >>Web: >www.itu.int > > > > >>Public comment site >> >>Not clear how comments will be included in the process, thou section >>on terms and conditions says: >> >>"9. Use of submitted content by ITU Member States >>I hereby acknowledge that the ITU Member States (of which there are >>193) have been urged to consider and, as appropriate, take account of >>submitted content in their preparations for WCIT 12. Consequently, I >>hereby agree to word my submitted content appropriately and >>accordingly. Furthermore, I hereby grant each and every ITU Member >>State perpetual and unrestricted authorization to use my submitted >>content, royalty free, in connection with its preparations for >>WCIT-12." >> >>Adam >> >> >>Public consultation opens for World Conference on International >>Telecommunications (WCIT-12) >> >>Stakeholders from across industry, civil society and general public >>are encouraged to make their voices heard >> >>Geneva, 15 August 2012 -- The public consultation process for WCIT-12 >>opened today, with interested parties able to make their written >>contributions to the WCIT-12 discussions via ITU's website in any of >>the six official UN languages. >> >>The site opened for contributions today at 15:00 CET. It can be >>accessed at www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/public.aspx >> >>The site is the result of a decision by ITU Council on 11 July 2012 to >>make a draft of the principal input document to the WCIT-12 conference >>publicly accessible, and to establish a website where all stakeholders >>can express their views and opinions on the content of that document >>or any other matter related to WCIT. >> >>There is no restriction on the number of contributions any party may >>make, and contributions may be either nominative or anonymous. >> >>The site will remain open for contributions until 3 November 2012, >>23.59 hours CET (Geneva time). These inputs will then be made >>available to ITU's 193 Member States, which have been urged to >>consider and take account of submitted content in their preparations >>for WCIT-12. >> >>WCIT-12 is a landmark global treaty-making conference that will define >>the general principles for the provision and operation of >>international telecommunications networks around the world. >> >>An FAQ and comprehensive set of Background Briefs covering the main >>topics likely to be discussed at the conference can be found at: >>www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/WCIT-backgroundbriefs.aspx. >> >>The main conference preparatory document can be found at: >>www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-public.pdf. >> >>The current ITRs can be found at: www.itu.int/oth/T3F01000001. >> >>The WCIT-12 Newsroom can be found at: >>www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/newsroom.aspx. >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Thu Aug 16 10:57:25 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 14:57:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] ITU open's public comment page for WCIT In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD108@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B657E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483B65F6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Adam, "ignore" is the key. Takes us back to Roland and what many of us are doing: enter dialog locally as well. Not surprisingly, the traditional large influencers - in developing countries it's mostly telcos - are not going public with their comments. Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] en nombre de Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Enviado el: jueves, 16 de agosto de 2012 09:50 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] ITU open's public comment page for WCIT I would be very surprised if they deleted anything other than spam and obvious abuse. But I understand there is light moderation for that purpose (they are a UN agency, sex ads and all the rubbish open comments attract... not good.) Can't imagine anyone being so daft as to not allow a genuine comment, even if negative. Not after the fuss of the past 3/4 months. Adam On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Wolfgang, > > don't worry. Alex Ntoko, in that statement, is saying what they will ignore. And it's most of what they get: whatever he thinks sounds like "propaganda" or "not informed enough." > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Enviado el: jueves, 16 de agosto de 2012 06:46 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: AW: [governance] ITU open's public comment page for WCIT > > Does somebody know what an "accepted input" is? Wikl there be a list of "unaccepted inputs"? > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake > Gesendet: Do 16.08.2012 12:57 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: Re: [governance] ITU open's public comment page for WCIT > > > > I asked Alex Ntoko how comments would be included in the process, his > reply below. Seems that Member States will either be encouraged to > read the comment page or interested Member States will receive a > compilation (unedited etc.) And up to each Member State how they > consider the comments in their own national consultations. > > Adam > > > > At 4:45 PM +0000 8/15/12, Ntoko, Alexander wrote: >> >>Dear Adam, >> >>Governments are encouraged to consult with their citizens on actions >>leading to decisions that could have an impact on the citizens. This >>is not limited to WCIT-12 and is not specific to ITU matters. For >>WCIT-12 preparations, some governments have done so through national >>consultations while others have not. ITU, through a decision by its >>Council and based on a proposal by ITU Secretary-General, is >>providing a mechanism for those who might not have been involved in >>national consultations. >> >>Accepted inputs will be posted on ITU's website as submitted and >>Member States will not filter the content. Member States are urged >>to give due consideration to the relevant inputs as they (Member >>States) make their proposals to the Conference. The inputs as they >>have been posted (without any changes), will be available to >>interested Member States as a compilation. That is why participants >>who want their views to be considered (that is up to the Member >>States) should provide input that is relevant to the ultimate >>objective of this exercise which is - the review of one of ITU's >>treaty instruments - The International Telecommunication Regulations >>(ITRs). >> >>It is also important for participants to have some basic knowledge >>about ITU, this ITU treaty (the ITRs), the core mandate of ITU and >>how ITU makes decisions so that they are not misled by almost daily >>publication of misinformation written about ITU, the ITRs and the >>WCIT. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Alex >> >>Alexander NTOKO >>Chief, Operations and Planning Department >>Telecommunication Standardization Bureau (TSB) >>International Telecommunication Union (ITU) >>Email: alexander.ntoko at itu.int >>Web: >www.itu.int > > > > >>Public comment site >> >>Not clear how comments will be included in the process, thou section >>on terms and conditions says: >> >>"9. Use of submitted content by ITU Member States >>I hereby acknowledge that the ITU Member States (of which there are >>193) have been urged to consider and, as appropriate, take account of >>submitted content in their preparations for WCIT 12. Consequently, I >>hereby agree to word my submitted content appropriately and >>accordingly. Furthermore, I hereby grant each and every ITU Member >>State perpetual and unrestricted authorization to use my submitted >>content, royalty free, in connection with its preparations for >>WCIT-12." >> >>Adam >> >> >>Public consultation opens for World Conference on International >>Telecommunications (WCIT-12) >> >>Stakeholders from across industry, civil society and general public >>are encouraged to make their voices heard >> >>Geneva, 15 August 2012 -- The public consultation process for WCIT-12 >>opened today, with interested parties able to make their written >>contributions to the WCIT-12 discussions via ITU's website in any of >>the six official UN languages. >> >>The site opened for contributions today at 15:00 CET. It can be >>accessed at www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/public.aspx >> >>The site is the result of a decision by ITU Council on 11 July 2012 to >>make a draft of the principal input document to the WCIT-12 conference >>publicly accessible, and to establish a website where all stakeholders >>can express their views and opinions on the content of that document >>or any other matter related to WCIT. >> >>There is no restriction on the number of contributions any party may >>make, and contributions may be either nominative or anonymous. >> >>The site will remain open for contributions until 3 November 2012, >>23.59 hours CET (Geneva time). These inputs will then be made >>available to ITU's 193 Member States, which have been urged to >>consider and take account of submitted content in their preparations >>for WCIT-12. >> >>WCIT-12 is a landmark global treaty-making conference that will define >>the general principles for the provision and operation of >>international telecommunications networks around the world. >> >>An FAQ and comprehensive set of Background Briefs covering the main >>topics likely to be discussed at the conference can be found at: >>www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/WCIT-backgroundbriefs.aspx. >> >>The main conference preparatory document can be found at: >>www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Documents/draft-future-itrs-public.pdf. >> >>The current ITRs can be found at: www.itu.int/oth/T3F01000001. >> >>The WCIT-12 Newsroom can be found at: >>www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/newsroom.aspx. >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Aug 16 11:59:05 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 00:59:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] US opens up access to WCIT documents Message-ID: Hope the story's correct: My browser won't cut and paste text from that page. Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 16 15:51:49 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 07:51:49 +1200 Subject: [governance] US opens up access to WCIT documents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, The US Position on Cyber can be viewed here: http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/05/163523.htm The US will of course be guided by their US International Strategy for Cyber Space which can be viewed here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/international_strategy_for_cyberspace.pdf There is an Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy (ACICIP) that serves in an advisory capacity concerning major economic, social and legal issues and problems in international communications and information policy. Their meetings are open to the public and announced within the Federal Register, see: http://www.state.gov/e/eb/adcom/acicip/index.htm The link that Adam sent us makes reference to the International Telecommunications Advisory Committee on a wide range of telecommunications issues. Members are Government and Network Operators. They advise the Department of State on its Treaty positions etc. The three sectors are modelled around similar groups as those within the ITU. See: http://www.state.gov/e/eb/adcom/itac/index.htm I can only assume that the two aforementioned Advisory groups come under CIP which is the International Communication and Information Policy led by Ambassador Philip Verveer as they seem to fall within the domain. On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hope the story's correct: > > < > http://fastnetnews.com/policy/177-p/4826-itu-secrecy-disappearing-as-us-itac-open-to-all > > > > My browser won't cut and paste text from that page. > > Adam > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 17 04:38:12 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:38:12 +0800 Subject: [governance] Pre-announcement of "Best Bits", 3-4 November, Baku, Azerbaijan Message-ID: <502E02F4.1030702@ciroap.org> This is a "save the date" notice for a gathering on Internet governance and Internet rights in Baku, Azerbaijan on November 3-4 ahead of the global IGF, titled "Best Bits". This will be an advocacy-focused event designed for sharing knowledge and collaborating on tangible outputs. It arose from discussions of a diverse group of North and South based experts held at the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF. You can download a short document which gives more details about the motivation for the event, the programme, and the expected outputs from http://igf-online.net/bestbits.pdf. For more information, you are also invited to join the "Best Bits" mailing list at http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/bestbits. Specific details such as the venue will be confirmed later. The importance of this meeting for the IGC is that it is meant partly as a bridge between our IGF/WSIS world and the US tech policy world, leading to better informed, more effective, and more complementary and consistent advocacy outcomes - though there is no intention to subsume or supersede any existing work. The other purpose is to produce specific outputs, including the long-planned civil society statement of principles for the IGF, and a slightly different one to WCIT. If you plan to attend, please let me know off-list - this is just for planning purposes, as a formal registration form will come later. If you would require any assistance with travel expenses, a very limited fund may be available courtesy of Google to assist certain individuals with specific skillsets who will contribute to the meeting by way of moderating, presenting, helping to prepare briefing documents, or working on the zero-draft texts that are to be discussed and finalised at the meeting. Those seeking support must let me know strictly within 1 week, ie. by 24 August 2012 at the latest. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* 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 *Your rights, our mission -- download CI's Strategy 2015:* http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Aug 17 03:41:31 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:41:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> Message-ID: <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> *America's vassal acts decisively and illegally* Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided -- after immense pressure from the Obama administration -- to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and seize Julian Assange. This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes the centuries -- arguably millennia -- of practice which have enabled diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most subscribed single international treaty in the world. The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic premises are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification or qualification elsewhere in the treaty. Article 22 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution. Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other's embassies. Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide. The government's calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the "might is right" principle in international relations, in the era of the neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law. The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it -- which would leave British diplomats with no protection worldwide. I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the move against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in Number 10. There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal Democrats. That opens a wider question -- there appears to be no "liberal" impact now in any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries and privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any belief to these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had principles. *** Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) The Geopolitics of Asylum Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 The British a "huge mistake" in threatening to extract Julian Assange from Ecuador's London embassy after the Latin American country granted political asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human rights lawyer Michael Ratner. "They overstepped, looked like bullies, and made it into a big-power versus small-power conflict," said Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation today. Ratner is a consultant to Assange's legal team and recently spent a week in Ecuador for discussions of the case. The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations or by the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. "In my memory, no state has ever invaded another country's embassy to seize someone who has been granted asylum," he said, adding that there would be no logic in returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for political reasons. Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, Ecuadorian diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the British and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the United States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an "explicit threat" to "assault our embassy" to take Assange. "We are not a British colony," Patiño added. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his government will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what may be a prolonged showdown. The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict Assange and ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator Diane Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called for Assange's indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong objections from civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may prefer to avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes with the UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in Sweden. Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict becomes one in which Ecuador---and a newly independent Latin America---stand off against the US and UK. Ecuador's president Rafael Correa represents the wave of new nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the traditional US dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa joined the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in June 2009, and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His government fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest, in a case which Correa called "the most important in the history of the country." He survived a coup attempt in 2010. It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision without consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive reaction by the British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify Latin American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in relations with the United States. Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked the Obama administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to participate in another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. Shortly after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy chief, Dan Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama administration. Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United States and the region. *** http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm Victoria Nuland Spokesperson Daily Press Briefing Washington, DC August 16, 2012 *TRANSCRIPT:* *12:44 p.m. EDT* *MS. NULAND:*Happy Thursday, everybody. Let's start with whatever's on your minds. *Q*: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? *MS. NULAND:*This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the Swedes. I don't have anything particular to add. *Q*: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a completely neutral, independent observer of it? *MS. NULAND:*Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it is an issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to interject ourselves. *Q*: Have you not interjected yourself at all? *MS. NULAND:*Not with regard to the issue of his current location or where he may end up going, no. *Q*: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the Brits to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. *MS. NULAND:*I have no information to indicate that there is any truth to that at all. *Q*: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits do not recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States recognizes diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS treaty which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, presumably, within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. recognize diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? *MS. NULAND:*Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal answer to the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. *Q*: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, diplomatic asylum. *MS. NULAND:*With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or the statement that they made, our understanding was that they were leaning on British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future plans, not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our legal position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get back to you. *Q*: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of the -- of the OAS and those signatories. And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest that you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange removed from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just that you're not aware of it? *MS. NULAND:*My information is that we have not involved ourselves in this. If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. [...] *Q*: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason that the Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that -- they agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United States under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a credible argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government persecution in the United States? *MS. NULAND:*No. *Q*: No? *MS. NULAND:*No. *Q*: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, the grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to show up in the United States they might be subject to government persecution, you don't view that as -- *MS. NULAND:*I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran thought process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. *Q*: OK. *MS. NULAND:*OK? *Q*: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would face prosecution? *MS. NULAND:*Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not headed to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to get into all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in his future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting him, I reject that completely. *Q*: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case does rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the intention was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face prosecution in the United States? *MS. NULAND:*Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that we were all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think that when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? Obviously, we have -- *Q*: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. *MS. NULAND:*Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm going to send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? *Q*: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case against him. *MS. NULAND:*I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much involved with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here on what their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to wade into it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? *Q*: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it doesn't involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies and that kind of thing. *MS. NULAND:*Right. *Q*: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved yourselves at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was going to raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other country, you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? *MS. NULAND:*As I said -- *Q*: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in Beijing to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected to that, correct? *MS. NULAND:*As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies have cited British law with regard to the statements they've made about potential future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, international -- as compared to international law. So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of whether they have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under British law, I'm going to send you to them. *Q*: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, there is international law here too, and presumably the United State would oppose or would condemn or at least express concerns about any government entering or violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the world, no? *MS. NULAND:*Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are standing on vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to what the status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the moment is. So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where we are on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? *Q*: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back in 1979, presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? *MS. NULAND:*That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest of this on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? *Q*: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by the Justice Department. Does that include -- *MS. NULAND:*I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak to what Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. *Q*: Is there a U.S. case against him? *MS. NULAND:*I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't have the details. OK? Thanks, guys. (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) *DPB #146* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 17 06:37:21 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:37:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU definition of "telecommunication" and importance of "Best Bits" Message-ID: <20120817123721.60badca4@quill5.bollow.ch> Dear all, FWIW, I've submitted some comments to the ITU consultation on the ITRs (in my own name, identifying myself simply as a Civil Society person in Switzerland); these are already online at http://www.itu.int/ml/lists/nomenu/arc/wcit-public/2012-08/msg00002.html My main point is about "clarifying" that the ITRs apply only to classical telecommunication services (including the cases when classical telecommunication services are provided over the Internet, or when Internet access is provided via a variant of classical telecommunication services, as is the case e.g. with DSL services) but not including ICTs and the Internet in general. This is the interpretation of e.g. the Swiss government of the current ITRs text, even if it is in my view not really justifiable on the basis of what that text actually says. Many of the proposed modifications would make that interpretation even harder to sustain. In my opinion, if the ITRs get changed at all, clarifying this definition and thereby limiting the scope of the IRTs is really important. If the ITRs are not changed, you can argue that the meaning of the definition is what it meant when that version of the ITRs was adopted, and you can (somewhat weakly) argue that this excludes the Internet. But if the same old definition text is in a version of the ITRs that are adopted now, the meaning of the definition is the meaning of the words of the definition in todays's world, making it even harder to argue that this does not include in Internet as a whole. I think that it is very important to create a powerful, internationally coordinated demand of civil society for getting the definition of "telecommunication" clarified in a way that does not include the Internet and ICTs in general. The best opportunity to build an international movement with the power to protect the future of the Internet, civil liberties in information society, etc., is probably the "Best Bits" meeting in Baku on the weekend before the IGF, which Jeremy just pre-announced. I would suggest to everyone here to make that event a personal priority. I certainly will. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 17 09:19:16 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 01:19:16 +1200 Subject: [governance] ITU definition of "telecommunication" and importance of "Best Bits" In-Reply-To: <20120817123721.60badca4@quill5.bollow.ch> References: <20120817123721.60badca4@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Dear all, > > My main point is about "clarifying" that the ITRs apply only to > classical telecommunication services (including the cases when > classical telecommunication services are provided over the Internet, or > when Internet access is provided via a variant of classical > telecommunication services, as is the case e.g. with DSL services) but > not including ICTs and the Internet in general. > > The term telecommunications has evolved and instead of telecommunications, some prefer to say Communications. For eg. within the United Kingdom, see *UK Communications Act 2003* shows the evolution of what you classify as traditional telecommunication services to "electronic communications" which encompasses what you segment as traditional telecommunication services and ICT and internet. See: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/notes/division/5/2/1/1 see s32 (87)...." - **electronic communications network *is defined in *subsection (1)* as a transmission system for the conveyance, by the use of electrical, magnetic or electro-magnetic energy of signals of any description, and associated apparatus, software and stored data. Examples of such networks include satellite networks, fixed networks (whether circuit- or packet-switched, and including the Internet) and mobile terrestrial networks and networks used for radio and television broadcasting, including cable TV networks. - **electronic communications service *is defined in *subsection (2)* as a service consisting, or having as its principal feature, the conveyance, by means of an electronic communications network, of signals except in so far as it is a content service. Examples of such services include telecommunications services and transmission services in networks used for broadcasting." Australia's *Telecommunications Act 1997* and *Spam Act 2003* also reflect the expansion of what Telecommunications was traditionally perceived. New Zealand also recognises the linkages between telecommunications and ICT, see: http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/technology-communication/communications. There are several countries who have expansive definitions for "Telecommunications". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 17 09:38:16 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:38:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU definition of "telecommunication" and importance of "Best Bits" In-Reply-To: References: <20120817123721.60badca4@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120817153816.37a59cf4@quill5.bollow.ch> Sala wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > My main point is about "clarifying" that the ITRs apply only to > > classical telecommunication services (including the cases when > > classical telecommunication services are provided over the > > Internet, or when Internet access is provided via a variant of > > classical telecommunication services, as is the case e.g. with DSL > > services) but not including ICTs and the Internet in general. > > The term telecommunications has evolved [..] There are several > countries who have expansive definitions for "Telecommunications". Yes, I'm quite aware of this. My suggestion that, contrary to this trend, a limiting definition of "telecommunication" should be included in the ITRs is because this is the only way that I can see to (1) avoid continuation of the blatant discrepancy between what the ITRs say and today's reality (by removing from the declared scope of the ITRs the part of reality to which the provisions of the ITRs are not applicable ), and to (2) prevent the ITU from gradually but continuously increasing its power over Internet governance without any real public interest representation, and without any real checks and balances. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Aug 17 09:47:35 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 09:47:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU definition of "telecommunication" and importance of "Best Bits" In-Reply-To: References: <20120817123721.60badca4@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <96560D18-8E01-434A-9108-408091E74D0E@istaff.org> On Aug 17, 2012, at 9:19 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Dear all, > > My main point is about "clarifying" that the ITRs apply only to > classical telecommunication services... but > not including ICTs and the Internet in general. > > The term telecommunications has evolved and instead of telecommunications, some prefer to say Communications. For eg. within the United Kingdom, see UK Communications Act 2003 shows the evolution of what you classify as traditional telecommunication services to "electronic communications" which encompasses what you segment as traditional telecommunication services and ICT and internet. Salanieta - I am not certain that I understand your point; in particular, I believe we are agreed that many organizations and governments are making use of the term "Telecommunications" today with greater scope than it was used in the ITR's, but is it your assertion that the present ambiguity that results should not be corrected? Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings assigned to them based on my neural patterns (which are included by reference in this message) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 17 11:11:18 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 20:41:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> I am honoured to agree with the US Congressional judicial committee that ICANN is sitting on the top of a major screw up. Those - and I am surprised that most civil society members here are rather unconcerned - who dont yet see that this is going to be a major screw up will soon know better... I especially agree that ICANN has done practically nothing to get *informed* comments from outside the largely compliant ICANN community on an issue that implicates just everyone, who deals with language and ideas that is. However, while the US gov has come on the side of ensuring 'a secure stable marketplace' basically to defend the rights of trademark owner which we know are rich people, I do hope some governments - since the involved civil societyseems not willing - comes on the side of ensuring 'a secure stable public-place'. By it I mean a public-place from where our commonly owned words (with all the cultural significances they hold) like love, kid, book, school etc cannot be plucked out and handed over to some business houses as private property. When 'trademarks' allow exclusive rights over some words to some private parties in very clearly limited contexts, and with so many pre-conditions, caveats etc, how can a private body simply hand over the *globally* exclusive use of generic words, with no trademark claim to them either, to private parties just on the highest bid !!? Interestingly, while no legal basis for such exclusivity is employed, a very privileged exclusivity is provided through control over the architecture that ICANN has. A very good instantiation of the maxim 'in the digital space, architecture if policy'. Such control was given to ICANN on public trusteeship. It has violated that trusteeship. This is unacceptable. This is loot of public property, facilitated by the employed trustee. Just think of the scenario when Amazon owns .book, and mind you, it is to be fully private. Unlike existing registries like .com etc amazon will not even be obliged to sell second level domain names under .book in the public market (protecting the marketplace, huh!). Quite soon, amazon may change its name, or at least its book division's name to .book... It will have a right to, since it owns that particular symbol in a very special way..... Remember, normal trademark etc law wont allow it to run its business under the name 'book', because it will be considered too generic a name, meaning it is pubic property (those good old times when laws were made to protect the public!). But with anexpedient routed through theICANN- that benefactor of the powerful, Amazon can run its business under .book, the ownership of which is 'established, or would certainly get established over due course of use as everyone will know, of course .book is amazon (and vice versa), are you kidding or what! I am sure with some proven use and exclusivity, trademark authorities will also be compliant... As the world, especially in the use of language, goes mostly digital, we hand over our common property, the idea and the word, 'book', to a private company.... and then it is the turn of 'kid', 'love', 'cloud', .baby, .book, .eat, .family, .film, .home, .movie, .music, .search, .beauty, .school................ one never knows were it will end, or why should it end at all! I am completely lost as to what public interest does all this serve? Isnt ICANN there to serve public interest! Why couldnt we stick to relatively meaningless three alphabet gtlds like .com, .org and such, and, being most important, making it incumbent upon the registries to sell second level domains in the open market on a non discriminatory basis?? Why has ICANN taken upon itself to further privatise anything and everything that conceivably can be privatised and perpetual rents extracted for the benefit of the most powerful, in the true spirit of the resplendent neoliberal march. I really hope those outside the wunderworld of ICANN would take this issue up in the right earnest.. I suspect, the storm would start brewing soon. I cant see how ICANN, and its compliant ICANN community, will be allowed to get away with this absolute loot of our common cultural heritage. I think this time ICANN has bitten off too much..... parminder On Wednesday 15 August 2012 02:39 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > FYI > > http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8-7-12%20Letter%20from%20Senate%20and%20House%20Judiciary%20Committees.pdf > > wolfgang > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Aug 17 14:00:49 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:00:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E6AFA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder I am honoured to agree with the US Congressional judicial committee Ø I knew this would happen, eventually. Good for Parminder for being consistent…..even if consistently wrong. Ø For a different perspective, see http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/08/16/us-congress-joins-saudi-arabia-in-net-censorship-extravaganza/ I especially agree that ICANN has done practically nothing to get *informed* comments from outside the largely compliant ICANN community on an issue that implicates just everyone, who deals with language and ideas that is. Ø I think we've gotten 13 years of comments many of them quite well informed, Ø and anyway how is ICANN supposed to control the intelligence or informational Ø levels of the people who write into an open, public comment board? Ø Have you looked over the comments on TLD applications? they are astoundingly diverse. Ø Most of them are stupid, but they are not from the ICANN stalwarts Ø That's democracy, bub By it I mean a public-place from where our commonly owned words (with all the cultural significances they hold) like love, kid, book, school etc cannot be plucked out and handed over to some business houses as private property. Ø This is where you are not thinking very deeply. If these words are indeed 'commonly owned' they can be appropriated and used by anyone. Ø Since domain name registrations must be exclusive, and since your claim to a dns registration of a common word is as good as mine, it is just a matter of first come first served. Ø It is the people who want to control and regulate the use of common words Ø - in order to ensure that they are used "properly" or "fairly" - Ø who actually would usher in a crippling political battle over who has the right to the name, and how it canbe used Ø which would stifle the development of the name space. I am still waiting for you Parminder to Ø get acquainted with the idea of "permissionless innovation," which is why the Internet flourished. Ø You want people to ask for permission and impose collective regulation before they can use the word 'book'. Ø I say to hell with that. Ø It is only a matter of time before you join the trademark lobby in their never ending quest to Ø ensure that politically approved true rights holders are allowed to use specific words in specific ways When 'trademarks' allow exclusive rights over some words to some private parties in very clearly limited contexts, and with so many pre-conditions, caveats etc, how can a private body simply hand over the *globally* exclusive use of generic words, with no trademark claim to them either, to private parties just on the highest bid !!? Ø they are not handing over the right to globally exclusive use of the word. Ø They are handing over the right to globally exclusive use of a specific character string as a top level domain Ø You can use the word 'book' all you like. There, I just did it: book, book, book. Ø I can name my website http://www.syr.edu/book/ Ø I can paint "book" on the side of my car, or tattoo it on my forehead Ø I can try to register 'book' in any of the hundreds of new TLDs that will exist if you and the TM lobby don't stop it Ø I can open a book store, online or offline, and attract google-driven searches on the word 'book' there if people link to it Ø Etc. Ø Etc. Just think of the scenario when Amazon owns .book, Ø Check this out: www.book.com Ø Check this out: http://www.book.co.uk/ Ø and mind you, it is to be fully private. Unlike existing registries like .com etc amazon will not even be obliged to sell second level domain names under .book in the public market (protecting the marketplace, huh!). Quite soon, amazon may change its name, or at least its book division's name to .book... It will have a right to, since it owns that particular symbol in a very special way..... Remember, normal trademark etc law wont allow it to run its business under the name 'book', because it will be considered too generic a name, meaning it is pubic property (those good old times when laws were made to protect the public!). But with an expedient routed through the ICANN- that benefactor of the powerful, Amazon can run its business under .book, the ownership of which is 'established, or would certainly get established over due course of use as everyone will know, of course .book is amazon (and vice versa), are you kidding or what! I am sure with some proven use and exclusivity, trademark authorities will also be compliant... As the world, especially in the use of language, goes mostly digital, we hand over our common property, the idea and the word, 'book', to a private company.... and then it is the turn of 'kid', 'love', 'cloud', .baby, .book, .eat, .family, .film, .home, .movie, .music, .search, .beauty, .school................ I am completely lost as to what public interest does all this serve? Isnt ICANN there to serve public interest! Why couldnt we stick to relatively meaningless three alphabet gtlds like .com, .org and such, and, being most important, making it incumbent upon the registries to sell second level domains in the open market on a non discriminatory basis?? Why has ICANN taken upon itself to further privatise anything and everything that conceivably can be privatised and perpetual rents extracted for the benefit of the most powerful, in the true spirit of the resplendent neoliberal march. I really hope those outside the wunderworld of ICANN would take this issue up in the right earnest.. I suspect, the storm would start brewing soon. I cant see how ICANN, and its compliant ICANN community, will be allowed to get away with this absolute loot of our common cultural heritage. I think this time ICANN has bitten off too much..... parminder On Wednesday 15 August 2012 02:39 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: FYI http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8-7-12%20Letter%20from%20Senate%20and%20House%20Judiciary%20Committees.pdf wolfgang --> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri Aug 17 15:05:35 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 21:05:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, When a problem is stated so that it has no solution, it needs restating. The ICANN screw up has been obvious for at least a decade. A major difference with a typical gangster organization is that they don't murder people. Actually it's more akin to one of those religious sects that exploit their members, but on a much larger scale. The domain name monopoly, very well engineered by the ICANN direction, and protected by the USG, is at the root of a worldwide scam. Without monopoly there would be no objection for ICANN to rent baby, book, god, hot, or whatever. The TLD list is no more than a particular Who's Who requiring name uniqueness. As long as many other Who's Who become available, with possibly different requirements, people, organizations and governments could choose using the one(s) containing no undesirable name, or creating another one of their liking. Cheers, Louis - - - On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 5:11 PM, parminder wrote: > > I am honoured to agree with the US Congressional judicial committee that > ICANN is sitting on the top of a major screw up. Those - and I am surprised > that most civil society members here are rather unconcerned - who dont yet > see that this is going to be a major screw up will soon know better... > > I especially agree that ICANN has done practically nothing to get > *informed* comments from outside the largely compliant ICANN community on > an issue that implicates just everyone, who deals with language and ideas > that is. > > However, while the US gov has come on the side of ensuring 'a secure > stable marketplace' basically to defend the rights of trademark owner which > we know are rich people, I do hope some governments - since the involved civil > society seems not willing - comes on the side of ensuring 'a secure > stable public-place'. By it I mean a public-place from where our commonly > owned words (with all the cultural significances they hold) like love, kid, > book, school etc cannot be plucked out and handed over to some business > houses as private property. > > When 'trademarks' allow exclusive rights over some words to some private > parties in very clearly limited contexts, and with so many pre-conditions, > caveats etc, how can a private body simply hand over the *globally* > exclusive use of generic words, with no trademark claim to them either, to > private parties just on the highest bid !!? Interestingly, while no legal > basis for such exclusivity is employed, a very privileged exclusivity is > provided through control over the architecture that ICANN has. A very good > instantiation of the maxim 'in the digital space, architecture if policy'. > Such control was given to ICANN on public trusteeship. It has violated that > trusteeship. This is unacceptable. This is loot of public property, > facilitated by the employed trustee. > > Just think of the scenario when Amazon owns .book, and mind you, it is to > be fully private. Unlike existing registries like .com etc amazon will not > even be obliged to sell second level domain names under .book in the public > market (protecting the marketplace, huh!). Quite soon, amazon may change > its name, or at least its book division's name to .book... It will have a > right to, since it owns that particular symbol in a very special way..... > Remember, normal trademark etc law wont allow it to run its business under > the name 'book', because it will be considered too generic a name, meaning > it is pubic property (those good old times when laws were made to protect > the public!). But with an expedient routed through the ICANN- that > benefactor of the powerful, Amazon can run its business under .book, the > ownership of which is 'established, or would certainly get established over > due course of use as everyone will know, of course .book is amazon (and > vice versa), are you kidding or what! > > I am sure with some proven use and exclusivity, trademark authorities will > also be compliant... As the world, especially in the use of language, goes > mostly digital, we hand over our common property, the idea and the word, > 'book', to a private company.... and then it is the turn of 'kid', 'love', > 'cloud', .baby, .book, .eat, .family, .film, .home, .movie, .music, > .search, .beauty, .school................ one never knows were it will end, > or why should it end at all! > > I am completely lost as to what public interest does all this serve? Isnt > ICANN there to serve public interest! Why couldnt we stick to relatively > meaningless three alphabet gtlds like .com, .org and such, and, being most > important, making it incumbent upon the registries to sell second level > domains in the open market on a non discriminatory basis?? Why has ICANN > taken upon itself to further privatise anything and everything that > conceivably can be privatised and perpetual rents extracted for the benefit > of the most powerful, in the true spirit of the resplendent neoliberal > march. > > I really hope those outside the wunderworld of ICANN would take this issue > up in the right earnest.. I suspect, the storm would start brewing soon. I > cant see how ICANN, and its compliant ICANN community, will be allowed to > get away with this absolute loot of our common cultural heritage. I think > this time ICANN has bitten off too much..... > > > parminder > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 17 15:09:03 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:09:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: What MM just said, plus: On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:11 AM, parminder wrote: > > I am completely lost as to what public interest does all this serve? > Originally is was help to break the Monopoly (now held by Veri$ign) over .com, ..net and .org (well, was .org, but is no longer). Would you rather have on US private corp as registry for 90%+ of domain names? > Isnt ICANN there to serve public interest! Why couldnt we stick to > relatively meaningless three alphabet gtlds like .com, .org and such, and, > being most important, making it incumbent upon the registries to sell > second level domains in the open market on a non discriminatory basis?? > registrars do this, no? Having registries do it, would have meant giving more power to Verisign, which i doubt is what you want. > Why has ICANN taken upon itself to further privatise anything and > everything that conceivably can be privatised and perpetual rents extracted > for the benefit of the most powerful, in the true spirit of the resplendent > neoliberal march. > Because you are not involved. -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 17 15:33:40 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 07:33:40 +1200 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: > > > > Just think of the scenario when Amazon owns .book, and mind you, it is to > be fully private. Unlike existing registries like .com etc amazon will not > even be obliged to sell second level domain names under .book in the public > market (protecting the marketplace, huh!). Quite soon, amazon may change > its name, or at least its book division's name to .book... It will have a > right to, since it owns that particular symbol in a very special way..... > Remember, normal trademark etc law wont allow it to run its business under > the name 'book', because it will be considered too generic a name, meaning > it is pubic property (those good old times when laws were made to protect > the public!). But with an expedient routed through the ICANN- that > benefactor of the powerful, Amazon can run its business under .book, the > ownership of which is 'established, or would certainly get established over > due course of use as everyone will know, of course .book amazon (and vice > versa), are you kidding or what! > > This is an excellent point. The At Large community that represent and look out for the interests of ordinary internet users have been robustly engaging in discussions and also receiving feedback and comments from its members on this very same issue and also on "Amazon's" application of .book. It will also be great if you could post your comments to the At Large list as I think I have seen you reply to one of the mailing lists there so that the views are captured. Membership of At Large is open to all and you can find out how to join as an Accredited At Large Structure (ALS). In the Asian Australasian Pacific region, to join the At Large, has to be through an ALS. It is one things to object here but it is far more impacting to raise your concerns with ICANN through the appropriate mechanism process available to the public to comment. I suspect that you may have done this already and if you have, then please ignore this comment. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 17 15:50:46 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 07:50:46 +1200 Subject: [governance] US opens up access to WCIT documents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting write up on the same issue. http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49142&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10&utm_campaign=DailyNews170812ITUOpensItsDoors&utm_medium=email&utm_source=TTV-Daily-News-Alert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 17 16:35:56 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:35:56 -0300 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <502EAB2C.3060201@cafonso.ca> I assume McTim has already analyzed ownership relations of all domain name proponents? I would not dare to assume anything before doing this. In my view as far as I can see (who "owns", who operates etc), the big domain companies will keep most of the pie. frt rgds --c.a. On 08/17/2012 04:09 PM, McTim wrote: > What MM just said, plus: > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:11 AM, parminder wrote: > >> >> I am completely lost as to what public interest does all this serve? >> > > > Originally is was help to break the Monopoly (now held by Veri$ign) over > .com, ..net and .org (well, was .org, but is no longer). Would you rather > have on US private corp as registry for 90%+ of domain names? > > > > >> Isnt ICANN there to serve public interest! Why couldnt we stick to >> relatively meaningless three alphabet gtlds like .com, .org and such, and, >> being most important, making it incumbent upon the registries to sell >> second level domains in the open market on a non discriminatory basis?? >> > > registrars do this, no? Having registries do it, would have meant giving > more power to Verisign, which i doubt is what you want. > > > >> Why has ICANN taken upon itself to further privatise anything and >> everything that conceivably can be privatised and perpetual rents extracted >> for the benefit of the most powerful, in the true spirit of the resplendent >> neoliberal march. >> > > > Because you are not involved. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Fri Aug 17 16:58:44 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 23:58:44 +0300 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E6AFA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E6AFA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > Ø For a different perspective, see > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/08/16/us-congress-joins-saudi-arabia-in-net-censorship-extravaganza/ > > ** > A huge fan of your writings. You mentioned in your article that: "*The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia thinks so, and wants to censor it. Not just in their little kingdom but globally, by insisting that ICANN not allow it.* " Two points here: - I would have preferred to say "Some Saudi Citizens" (or any other appropriate phrasing) since the comments made do not reflect the opinion of the Saudi government or the entire Saudi population. Why do I say so?.... Because many people in the Arab world barely know anything about the New gTLD program, or better "*Do Not Care*"! - A small kingdom? I do not think so. The second largest oil producer in the world, the 13th largest country in terms of geography in the world, and a close ally of the USA definitely does not entitle it to be called "a small kingdom". Even more, if it was a "Small Kingdom", the West would have not had strong bonds with it and given it the soft cushion it has refused to give to any other country in the world. Once the many TLDs that they have commented on - and I have too - are delegated and active, it is a matter of a simple rule on the "Great Saudi Arabian Firewall" (mind you with the term since it is always used for the Chinese Firewall) to block them all. The Saudi's - and for that matter many Muslims around the world - see these kind of TLDs as violating to the basics of the Islamic religion. Islam rejects pornography, trans-sexuality, gay/lesbianism... and any other form of sexual act that almost every religion in this planet opposes to. P.S. I am not trying to get into any religious debates here, but I am trying to explain the views and concerns of the comments comming out of Saudi Arabia and many other Arab/Muslim countries. I myself being a father would strongly oppose to my kids being exposed to such TLDs at their tender young age. Fahd ** > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 17 17:57:33 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 02:57:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] Watch "'Real Arab Spring in Bahrain which West ignores'" on YouTube In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Caught this news footage from RT that may inspire food for thought at the ArabIGF. I haven't edited the subject line as its posted by RT: http:// www.youtube.com /watch?v= o5BIIEx1srI &feature= youtube_gdata_player Foooo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 17 22:59:30 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 22:59:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <502EAB2C.3060201@cafonso.ca> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <502EAB2C.3060201@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I assume McTim has already analyzed ownership relations of all domain > name proponents? You are mixing apples and oranges. I identified the public interest being served by allowing more gTLDs. > I would not dare to assume anything before doing this. > In my view as far as I can see (who "owns", who operates etc), the big > domain companies will keep most of the pie. > Would you serve a greater public interest by denying orgs the ability to apply for the name they want because they may be large/corporate/rich/US orgs? -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 02:36:18 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:06:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E6AFA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E6AFA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <502F37E2.2020609@itforchange.net> Milton You know that this a debate over higher level principles/issues, so we can have a discussion on them if you want. Meanwhile, your smart alec stuff serves little purpose. Neither, the rhetoric of attacking positions that make you feel good, which positions you know I never hold; like, your claim that I am on the side of 'people who want to control and regulate the use of common word in order to ensure that they are used "properly" or "fairly"" When, if I am saying anything at all, I am saying that common words should be allowed to be freely used by all, and not inappropriately pushed into private domains, which is a form of 'control' over the use of those 'common words'. Therefore, who is on the side of control over common words (and implicated FoE) and who against is perhaps opposite of how you would want to show it to be. Even more ludicrous is your claim that "It is only a matter of time before you join the trademark lobby in their never ending quest to ensure that politically approved true rights holders are allowed to use specific words in specific ways " When you know that what I am trying to say, and also my general politics, is quite the opposite. The main burden of my original proposition is, in fact, that (replacing 'politically' in your statement with 'commercially', while it is obvious that you see 'red' with anything political, while all kinds of commercial controls simply pass you by.) with the new gltd process "'commercially' approved true rights holders are allowed to use specific words in specific ways" like the word .book...... (Yes, .book will be used as a word, dot book, connoting that in the online environment 'this' is exclusively what book is. A major, unfair and unnecessary advantage to any private actor. ) Obviously, you are allowing your rhetoric to get better of you..... Anyway, I will point to the larger principles and socio-economic and political issues that are behind our present discussion in a separate email...parminder On Friday 17 August 2012 11:30 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > > I am honoured to agree with the US Congressional judicial committee > > ØI knew this would happen, eventually. Good for Parminder for being > consistent…..even if consistently wrong. > > ØFor a different perspective, see > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/08/16/us-congress-joins-saudi-arabia-in-net-censorship-extravaganza/ > > > I especially agree that ICANN has done practically nothing to get > *informed* comments from outside the largely compliant ICANN community > on an issue that implicates just everyone, who deals with language and > ideas that is. > > ØI think we've gotten 13 years of comments many of them quite well > informed, > > Øand anyway how is ICANN supposed to control the intelligence or > informational > > Ølevels of the people who write into an open, public comment board? > > ØHave you looked over the comments on TLD applications? they are > astoundingly diverse. > > ØMost of them are stupid, but they are not from the ICANN stalwarts > > ØThat's democracy, bub > > > By it I mean a public-place from where our commonly owned words (with > all the cultural significances they hold) like love, kid, book, school > etc cannot be plucked out and handed over to some business houses as > private property. > > ØThis is where you are not thinking very deeply. If these words are > indeed 'commonly owned' they can be appropriated and used by anyone. > > ØSince domain name registrations must be exclusive, and since your > claim to a dns registration of a common word is as good as mine, it is > just a matter of first come first served. > > ØIt is the people who want to control and regulate the use of common > words > > Ø- in order to ensure that they are used "properly" or "fairly" - > > Øwho actually would usher in a crippling political battle over who has > the right to the name, and how it canbe used > > Øwhich would stifle the development of the name space. I am still > waiting for you Parminder to > > Øget acquainted with the idea of "permissionless innovation," which is > why the Internet flourished. > > ØYou want people to ask for permission and impose collective > regulation before they can use the word 'book'. > > ØI say to hell with that. > > ØIt is only a matter of time before you join the trademark lobby in > their never ending quest to > > Øensure that politically approved true rights holders are allowed to > use specific words in specific ways > > > When 'trademarks' allow exclusive rights over some words to some > private parties in very clearly limited contexts, and with so many > pre-conditions, caveats etc, how can a private body simply hand over > the *globally* exclusive use of generic words, with no trademark claim > to them either, to private parties just on the highest bid !!? > > Øthey are not handing over the right to globally exclusive use of the > word. > > ØThey are handing over the right to globally exclusive use of a > specific character string as a top level domain > > ØYou can use the word 'book' all you like. There, I just did it: book, > book, book. > > ØI can name my website http://www.syr.edu/book/ > > ØI can paint "book" on the side of my car, or tattoo it on my forehead > > ØI can try to register 'book' in any of the hundreds of new TLDs that > will exist if you and the TM lobby don't stop it > > ØI can open a book store, online or offline, and attract google-driven > searches on the word 'book' there if people link to it > > ØEtc. > > ØEtc. > > Just think of the scenario when Amazon owns .book, > > ØCheck this out: www.book.com > > ØCheck this out: http://www.book.co.uk/ > > Ø > > and mind you, it is to be fully private. Unlike existing registries > like .com etc amazon will not even be obliged to sell second level > domain names under .book in the public market (protecting the > marketplace, huh!). Quite soon, amazon may change its name, or at > least its book division's name to .book... It will have a right to, > since it owns that particular symbol in a very special way..... > Remember, normal trademark etc law wont allow it to run its business > under the name 'book', because it will be considered too generic a > name, meaning it is pubic property (those good old times when laws > were made to protect the public!). But with an expedient routed > through the ICANN- that benefactor of the powerful, Amazon can run its > business under .book, the ownership of which is 'established, or would > certainly get established over due course of use as everyone will > know, of course .book is amazon (and vice versa), are you kidding or > what! > > I am sure with some proven use and exclusivity, trademark authorities > will also be compliant... As the world, especially in the use of > language, goes mostly digital, we hand over our common property, the > idea and the word, 'book', to a private company.... and then it is the > turn of 'kid', 'love', 'cloud', .baby, .book, .eat, .family, .film, > .home, .movie, .music, .search, .beauty, .school................ > I am completely lost as to what public interest does all this serve? > Isnt ICANN there to serve public interest! Why couldnt we stick to > relatively meaningless three alphabet gtlds like .com, .org and such, > and, being most important, making it incumbent upon the registries to > sell second level domains in the open market on a non discriminatory > basis?? Why has ICANN taken upon itself to further privatise anything > and everything that conceivably can be privatised and perpetual rents > extracted for the benefit of the most powerful, in the true spirit of > the resplendent neoliberal march. > > I really hope those outside the wunderworld of ICANN would take this > issue up in the right earnest.. I suspect, the storm would start > brewing soon. I cant see how ICANN, and its compliant ICANN community, > will be allowed to get away with this absolute loot of our common > cultural heritage. I think this time ICANN has bitten off too much..... > > > parminder > > On Wednesday 15 August 2012 02:39 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > > > FYI > > > > http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8-7-12%20Letter%20from%20Senate%20and%20House%20Judiciary%20Committees.pdf > > > > wolfgang > > > > --> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 03:05:56 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:05:56 +1200 Subject: [governance] Watch "'Real Arab Spring in Bahrain which West ignores'" on YouTube In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Fouad for the link. It was interesting to see the Analyst's perspective on different treatment of the West which he points to the US's position on Syria and Bahrain. Not too long ago, we watched in horror as the Syrian Government through its army was shooting its own civillians and it appears from the link that Fouad sent, that the same is happening in Bahrain. i find interesting the decision by the UN SG Ban Ki-moon and League of Aab States SG on the appointment of a new Joint Special Representative for Syria. It would be great to try to get Lakhdar Brahimi to the Arab IGF to talk about the pursuit of an end to the conflict in Syria. I also hope the people of Bahrain attend the Arab IGF or at least representatives. I know that ISOC has a chapter in Bahrain and they have royalty as a patron. It will be great for our civil society who are present in the Arab IGF to skillfully weave a workshop and help encourage dialogue and diplomacy on why it is critical for the Internet to remain open and free. It was around May this year, when I was in Washington DC that I had met with an Iranian activist in the IGC who shared with me how the Iranian government was deliberately slowing internet access for ordinary people so that they could not access things like facebook etc. Without a doubt there needs to be awareness of the governance aspects and multiple issues and maybe help convince people that the internet is a way also that you can get communities to partner with government. A place where they are not threatened by criticism. When people are suppressed this over time boils and simmers and finds a way to spill into what we have seen as "uprisings or revolutions". I was very impressed with a saying that I saw at the US Federal Court of Appeals and can't remember what it said "word for word" except that it was something along the lines that the State or government must be quick to act against itself before the people...and I remember thinking how lucky the US was to have that philosophy so engrained within their culture because there are many parts of the world where this is not so. On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Caught this news footage from RT that may inspire food for thought at the > ArabIGF. I haven't edited the subject line as its posted by RT: > > http:// > www.youtube.com > /watch?v= > o5BIIEx1srI > &feature= > youtube_gdata_player > > Foooo > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 03:28:20 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:58:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <502F37E2.2020609@itforchange.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E6AFA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <502F37E2.2020609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <502F4414.5090705@itforchange.net> On Saturday 18 August 2012 12:06 PM, parminder wrote: > Milton > > You know that this a debate over higher level principles/issues, so we > can have a discussion on them if you want. Milton One of the most problematic characteristics of the online ecology and its influence on our societies is the unprecedented globally monopolistic possibilities and positions that are shaping up.... Google tells us that it will organise the world's knowledge for us, Facebook positions itself as 'the' world's online interacting place, Twitter as 'the' world's instant distributed media, Microsoft as 'the' document, itunes as 'the' music store................ This is very unprecedented. Such a thing has never happened before. And many people consider it very dangerous (including adherents of the original Adam Smith's creed of a 'really' free market). It threatens all kinds of rights of the people.... for the first time, monopoly corporates are seeking to represent and service entire aspects of our social living, and social systems, and in the process, insidiously, increasingly determine these aspects. In any earlier time, any such monopoly would have been nipped in the bud. We all know the exemplary role of US regulatory authorities that made both, first the telecom, and then the software, revolutions possible. However, today, we face a unique structural problem of national regulatory efforts not being able to be effective vis a vis an inherently global phenomenon of the Internet. The one jurisdiction that still has enough political leverage - the US - will not do what is needed to be done becuase it plans to ride its digital behemoths to continued and increased global domination.... And so, we are struck in a fix, of monumental historic and socio-political significance.... This is the framing of the original problem that many share. Now, if you have no sympathy at all with it, there is no point in us moving forward to the specific issue of new gtlds..... If at all, we have to discuss the above framing, and its basis. However, in the unlikely case that you do have some sympathy for the above framing, then the issue is that: We should realise that the new round of gltds is more about private gtlds than new public gtlds, which as, McTim claims, are necessary to increase the competitiveness of the gltd market. Or even if we agree the new process is separately about both -*the critique here refers ONLY to private gtlds, that its owners are under no obligation to sell second level domain names in the open market as was obligatory for instance for .com and other existing gtlds.* We all know that google, apple and amazon are not seeking to enter domain name business. They are trying to buy gltds to buttress their respective businesses. So, we need to see what they are planning to do, and whether it serves public interest. Going back to the original framing of unprecendented monopolies in the digital age that seek to represent and service entire aspects of our social living/ systems, which we may (or may not) agree is a 'problem', what better for these monopolies than to get exclusive rights to key terms of the language representing key civilisational ideas/ concepts, like .book, .beauty, .love, .school, .music, .film, .document and so on. It simply and directly buttresses their already problematic monopolistic positioning vis a vis our private and public social lives, something many of us do not want to get corporatized as it is on the anvil of being. That is the goldmine that google et all see in the sale of private gltds. Also, in an reverse impact, as these corporates already dealing with the idea/ concept that is embodied in the linguistic term being claimed, as Loreal with .beauty, Amazon with .book, etc, they begin to strongly influence, and then to some extent determine, cultural connotations of these terms, of course in a manner tuned to their narrow commercial advantages (and to hell, with the social impact). And this is no science fiction stuff - we all know that big brands already seek to do it, and often do it rather successfully. Therefore, of course, such nefarious designs will not get instituted for the first time with private gtlds - the question is, *how much push would private gtlds give to such designs and efforts, how much a new class of clear and substantial advantage do they bring to such problematic efforts.* How does this problem vis a vis pulbic interest weigh against any specific benefit of having private gltds at all (about which I havent heard much in the present debate). It is in this background that we have to assess the public interest implications of new gtlds..... But if you think all this is pure humbug, well, then, that is were we stand. But please dont accuse other people of 'not thinking deeply'. Maybe it is the social depth of your thinking that is in question :). parminder > Meanwhile, your smart alec stuff serves little purpose. Neither, the > rhetoric of attacking positions that make you feel good, which > positions you know I never hold; like, your claim that I am on the > side of 'people who want to control and regulate the use of common > word in order to ensure that they are used "properly" or "fairly"" > > When, if I am saying anything at all, I am saying that common words > should be allowed to be freely used by all, and not inappropriately > pushed into private domains, which is a form of 'control' over the > use of those 'common words'. Therefore, who is on the side of control > over common words (and implicated FoE) and who against is perhaps > opposite of how you would want to show it to be. > > Even more ludicrous is your claim that "It is only a matter of time > before you join the trademark lobby in their never ending quest > > to ensure that politically approved true rights holders are allowed to > use specific words in specific ways " > > > When you know that what I am trying to say, and also my general > politics, is quite the opposite. The main burden of my original > proposition is, in fact, that (replacing 'politically' in your > statement with 'commercially', while it is obvious that you see 'red' > with anything political, while all kinds of commercial controls simply > pass you by.) > > with the new gltd process "'commercially' approved true rights > holders are allowed to use specific words in specific ways" like > the word .book...... > > (Yes, .book will be used as a word, dot book, connoting that in the > online environment 'this' is exclusively what book is. A major, unfair > and unnecessary advantage to any private actor. ) > > Obviously, you are allowing your rhetoric to get better of you..... > Anyway, I will point to the larger principles and socio-economic and > political issues that are behind our present discussion in a separate > email...parminder > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday 17 August 2012 11:30 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder >> >> I am honoured to agree with the US Congressional judicial committee >> >> ØI knew this would happen, eventually. Good for Parminder for being >> consistent…..even if consistently wrong. >> >> ØFor a different perspective, see >> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/08/16/us-congress-joins-saudi-arabia-in-net-censorship-extravaganza/ >> >> >> I especially agree that ICANN has done practically nothing to get >> *informed* comments from outside the largely compliant ICANN >> community on an issue that implicates just everyone, who deals with >> language and ideas that is. >> >> ØI think we've gotten 13 years of comments many of them quite well >> informed, >> >> Øand anyway how is ICANN supposed to control the intelligence or >> informational >> >> Ølevels of the people who write into an open, public comment board? >> >> ØHave you looked over the comments on TLD applications? they are >> astoundingly diverse. >> >> ØMost of them are stupid, but they are not from the ICANN stalwarts >> >> ØThat's democracy, bub >> >> >> By it I mean a public-place from where our commonly owned words (with >> all the cultural significances they hold) like love, kid, book, >> school etc cannot be plucked out and handed over to some business >> houses as private property. >> >> ØThis is where you are not thinking very deeply. If these words are >> indeed 'commonly owned' they can be appropriated and used by anyone. >> >> ØSince domain name registrations must be exclusive, and since your >> claim to a dns registration of a common word is as good as mine, it >> is just a matter of first come first served. >> >> ØIt is the people who want to control and regulate the use of common >> words >> >> Ø- in order to ensure that they are used "properly" or "fairly" - >> >> Øwho actually would usher in a crippling political battle over who >> has the right to the name, and how it canbe used >> >> Øwhich would stifle the development of the name space. I am still >> waiting for you Parminder to >> >> Øget acquainted with the idea of "permissionless innovation," which >> is why the Internet flourished. >> >> ØYou want people to ask for permission and impose collective >> regulation before they can use the word 'book'. >> >> ØI say to hell with that. >> >> ØIt is only a matter of time before you join the trademark lobby in >> their never ending quest to >> >> Øensure that politically approved true rights holders are allowed to >> use specific words in specific ways >> >> >> When 'trademarks' allow exclusive rights over some words to some >> private parties in very clearly limited contexts, and with so many >> pre-conditions, caveats etc, how can a private body simply hand over >> the *globally* exclusive use of generic words, with no trademark >> claim to them either, to private parties just on the highest bid !!? >> >> Øthey are not handing over the right to globally exclusive use of the >> word. >> >> ØThey are handing over the right to globally exclusive use of a >> specific character string as a top level domain >> >> ØYou can use the word 'book' all you like. There, I just did it: >> book, book, book. >> >> ØI can name my website http://www.syr.edu/book/ >> >> ØI can paint "book" on the side of my car, or tattoo it on my forehead >> >> ØI can try to register 'book' in any of the hundreds of new TLDs that >> will exist if you and the TM lobby don't stop it >> >> ØI can open a book store, online or offline, and attract >> google-driven searches on the word 'book' there if people link to it >> >> ØEtc. >> >> ØEtc. >> >> Just think of the scenario when Amazon owns .book, >> >> ØCheck this out: www.book.com >> >> ØCheck this out: http://www.book.co.uk/ >> >> Ø >> >> and mind you, it is to be fully private. Unlike existing registries >> like .com etc amazon will not even be obliged to sell second level >> domain names under .book in the public market (protecting the >> marketplace, huh!). Quite soon, amazon may change its name, or at >> least its book division's name to .book... It will have a right to, >> since it owns that particular symbol in a very special way..... >> Remember, normal trademark etc law wont allow it to run its business >> under the name 'book', because it will be considered too generic a >> name, meaning it is pubic property (those good old times when laws >> were made to protect the public!). But with an expedient routed >> through the ICANN- that benefactor of the powerful, Amazon can run >> its business under .book, the ownership of which is 'established, or >> would certainly get established over due course of use as everyone >> will know, of course .book is amazon (and vice versa), are you >> kidding or what! >> >> I am sure with some proven use and exclusivity, trademark authorities >> will also be compliant... As the world, especially in the use of >> language, goes mostly digital, we hand over our common property, the >> idea and the word, 'book', to a private company.... and then it is >> the turn of 'kid', 'love', 'cloud', .baby, .book, .eat, .family, >> .film, .home, .movie, .music, .search, .beauty, .school................ >> I am completely lost as to what public interest does all this serve? >> Isnt ICANN there to serve public interest! Why couldnt we stick to >> relatively meaningless three alphabet gtlds like .com, .org and such, >> and, being most important, making it incumbent upon the registries to >> sell second level domains in the open market on a non discriminatory >> basis?? Why has ICANN taken upon itself to further privatise anything >> and everything that conceivably can be privatised and perpetual rents >> extracted for the benefit of the most powerful, in the true spirit of >> the resplendent neoliberal march. >> >> I really hope those outside the wunderworld of ICANN would take this >> issue up in the right earnest.. I suspect, the storm would start >> brewing soon. I cant see how ICANN, and its compliant ICANN >> community, will be allowed to get away with this absolute loot of our >> common cultural heritage. I think this time ICANN has bitten off too >> much..... >> >> >> parminder >> >> On Wednesday 15 August 2012 02:39 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> >> >> >> FYI >> >> >> >> http://www.leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/8-7-12%20Letter%20from%20Senate%20and%20House%20Judiciary%20Committees.pdf >> >> >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> >> --> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 18 03:50:47 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 14:50:47 +0700 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E6AFA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E6AFA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <502F4957.7080003@gmx.net> On 8/18/2012 1:00 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > [snip] > > > By it I mean a public-place from where our commonly owned words (with > all the cultural significances they hold) like love, kid, book, school > etc cannot be plucked out and handed over to some business houses as > private property. > > ØThis is where you are not thinking very deeply. If these words are > indeed 'commonly owned' they can be appropriated and used by anyone. > > ØSince domain name registrations must be exclusive, and since your > claim to a dns registration of a common word is as good as mine, it is > just a matter of first come first served. > First come, first served - PLUS a little bit of cash. Norbert Klein nhklein at gmx.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 03:52:51 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 09:52:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Pre-announcement of "Best Bits", 3-4 November, Baku, Azerbaijan In-Reply-To: <502E02F4.1030702@ciroap.org> References: <502E02F4.1030702@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <03c101cd7d16$8aa11f20$9fe35d60$@gmail.com> Bravo on this initiative Jeremy! M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:38 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Pre-announcement of "Best Bits", 3-4 November, Baku, Azerbaijan This is a "save the date" notice for a gathering on Internet governance and Internet rights in Baku, Azerbaijan on November 3-4 ahead of the global IGF, titled "Best Bits". This will be an advocacy-focused event designed for sharing knowledge and collaborating on tangible outputs. It arose from discussions of a diverse group of North and South based experts held at the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF. You can download a short document which gives more details about the motivation for the event, the programme, and the expected outputs from http://igf-online.net/bestbits.pdf. For more information, you are also invited to join the "Best Bits" mailing list at http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/bestbits. Specific details such as the venue will be confirmed later. The importance of this meeting for the IGC is that it is meant partly as a bridge between our IGF/WSIS world and the US tech policy world, leading to better informed, more effective, and more complementary and consistent advocacy outcomes - though there is no intention to subsume or supersede any existing work. The other purpose is to produce specific outputs, including the long-planned civil society statement of principles for the IGF, and a slightly different one to WCIT. If you plan to attend, please let me know off-list - this is just for planning purposes, as a formal registration form will come later. If you would require any assistance with travel expenses, a very limited fund may be available courtesy of Google to assist certain individuals with specific skillsets who will contribute to the meeting by way of moderating, presenting, helping to prepare briefing documents, or working on the zero-draft texts that are to be discussed and finalised at the meeting. Those seeking support must let me know strictly within 1 week, ie. by 24 August 2012 at the latest. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers 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 Your rights, our mission - download CI's Strategy 2015: http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 18 04:53:58 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:53:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain Message-ID: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> [For Exceptionalists, not even the well established Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunities is safe! Perhaps a sniper should just "take him out" because a Presidential approved 'kill list" along with enhanced interrogation techniques is legal right? So, on this list, while we do need to engage, please take note that there are different perspectives out there... which is NOT much to ask in civil society... Parminder, ain't it funny how a "Banana Republic" shows up the home of Parliamentary democracy... ] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain Pledge on protecting WikiLeaks founder from US could lead to deal, says source as embassy complains of 'intimidating' police * Sam Jones and Rajeev Syal * guardian.co.uk , Friday 17 August 2012 19.28 BST Julian Assange extradition A Julian Assange supporter stakes her spot opposite the Ecuadorian embassy where he claimed asylum to avoid extradiction to Sweden to face rape allegations. Photograph: John Stillwell/PA *Ecuador is still willing to negotiate with the British government over the fate of Julian Assange , despite the Foreign Office's "threat" to arrest the WikiLeaks founder inside its embassy and the "intimidating" police presence in and around the building, according to a senior Ecuadorean diplomatic source.* The South American country's decision to grant political asylum to the 41-year-old Australian, who faces allegations of sexual assault in Sweden , has provoked a bitter political row between Quito and London. The source complained that the UK government's written warning that it could use the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987 to arrest Assange inside the embassy had been accompanied by a large increase in the number of police officers at the Knightsbridge building. The police presence, it added, had risen from two or three to around 50, with officers on the embassy's fire escape and at every window. This was described as "an absolutely intimidating and unprecedented use of police" designed to show the British government's desire to "go in with a strong hand". However, the source said that Quito had been encouraged by a phone call made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Ecuadorean ambassador on Thursday. "The FCO called the ambassador yesterday to confirm that it still had the will to talk and negotiate, so we'll keep talking," it added. "The fact that they called the ambassador makes us think that the letter with the threat of using domestic legislation to make an incursion into the embassy and arrest somebody inside was a mistake -- as was the intimidating increase in the number of police surrounding the embassy on the same day the letter was delivered." It stressed that Ecuador was willing to co-operate with the British and Swedish authorities over the matter of Assange's extradition to Sweden. "In the negotiations with the FCO, Ecuador has been proposing that we would be prepared to accept an undertaking from the UK and Sweden that, once Julian Assange has faced the Swedish investigation, he will not be extradited to a third country: specifically the US. That might be a way out of it and Ecuador has always said it does not want to interfere with the Swedish judicial process; we could facilitate it." The source said the Ecuadorean government had been bolstered by the support it had received since deciding to grant asylum to Assange, adding: "We are moved by the overwhelming level of solidarity that Ecuador now has in the [Latin American] region." Asked how Assange was coping with the pressure of life in the small embassy, where he has been living for 55 days, the source said: "He's fine. He's not stressed out. Given the fact that he has been under pressure for so long and that his legal fight has gone through so many different levels, I think that for his safety he always had a last resort." Scotland Yard declined to comment on the policing operation at the embassy, while an FCO source said the letter sent to the Ecuadorean authorities on Wednesday was not menacing and that the rights of the country's officials would continue to be respected by the government. "The letter was not a threat," said the source. "There had already been many meetings with the Ecuador government. It was just that it was quite clear that they were close to making a decision and we wanted them to know the law. It was merely signposting the fact." The foreign secretary, William Hague, was informed about diplomatic developments on the Assange case, although a spokeswoman declined to divulge further details, saying: "We are not providing a running commentary." At a press conference on Wednesday, Ecuador's foreign minister, Ricardo Patiño, released details of the contentious letter, which he said was delivered through a British embassy official in Quito. The letter said: "You need to be aware that there is a legal base in the UK, the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act 1987, that would allow us to take actions in order to arrest Mr Assange in the current premises of the embassy." It added: "We need to reiterate that we consider the continued use of the diplomatic premises in this way incompatible with the Vienna convention and unsustainable and we have made clear the serious implications that this has for our diplomatic relations." Patiño said that Ecuador rejected the "explicit threat" made in the letter, adding: "This is unbecoming of a democratic, civilised and law-abiding state. If this conduct persists, Ecuador will take appropriate responses in accordance with international law. If the measures announced in the British official communication materialise they will be interpreted by Ecuador as a hostile and intolerable act and also as an attack on our sovereignty, which would require us to respond with greater diplomatic force." Hague has denied suggestions that the FCO was threatening "to storm an embassy", saying: "We are talking about an act of parliament in this country which stresses that it must be used in full conformity with international law." He has also said that Assange will not be allowed safe passage out of the UK despite the asylum decision, and that diplomatic immunity should not be used to harbour alleged criminals. It is unclear whether Assange will address his supporters at the embassy on Sunday, as has been reported. He has described the granting of political asylum by Ecuador as a "significant and historic victory". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Julian-Assange-extraditio-010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 38916 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 05:40:07 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:40:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] Internet Censorship Called "A Black Eye" for Jordan's Tech Sector Message-ID: http://www.wamda.com/2012/08/internet-censorship-called-a-black-eye-for-jordan-s-tech-sector Internet censorship has been heading the news in Jordan lately, and Jordanian's are at crossroads on whether it is a step forward in the right direction, or the opposite way around. While some see it as abiding to the basic norms of Islam and as means to protect the younger generation, others see it harmful to the Jordanian economy at-large and the Jordanian IT sector in specific. For those of you who might not know, Amman is considered the Silicon Valley of the Middle East (at a mush smaller scale of course). The current ICT Minister is an ex Air Force General, and he is pushing for it. While he is respected for his hard work and dedication to the Jordanian ICT sector, he might have wanted to push for the law differently as he might have not done enough consultations to come out with such a decision. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 05:49:53 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 02:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act Message-ID: <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Does this action of "Information Collection" by Google really breach the Privacy Act, PIPA?    See the discussion on url http://delimiter.com.au/2010/07/09/google-wi-fi-gaffe-breached-privacy-act-commissioner/   Regards   Imran -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 05:59:12 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:59:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act In-Reply-To: <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Google has been heading the news lately for all the wrong reasons. They were doing fine until PIPA came into the frame. Is it that they are unable to abide to such acts, or is it "Conspiracy Theory"? Fahd On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Does this action of "Information Collection" by Google really breach the > Privacy Act, PIPA? > See the discussion on url > http://delimiter.com.au/2010/07/09/google-wi-fi-gaffe-breached-privacy-act-commissioner/ > > Regards > > Imran > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 06:00:40 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 13:00:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] Censorship Comes to Jordan Message-ID: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201281519529205413.html More on Internet Censorship in Jordan... Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 18 06:27:18 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:27:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act In-Reply-To: <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The same Google "mistake" (read *theft*) was also discovered in Europe - - - On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Does this action of "Information Collection" by Google really breach the > Privacy Act, PIPA? > See the discussion on url > http://delimiter.com.au/2010/07/09/google-wi-fi-gaffe-breached-privacy-act-commissioner/ > > Regards > > Imran > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 18 08:04:20 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:04:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <983C173F-B744-4E7B-81A5-8286C54E03B5@digsys.bg> On 17.08.2012, at 22:09, McTim wrote: > > Because you are not involved. > I believe this pretty much sums it all. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 08:15:49 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:15:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act In-Reply-To: References: <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > Google has been heading the news lately for all the wrong reasons. They > were doing fine until PIPA came into the frame. > There is no PIPA. It was proposed legislation, it did not pass. -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 08:31:07 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:31:07 +1200 Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act In-Reply-To: <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Breach of privacy (when caught) = apology A few key governance issues come to mind (especially when one thinks of what Marilia had raised about Facebook and arbitrarily taking down pictures) - Who should the the likes of multinational organisations like Google, Facebook be answerable to? - Is there a basic minimum standard of acceptable behaviour or does it differ with jurisdictions? Do we just leave it to the countries to deal with these multinationals such as in the case of Germany when they rebuked Facebook for the "like" feature or in India with Vinay Rai when he took Google, Facebook to the New Delhi High Court to get them to take down obscene publications or in the case of Australia as described in the link that Imran sent? On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Does this action of "Information Collection" by Google reallys breach the > Privacy Act, PIPA? > See the discussion on url > http://delimiter.com.au/2010/07/09/google-wi-fi-gaffe-breached-privacy-act-commissioner/ > > Regards > > Imran > > ____________________________________________________________ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 08:30:51 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:30:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act In-Reply-To: References: <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:15 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: > >> Google has been heading the news lately for all the wrong reasons. They >> were doing fine until PIPA came into the frame. >> > > > There is no PIPA. It was proposed legislation, it did not pass. > > My comment was made in a sarcastic manner. Thanks for confirming how far PIPA reached, though :-) > -- > 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 08:35:32 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 08:35:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. Mawaki On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally > > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. > > http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ > > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and > seize Julian Assange. > > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most > subscribed single international treaty in the world. > > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic premises > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification or > qualification elsewhere in the treaty. > > Article 22 > > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of > the mission. > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its > dignity. > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, > requisition, attachment or execution. > > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide. > > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law. > > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave > British diplomats with no protection worldwide. > > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the move > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in > Number 10. > > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal Democrats. > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact now in > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries and > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any belief to > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had principles. > > *** > > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) > > The Geopolitics of Asylum > > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 > > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian Assange from > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted political > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human rights > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and made it > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, president of the > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation today. > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a week in > Ecuador for discussions of the case. > > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations or by > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In my memory, > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize someone who has > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic in > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for political > reasons. > > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, Ecuadorian > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the British > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the United > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, Ricardo > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit threat” to > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British colony,” Patiño > added. > > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his government > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what may be > a prolonged showdown. > > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict Assange and > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator Diane > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called for > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong objections from > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may prefer to > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes with the > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in Sweden. > > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict becomes > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand off against > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the wave of new > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the traditional US > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa joined > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in June 2009, > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His government > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest, in a > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the country.” > He survived a coup attempt in 2010. > > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision without > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive reaction by the > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify Latin > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in relations > with the United States. > > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked the Obama > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to participate in > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. Shortly > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy chief, Dan > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama administration. > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United States and > the region. > > *** > > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm > > > Victoria Nuland > > Spokesperson > > Daily Press Briefing > > Washington, DC > > August 16, 2012 > > TRANSCRIPT: > > 12:44 p.m. EDT > > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on your > minds. > > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? > > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the Swedes. > I don't have anything particular to add. > > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a > completely neutral, independent observer of it? > > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it is an > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to interject > ourselves. > > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? > > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or where he > may end up going, no. > > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the Brits > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. > > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any truth to > that at all. > > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits do not > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States recognizes > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS treaty > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, presumably, > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. recognize > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? > > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal answer to > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. > > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, diplomatic > asylum. > > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or the > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were leaning on > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future plans, > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our legal > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get back to > you. > > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of the -- > of the OAS and those signatories. > > And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest that > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange removed > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just that > you're not aware of it? > > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in this. > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. > > [...] > > > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason that the > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that -- they > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United States > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a credible > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government persecution in > the United States? > > MS. NULAND: No. > > Q: No? > > MS. NULAND: No. > > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, the > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to show up in > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, you don't > view that as -- > > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran thought > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. > > Q: OK. > > MS. NULAND: OK? > > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would face > prosecution? > > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not headed > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to get into > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in his > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. > > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting him, I > reject that completely. > > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case does > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the intention > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face > prosecution in the United States? > > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that we were > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think that > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? > Obviously, we have -- > > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. > > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm going to > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? > > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case against him. > > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much involved > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here on what > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to wade into > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? > > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it doesn't > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies and that > kind of thing. > > MS. NULAND: Right. > > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved yourselves > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was going to > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other country, > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? > > MS. NULAND: As I said -- > > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in Beijing > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected to > that, correct? > > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies have cited > British law with regard to the statements they've made about potential > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, > international -- as compared to international law. > > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of whether they > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under British > law, I'm going to send you to them. > > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, there is > international law here too, and presumably the United State would oppose or > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government entering or > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the world, > no? > > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are standing on > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to what the > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the moment is. > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where we are > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? > > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back in 1979, > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? > > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest of this > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? > > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by the > Justice Department. Does that include -- > > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak to what > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. > > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? > > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't have > the details. OK? Thanks, guys. > > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) > > DPB #146 > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 09:45:59 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:45:59 +0500 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I was asked an interesting question today by a colleague on the discussion about Google's interference in national electronic commerce/e-payment, privacy and ITU-ITRs positions in developing countries in Asia. She asked whether developing countries should regulate two-sided market economies where the platforms were US based content and services providers and tax them and design laws to prevent their interference within a sovereign country's policies? Fouad Bajwa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 18 10:04:51 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:04:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There will be a workshop in Baku covering some of these issues (not the ITR part, though it's possibly an issue, but it is not one any Asian country I know of has raised in the regional preparatory process for ITRs) Adam >I was asked an interesting question today by a colleague on the >discussion about Google's interference in national electronic >commerce/e-payment, privacy and ITU-ITRs positions in developing >countries in Asia. > >She asked whether developing countries should regulate two-sided >market economies where the platforms were US based content and >services providers and tax them and design laws to prevent their >interference within a sovereign country's policies? > >Fouad Bajwa > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Sat Aug 18 10:07:38 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:07:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <502EAB2C.3060201@cafonso.ca> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <502EAB2C.3060201@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <502FA1AA.7030101@panamo.eu> Yes, Carlos, interesting points here: - applicants : 3/4 are US companies, unless you believe that Verisign is a small swiss ltd cie, and so on. - backoffice operators : 3/4 are a small bunch of US companies. Again Verisign : 250 TLDs. Details coming soon in a next mail. US are 10% of Internet users nowadays. And English language 25% of contents. Where are the bugs ? Best regards, @+, Dominique Lacroix -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 17/08/12 22:35, Carlos A. Afonso a écrit : > I assume McTim has already analyzed ownership relations of all domain > name proponents? I would not dare to assume anything before doing this. > In my view as far as I can see (who "owns", who operates etc), the big > domain companies will keep most of the pie. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 08/17/2012 04:09 PM, McTim wrote: >> What MM just said, plus: >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:11 AM, parminder wrote: >> >>> I am completely lost as to what public interest does all this serve? >>> >> >> Originally is was help to break the Monopoly (now held by Veri$ign) over >> .com, ..net and .org (well, was .org, but is no longer). Would you rather >> have on US private corp as registry for 90%+ of domain names? >> >> >> >> >>> Isnt ICANN there to serve public interest! Why couldnt we stick to >>> relatively meaningless three alphabet gtlds like .com, .org and such, and, >>> being most important, making it incumbent upon the registries to sell >>> second level domains in the open market on a non discriminatory basis?? >>> >> registrars do this, no? Having registries do it, would have meant giving >> more power to Verisign, which i doubt is what you want. >> >> >> >>> Why has ICANN taken upon itself to further privatise anything and >>> everything that conceivably can be privatised and perpetual rents extracted >>> for the benefit of the most powerful, in the true spirit of the resplendent >>> neoliberal march. >>> >> >> Because you are not involved. >> >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 18 10:14:50 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:14:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <502FA1AA.7030101@panamo.eu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <502EAB2C.3060201@cafonso.ca> <502FA1AA.7030101@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Yes, Carlos, interesting points here: > > - applicants : 3/4 are US companies, unless you believe that Verisign is a > small swiss ltd cie, and so on. > - backoffice operators : 3/4 are a small bunch of US companies. Again > Verisign : 250 TLDs. > Details coming soon in a next mail. > > US are 10% of Internet users nowadays. And English language 25% of contents. > Where are the bugs ? > Outreach? The bug was Rod Beckstrom. OK, not entirely, but probably enough to matter. He did a poor job. Adam > Best regards, > > @+, Dominique Lacroix > > -- > Dominique Lacroix > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > > Le 17/08/12 22:35, Carlos A. Afonso a écrit : > >> I assume McTim has already analyzed ownership relations of all domain >> name proponents? I would not dare to assume anything before doing this. >> In my view as far as I can see (who "owns", who operates etc), the big >> domain companies will keep most of the pie. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/17/2012 04:09 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> What MM just said, plus: >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:11 AM, parminder >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I am completely lost as to what public interest does all this serve? >>>> >>> >>> Originally is was help to break the Monopoly (now held by Veri$ign) over >>> .com, ..net and .org (well, was .org, but is no longer). Would you >>> rather >>> have on US private corp as registry for 90%+ of domain names? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Isnt ICANN there to serve public interest! Why couldnt we stick to >>>> relatively meaningless three alphabet gtlds like .com, .org and such, >>>> and, >>>> being most important, making it incumbent upon the registries to sell >>>> second level domains in the open market on a non discriminatory basis?? >>>> >>> registrars do this, no? Having registries do it, would have meant giving >>> more power to Verisign, which i doubt is what you want. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Why has ICANN taken upon itself to further privatise anything and >>>> everything that conceivably can be privatised and perpetual rents >>>> extracted >>>> for the benefit of the most powerful, in the true spirit of the >>>> resplendent >>>> neoliberal march. >>>> >>> >>> Because you are not involved. >>> >>> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Sat Aug 18 10:24:08 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:24:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <502EAB2C.3060201@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <502FA588.8050508@panamo.eu> Le 18/08/12 04:59, McTim a écrit : > Would you serve a greater public interest by denying orgs the ability > to apply for the name they want because they may be > large/corporate/rich/US orgs? Worldwide public interest in an unbalanced world! If you *really* want to internationalize, it could/should be ruled for instance: *"Each applicant / technical operator can submit for 10 TLDs max."* I was told that we can obtain change if we ask for it. So it is still possible. Let's just talk... Best regards, -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amessinoukossi at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 11:05:35 2012 From: amessinoukossi at gmail.com (Kossi Amessinou) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 16:05:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Pre-announcement of "Best Bits", 3-4 November, Baku, Azerbaijan In-Reply-To: <03c101cd7d16$8aa11f20$9fe35d60$@gmail.com> References: <502E02F4.1030702@ciroap.org> <03c101cd7d16$8aa11f20$9fe35d60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Bonsoir à tous, Le Bénin organise son premier forum sur la gouvernance de l'Internet (BIGF) en septembre 2012. Nous recherchons du financement pour la prise en charge de nos communicateurs étrangers. Je lance un appel à tous pour des pistes de solution. Je suis au 00229 95196702. Merci d'avance. 2012/8/18 michael gurstein : > Bravo on this initiative Jeremy! > > > > M > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 10:38 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Pre-announcement of "Best Bits", 3-4 November, Baku, > Azerbaijan > > > > This is a "save the date" notice for a gathering on Internet governance and > Internet rights in Baku, Azerbaijan on November 3-4 ahead of the global IGF, > titled "Best Bits". This will be an advocacy-focused event designed for > sharing knowledge and collaborating on tangible outputs. It arose from > discussions of a diverse group of North and South based experts held at the > Asia-Pacific Regional IGF. > > You can download a short document which gives more details about the > motivation for the event, the programme, and the expected outputs from > http://igf-online.net/bestbits.pdf. For more information, you are also > invited to join the "Best Bits" mailing list at > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/bestbits. Specific details such as the venue > will be confirmed later. > > The importance of this meeting for the IGC is that it is meant partly as a > bridge between our IGF/WSIS world and the US tech policy world, leading to > better informed, more effective, and more complementary and consistent > advocacy outcomes - though there is no intention to subsume or supersede any > existing work. The other purpose is to produce specific outputs, including > the long-planned civil society statement of principles for the IGF, and a > slightly different one to WCIT. > > If you plan to attend, please let me know off-list - this is just for > planning purposes, as a formal registration form will come later. > > If you would require any assistance with travel expenses, a very limited > fund may be available courtesy of Google to assist certain individuals with > specific skillsets who will contribute to the meeting by way of moderating, > presenting, helping to prepare briefing documents, or working on the > zero-draft texts that are to be discussed and finalised at the meeting. > Those seeking support must let me know strictly within 1 week, ie. by 24 > August 2012 at the latest. > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > 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 > > Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015: > http://consint.info/RightsMission > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- AMESSINOU Kossi Ingénieur des TIC et Développement Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 Que Dieu vous bénisse. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 11:23:56 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:23:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <502EAB2C.3060201@cafonso.ca> <502FA1AA.7030101@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Outreach? The bug was Rod Beckstrom. OK, not entirely, but probably enough > to matter. He did a poor job. > +1. He was more into shining himself at the global stage rather than working in the public's best interest. > > Adam > Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 12:32:33 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:32:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Google sponsored and moderated workshop? On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > There will be a workshop in Baku covering some of these issues (not the ITR > part, though it's possibly an issue, but it is not one any Asian country I > know of has raised in the regional preparatory process for ITRs) > > > Adam > > > >> I was asked an interesting question today by a colleague on the discussion >> about Google's interference in national electronic commerce/e-payment, >> privacy and ITU-ITRs positions in developing countries in Asia. >> >> She asked whether developing countries should regulate two-sided market >> economies where the platforms were US based content and services providers >> and tax them and design laws to prevent their interference within a >> sovereign country's policies? >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 12:35:29 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:35:29 +0500 Subject: [governance] Watch "'Real Arab Spring in Bahrain which West ignores'" on YouTube In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Fahd, what do you think? -- FoO On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Thank you Fouad for the link. It was interesting to see the Analyst's > perspective on different treatment of the West which he points to the US's > position on Syria and Bahrain. Not too long ago, we watched in horror as > the Syrian Government through its army was shooting its own civillians and > it appears from the link that Fouad sent, that the same is happening in > Bahrain. > > i find interesting the decision by the UN SG Ban Ki-moon and League of Aab > States SG on the appointment of a new Joint Special Representative for > Syria. It would be great to try to get Lakhdar Brahimi to the Arab IGF to > talk about the pursuit of an end to the conflict in Syria. > > I also hope the people of Bahrain attend the Arab IGF or at least > representatives. I know that ISOC has a chapter in Bahrain and they have > royalty as a patron. It will be great for our civil society who are present > in the Arab IGF to skillfully weave a workshop and help encourage dialogue > and diplomacy on why it is critical for the Internet to remain open and > free. It was around May this year, when I was in Washington DC that I had > met with an Iranian activist in the IGC who shared with me how the Iranian > government was deliberately slowing internet access for ordinary people so > that they could not access things like facebook etc. > > Without a doubt there needs to be awareness of the governance aspects and > multiple issues and maybe help convince people that the internet is a way > also that you can get communities to partner with government. A place where > they are not threatened by criticism. When people are suppressed this over > time boils and simmers and finds a way to spill into what we have seen as > "uprisings or revolutions". I was very impressed with a saying that I saw at > the US Federal Court of Appeals and can't remember what it said "word for > word" except that it was something along the lines that the State or > government must be quick to act against itself before the people...and I > remember thinking how lucky the US was to have that philosophy so engrained > within their culture because there are many parts of the world where this is > not so. > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> Caught this news footage from RT that may inspire food for thought at the >> ArabIGF. I haven't edited the subject line as its posted by RT: >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5BIIEx1srI&feature=youtube_gdata_player >> >> Foooo >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 18 13:02:52 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 02:02:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Google sponsored and moderated workshop? > No, read the proposal. Who will pay for your ticket? Thanks, Adam > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> There will be a workshop in Baku covering some of these issues (not the ITR >> part, though it's possibly an issue, but it is not one any Asian country I >> know of has raised in the regional preparatory process for ITRs) >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> I was asked an interesting question today by a colleague on the discussion >>> about Google's interference in national electronic commerce/e-payment, >>> privacy and ITU-ITRs positions in developing countries in Asia. >>> >>> She asked whether developing countries should regulate two-sided market >>> economies where the platforms were US based content and services providers >>> and tax them and design laws to prevent their interference within a >>> sovereign country's policies? >>> >>> Fouad Bajwa >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Sat Aug 18 13:22:12 2012 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:52:12 -0430 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and legal details. It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, close Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian diplomats, does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political issues more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can support Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still want to see him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that is a well-founded allegation. There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) going on at: http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the sexual misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / or be mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? Cheers, Ginger On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. > > Mawaki > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > > > > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally > > > > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was > > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and > Rector > > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. > > > > > http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ > > > > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from > > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense > > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy > and > > seize Julian Assange. > > > > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna > Convention > > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes > > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled > > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most > > subscribed single international treaty in the world. > > > > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic > premises > > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification or > > qualification elsewhere in the treaty. > > > > Article 22 > > > > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the > > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head > of > > the mission. > > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate > steps > > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage > and > > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of > its > > dignity. > > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property > thereon > > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, > > requisition, attachment or execution. > > > > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest > the > > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold > War, > > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. > > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy > to > > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will > result > > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide. > > > > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong > > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the > > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the > > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international > law. > > > > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British > legislation. > > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations > in > > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the > > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the > > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave > > British diplomats with no protection worldwide. > > > > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US > > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the > > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the > move > > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in > > Number 10. > > > > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal > Democrats. > > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact > now in > > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries > and > > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any belief > to > > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for > > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had > principles. > > > > *** > > > > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) > > > > The Geopolitics of Asylum > > > > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 > > > > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian Assange > from > > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted > political > > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human > rights > > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and made > it > > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, president of > the > > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation today. > > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a week > in > > Ecuador for discussions of the case. > > > > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations or > by > > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In my > memory, > > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize someone who > has > > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic in > > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for political > > reasons. > > > > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, Ecuadorian > > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the > British > > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the United > > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such > > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, Ricardo > > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit threat” to > > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British colony,” > Patiño > > added. > > > > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his > government > > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what may > be > > a prolonged showdown. > > > > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict Assange > and > > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator Diane > > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called for > > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong objections > from > > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may prefer to > > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes with > the > > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in Sweden. > > > > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict > becomes > > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand off > against > > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the wave of > new > > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the traditional > US > > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa > joined > > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in June > 2009, > > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His > government > > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest, in a > > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the > country.” > > He survived a coup attempt in 2010. > > > > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision without > > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive reaction by > the > > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify > Latin > > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in relations > > with the United States. > > > > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked the > Obama > > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to participate in > > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. > Shortly > > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy chief, > Dan > > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama > administration. > > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United States > and > > the region. > > > > *** > > > > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm > > > > > > Victoria Nuland > > > > Spokesperson > > > > Daily Press Briefing > > > > Washington, DC > > > > August 16, 2012 > > > > TRANSCRIPT: > > > > 12:44 p.m. EDT > > > > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on > your > > minds. > > > > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant > > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? > > > > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the > Swedes. > > I don't have anything particular to add. > > > > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a > > completely neutral, independent observer of it? > > > > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it is > an > > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to interject > > ourselves. > > > > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? > > > > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or > where he > > may end up going, no. > > > > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the > Brits > > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. > > > > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any truth to > > that at all. > > > > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits do > not > > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States > recognizes > > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS treaty > > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, > presumably, > > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. > recognize > > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? > > > > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal answer to > > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. > > > > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, diplomatic > > asylum. > > > > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or the > > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were leaning on > > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future plans, > > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our legal > > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get > back to > > you. > > > > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of the > -- > > of the OAS and those signatories. > > > > And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest > that > > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange > removed > > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just that > > you're not aware of it? > > > > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in > this. > > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. > > > > [...] > > > > > > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason that > the > > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that -- > they > > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- > > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United > States > > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a > credible > > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government persecution > in > > the United States? > > > > MS. NULAND: No. > > > > Q: No? > > > > MS. NULAND: No. > > > > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, the > > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country > > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to show > up in > > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, you > don't > > view that as -- > > > > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran thought > > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to > > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. > > > > Q: OK. > > > > MS. NULAND: OK? > > > > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would face > > prosecution? > > > > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not > headed > > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to get > into > > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in his > > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. > > > > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting > him, I > > reject that completely. > > > > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case does > > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal > > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the > intention > > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face > > prosecution in the United States? > > > > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that we > were > > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think that > > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? > > Obviously, we have -- > > > > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. > > > > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm going > to > > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? > > > > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case against > him. > > > > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much involved > > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here on > what > > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to wade > into > > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? > > > > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it doesn't > > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies and > that > > kind of thing. > > > > MS. NULAND: Right. > > > > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved > yourselves > > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was > going to > > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other country, > > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? > > > > MS. NULAND: As I said -- > > > > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in > Beijing > > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected to > > that, correct? > > > > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies have > cited > > British law with regard to the statements they've made about potential > > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, > > international -- as compared to international law. > > > > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of whether > they > > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under British > > law, I'm going to send you to them. > > > > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, there is > > international law here too, and presumably the United State would oppose > or > > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government entering > or > > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the world, > > no? > > > > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are standing on > > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to what > the > > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the moment > is. > > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where we > are > > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? > > > > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back in > 1979, > > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? > > > > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a > > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest of > this > > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? > > > > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by the > > Justice Department. Does that include -- > > > > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is > > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak to > what > > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. > > > > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? > > > > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't have > > the details. OK? Thanks, guys. > > > > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) > > > > DPB #146 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 13:49:31 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 05:49:31 +1200 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don't see why they could be exempt from taxes and why they should not be regulated. Ordinarily just as any person travelling to another country is subject to the laws of that country and this is true from the moment you step into their airspace or water or cyber space. What made the US take down Rojadirecta? See: http://www.rojadirecta.com/ where you will see evidence of a domain name take down by ICE Homeland Security Investigations? The only material difference really is that developing countries have been dormant and sleeping. If you look at the regulatory trends around the world, the developed world has been efficiently keeping companies hosting content on the Internet in check and making sure they act responsibly. All of a sudden when the "sleeping giant" awakens, ie. the developing world wanting to do the same thing there are all kinds of marketing strategies designed to take the focus away from the core issues. The reality is that this is a new day, markets are being levelled, knowledge is free and the developing world has been empowered. [*Slight bunny trail: If you think about how some of these countries were formerly under the dominion of others, where much of their wealth and natural resources were sized to build empires whilst their own countries lie in ruins. Countries are now awakening to build their nations, their infrastructures, their economies etc *] Why should'nt the developing world regulate two-sided market economies? At the end of the day, the objections to "Taxation" are about the "bottom line" and if that is countries' only mechanism available for making these corporates act responsibly. In my view the crux of the complex debates revolving around Regulations stems from the notion of "borders". Countries have the responsibility of looking out for their respective interests. On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I was asked an interesting question today by a colleague on the discussion > about Google's interference in national electronic commerce/e-payment, > privacy and ITU-ITRs positions in developing countries in Asia. > > She asked whether developing countries should regulate two-sided market > economies where the platforms were US based content and services providers > and tax them and design laws to prevent their interference within a > sovereign country's policies? > > Fouad Bajwa > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 14:10:50 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 06:10:50 +1200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you Riaz for keeping us informed of this very important development. Clearly Assange is a high profile alien. Is there a distinct possibility that the allegations facing him are manufactured. Any excuse or "marketing" or "tactical" ploy to bring Assange home. What is it about Assange that is so threatening? What is it about Assange that makes a country want to knowingly violate the Vienna Convention? Say the sexual offences are legitimate and are not concocted, how would justice be pursued? What is justice in this instance? Whilst I don't have the answers, one thing is certain, the Internet and freedom of information clearly has its limits. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 14:27:51 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:27:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] Watch "'Real Arab Spring in Bahrain which West ignores'" on YouTube In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fouad, what we see in the news is different than what we hear from people witnessing the events, which is again different from reality. There is a lot of politics involved. For example, when we look at the case of Syria, does media really show what is exactly going on ground? Why has no Western power interfered in the situation in Syria? From friends I know who know people from Syrian opposition parties living overseas, the Syrian opposition leaders have a good say in the bad-to-worst situation in Syria. Everyone wants a big piece of the pie (leadership after the Asad regime), and since none is getting what they are targeting, they are not giving their country the focus it needs (they use the term "Its either my way or the highway"). And then comes the part of the Sunni-Shiat Islamic conflict where Syria connects Lebanon to Iraq, which is again connected to Iran, Afghanistan, and down to Pakistan. This is part of what some call "The Shiat Empire". As for Bahrain, and as the news report states, the majority are Shiats (60%) while the ruling family are Sunnis. Kuwait has many Shiats, and they have border with Iraq and Iran. And then comes the eastern province of Saudi Arabia which is another harbor for Shiats. Some politicians see the future of Saudi Arabia to be divided into two countries: the Western religious part, and the Eastern oil producing part. If this happens, and if Bahrain is ruled by a Shiat ruler, the "Shiat Empire" has been fulfilled. I have neighbors who work and live in Bahrain, and they have not mentioned any of what the video shows. I remember when the Arab spring erupted, and while I was watching a summary on CNN, they showed a 5 second clip of protests in Jordan where things looked messy (like in the RT video on Bahrain). I can assure you that it never happened and that what the video showed had NOTHING to do with the situation in Jordan. In fact, during these protests, police distributed water and sandwiches to the protestor. Bottom line, this is all a political debacle which targets at re-shaping Western Asia into different Islamic sectors and doctrines as means to reduce power of powerful nations. It started with Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan are already messed-up, and what remains is Syria. P.S. I have no issues when it comes to various Islamic doctrines. The text written above is purely a platform for discussion and food-for-thought. I have no issues with any religion or doctrine. Fahd On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Dear Fahd, what do you think? > > -- FoO > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Thank you Fouad for the link. It was interesting to see the Analyst's > > perspective on different treatment of the West which he points to the > US's > > position on Syria and Bahrain. Not too long ago, we watched in horror as > > the Syrian Government through its army was shooting its own civillians > and > > it appears from the link that Fouad sent, that the same is happening in > > Bahrain. > > > > i find interesting the decision by the UN SG Ban Ki-moon and League of > Aab > > States SG on the appointment of a new Joint Special Representative for > > Syria. It would be great to try to get Lakhdar Brahimi to the Arab IGF to > > talk about the pursuit of an end to the conflict in Syria. > > > > I also hope the people of Bahrain attend the Arab IGF or at least > > representatives. I know that ISOC has a chapter in Bahrain and they have > > royalty as a patron. It will be great for our civil society who are > present > > in the Arab IGF to skillfully weave a workshop and help encourage > dialogue > > and diplomacy on why it is critical for the Internet to remain open and > > free. It was around May this year, when I was in Washington DC that I had > > met with an Iranian activist in the IGC who shared with me how the > Iranian > > government was deliberately slowing internet access for ordinary people > so > > that they could not access things like facebook etc. > > > > Without a doubt there needs to be awareness of the governance aspects and > > multiple issues and maybe help convince people that the internet is a way > > also that you can get communities to partner with government. A place > where > > they are not threatened by criticism. When people are suppressed this > over > > time boils and simmers and finds a way to spill into what we have seen as > > "uprisings or revolutions". I was very impressed with a saying that I > saw at > > the US Federal Court of Appeals and can't remember what it said "word for > > word" except that it was something along the lines that the State or > > government must be quick to act against itself before the people...and I > > remember thinking how lucky the US was to have that philosophy so > engrained > > within their culture because there are many parts of the world where > this is > > not so. > > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: > >> > >> Caught this news footage from RT that may inspire food for thought at > the > >> ArabIGF. I haven't edited the subject line as its posted by RT: > >> > >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5BIIEx1srI&feature=youtube_gdata_player > >> > >> Foooo > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To 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 > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 14:30:31 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:30:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ginger, the question is not whether the allegations are true - factual issues we can't decide. The question is whether Sweden, acting as proxy, will take that excuse to jail him for good and throw away the key. After all, that's what the US want. My feeling is that there is some truth in the criminal matter but that Assange would not get a "fair" trial, in the sense that the usual discretionary possibilities will be denied to him. One fears a self-righteous Swede - see Bergman movies. Don't forget: over 90% of the cases are plea-bargained in the US. It is normal to get "justice at a discount". Why not here? Aldo On 18 August 2012 19:22, Ginger Paque wrote: > The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and > legal details. > > It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, close > Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian diplomats, > does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political issues > more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be > investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from > political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the > rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can > support Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still > want to see him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that > is a well-founded allegation. > > There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible > solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) going > on at: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences > > I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the sexual > misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / or be > mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? > > Cheers, Ginger > > > > > > > On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. >> >> Mawaki >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob >> wrote: >> > >> > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally >> > >> > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was >> > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and >> Rector >> > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. >> > >> > >> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ >> > >> > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from >> > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense >> > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean >> Embassy and >> > seize Julian Assange. >> > >> > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna >> Convention >> > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which >> encodes >> > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled >> > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most >> > subscribed single international treaty in the world. >> > >> > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic >> premises >> > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification >> or >> > qualification elsewhere in the treaty. >> > >> > Article 22 >> > >> > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the >> > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head >> of >> > the mission. >> > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate >> steps >> > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage >> and >> > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of >> its >> > dignity. >> > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property >> thereon >> > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, >> > requisition, attachment or execution. >> > >> > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest >> the >> > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold >> War, >> > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. >> > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British >> Embassy to >> > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will >> result >> > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide. >> > >> > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a >> strong >> > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of >> the >> > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the >> > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international >> law. >> > >> > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British >> legislation. >> > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its >> obligations in >> > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the >> > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the >> > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would >> leave >> > British diplomats with no protection worldwide. >> > >> > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US >> > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the >> > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the >> move >> > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken >> in >> > Number 10. >> > >> > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal >> Democrats. >> > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact >> now in >> > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries >> and >> > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any >> belief to >> > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for >> > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had >> principles. >> > >> > *** >> > >> > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) >> > >> > The Geopolitics of Asylum >> > >> > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 >> > >> > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian Assange >> from >> > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted >> political >> > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human >> rights >> > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and made >> it >> > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, president >> of the >> > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation today. >> > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a >> week in >> > Ecuador for discussions of the case. >> > >> > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations or >> by >> > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In my >> memory, >> > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize someone >> who has >> > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic in >> > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for political >> > reasons. >> > >> > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, Ecuadorian >> > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the >> British >> > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the United >> > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such >> > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, >> Ricardo >> > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit threat” to >> > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British colony,” >> Patiño >> > added. >> > >> > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his >> government >> > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what >> may be >> > a prolonged showdown. >> > >> > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict Assange >> and >> > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator Diane >> > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called for >> > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong objections >> from >> > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may prefer >> to >> > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes with >> the >> > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in Sweden. >> > >> > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict >> becomes >> > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand off >> against >> > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the wave of >> new >> > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the >> traditional US >> > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa >> joined >> > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in June >> 2009, >> > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His >> government >> > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest, in >> a >> > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the >> country.” >> > He survived a coup attempt in 2010. >> > >> > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision without >> > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive reaction >> by the >> > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify >> Latin >> > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in >> relations >> > with the United States. >> > >> > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked the >> Obama >> > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to participate in >> > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. >> Shortly >> > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy chief, >> Dan >> > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama >> administration. >> > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United States >> and >> > the region. >> > >> > *** >> > >> > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm >> > >> > >> > Victoria Nuland >> > >> > Spokesperson >> > >> > Daily Press Briefing >> > >> > Washington, DC >> > >> > August 16, 2012 >> > >> > TRANSCRIPT: >> > >> > 12:44 p.m. EDT >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on >> your >> > minds. >> > >> > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant >> > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the >> Swedes. >> > I don't have anything particular to add. >> > >> > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a >> > completely neutral, independent observer of it? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it is >> an >> > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to interject >> > ourselves. >> > >> > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or >> where he >> > may end up going, no. >> > >> > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the >> Brits >> > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any truth to >> > that at all. >> > >> > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits do >> not >> > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States >> recognizes >> > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS treaty >> > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, >> presumably, >> > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. >> recognize >> > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal answer >> to >> > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. >> > >> > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, diplomatic >> > asylum. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or the >> > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were leaning >> on >> > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future >> plans, >> > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our >> legal >> > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get >> back to >> > you. >> > >> > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of >> the -- >> > of the OAS and those signatories. >> > >> > And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest >> that >> > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange >> removed >> > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just >> that >> > you're not aware of it? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in >> this. >> > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. >> > >> > [...] >> > >> > >> > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason that >> the >> > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that -- >> they >> > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- >> > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United >> States >> > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a >> credible >> > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government >> persecution in >> > the United States? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: No. >> > >> > Q: No? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: No. >> > >> > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, the >> > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country >> > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to show >> up in >> > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, you >> don't >> > view that as -- >> > >> > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran thought >> > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to >> > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. >> > >> > Q: OK. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: OK? >> > >> > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would face >> > prosecution? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not >> headed >> > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to get >> into >> > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in his >> > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. >> > >> > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting >> him, I >> > reject that completely. >> > >> > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case does >> > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal >> > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the >> intention >> > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face >> > prosecution in the United States? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that we >> were >> > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think that >> > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? >> > Obviously, we have -- >> > >> > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm going >> to >> > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? >> > >> > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case against >> him. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much >> involved >> > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here on >> what >> > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to wade >> into >> > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? >> > >> > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it >> doesn't >> > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies and >> that >> > kind of thing. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Right. >> > >> > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved >> yourselves >> > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was >> going to >> > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other >> country, >> > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: As I said -- >> > >> > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in >> Beijing >> > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected to >> > that, correct? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies have >> cited >> > British law with regard to the statements they've made about potential >> > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, >> > international -- as compared to international law. >> > >> > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of whether >> they >> > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under >> British >> > law, I'm going to send you to them. >> > >> > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, there >> is >> > international law here too, and presumably the United State would >> oppose or >> > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government >> entering or >> > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the >> world, >> > no? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are standing on >> > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to >> what the >> > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the >> moment is. >> > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where we >> are >> > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? >> > >> > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back in >> 1979, >> > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a >> > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest of >> this >> > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? >> > >> > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by the >> > Justice Department. Does that include -- >> > >> > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is >> > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak to >> what >> > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. >> > >> > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't >> have >> > the details. OK? Thanks, guys. >> > >> > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) >> > >> > DPB #146 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Aldo Matteucci 65, Pourtalèsstr. CH 3074 MURI b. Bern Switzerland aldo.matteucci at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 14:37:28 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:37:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: The Assange debate reminds me of JFK when he was murdered for all the wrong reasons. In Jordan, when a new government is installed, the prime minister is given a couple of weeks to assemble his cabinet before they are given the vote of confidence from the house of parliament. In Jordan's history, only one government was not given the vote of confidence. The reason is because that prime minister used the slogan of "Cracking Down Corruption". Corrupt politicians do not want to be pointed at. I can see from the Assange case that one of the main reasons the world is on their knees wanting him is - maybe - because corrupt politicians do not want to get exposed. Fahd On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and > legal details. > > It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, close > Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian diplomats, > does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political issues > more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be > investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from > political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the > rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can > support Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still > want to see him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that > is a well-founded allegation. > > There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible > solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) going > on at: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences > > I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the sexual > misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / or be > mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? > > Cheers, Ginger > > > > > > > > On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. >> >> Mawaki >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob >> wrote: >> > >> > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally >> > >> > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was >> > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and >> Rector >> > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. >> > >> > >> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ >> > >> > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from >> > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense >> > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean >> Embassy and >> > seize Julian Assange. >> > >> > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna >> Convention >> > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which >> encodes >> > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled >> > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most >> > subscribed single international treaty in the world. >> > >> > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic >> premises >> > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification >> or >> > qualification elsewhere in the treaty. >> > >> > Article 22 >> > >> > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the >> > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head >> of >> > the mission. >> > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate >> steps >> > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage >> and >> > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of >> its >> > dignity. >> > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property >> thereon >> > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, >> > requisition, attachment or execution. >> > >> > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest >> the >> > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold >> War, >> > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. >> > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British >> Embassy to >> > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will >> result >> > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide. >> > >> > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a >> strong >> > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of >> the >> > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the >> > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international >> law. >> > >> > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British >> legislation. >> > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its >> obligations in >> > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the >> > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the >> > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would >> leave >> > British diplomats with no protection worldwide. >> > >> > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US >> > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the >> > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the >> move >> > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken >> in >> > Number 10. >> > >> > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal >> Democrats. >> > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact >> now in >> > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries >> and >> > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any >> belief to >> > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for >> > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had >> principles. >> > >> > *** >> > >> > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) >> > >> > The Geopolitics of Asylum >> > >> > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 >> > >> > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian Assange >> from >> > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted >> political >> > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human >> rights >> > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and made >> it >> > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, president >> of the >> > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation today. >> > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a >> week in >> > Ecuador for discussions of the case. >> > >> > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations or >> by >> > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In my >> memory, >> > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize someone >> who has >> > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic in >> > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for political >> > reasons. >> > >> > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, Ecuadorian >> > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the >> British >> > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the United >> > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such >> > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, >> Ricardo >> > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit threat” to >> > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British colony,” >> Patiño >> > added. >> > >> > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his >> government >> > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what >> may be >> > a prolonged showdown. >> > >> > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict Assange >> and >> > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator Diane >> > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called for >> > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong objections >> from >> > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may prefer >> to >> > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes with >> the >> > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in Sweden. >> > >> > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict >> becomes >> > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand off >> against >> > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the wave of >> new >> > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the >> traditional US >> > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa >> joined >> > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in June >> 2009, >> > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His >> government >> > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest, in >> a >> > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the >> country.” >> > He survived a coup attempt in 2010. >> > >> > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision without >> > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive reaction >> by the >> > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify >> Latin >> > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in >> relations >> > with the United States. >> > >> > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked the >> Obama >> > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to participate in >> > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. >> Shortly >> > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy chief, >> Dan >> > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama >> administration. >> > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United States >> and >> > the region. >> > >> > *** >> > >> > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm >> > >> > >> > Victoria Nuland >> > >> > Spokesperson >> > >> > Daily Press Briefing >> > >> > Washington, DC >> > >> > August 16, 2012 >> > >> > TRANSCRIPT: >> > >> > 12:44 p.m. EDT >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on >> your >> > minds. >> > >> > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant >> > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the >> Swedes. >> > I don't have anything particular to add. >> > >> > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a >> > completely neutral, independent observer of it? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it is >> an >> > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to interject >> > ourselves. >> > >> > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or >> where he >> > may end up going, no. >> > >> > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the >> Brits >> > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any truth to >> > that at all. >> > >> > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits do >> not >> > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States >> recognizes >> > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS treaty >> > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, >> presumably, >> > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. >> recognize >> > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal answer >> to >> > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. >> > >> > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, diplomatic >> > asylum. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or the >> > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were leaning >> on >> > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future >> plans, >> > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our >> legal >> > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get >> back to >> > you. >> > >> > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of >> the -- >> > of the OAS and those signatories. >> > >> > And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest >> that >> > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange >> removed >> > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just >> that >> > you're not aware of it? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in >> this. >> > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. >> > >> > [...] >> > >> > >> > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason that >> the >> > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that -- >> they >> > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- >> > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United >> States >> > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a >> credible >> > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government >> persecution in >> > the United States? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: No. >> > >> > Q: No? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: No. >> > >> > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, the >> > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country >> > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to show >> up in >> > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, you >> don't >> > view that as -- >> > >> > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran thought >> > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to >> > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. >> > >> > Q: OK. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: OK? >> > >> > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would face >> > prosecution? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not >> headed >> > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to get >> into >> > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in his >> > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. >> > >> > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting >> him, I >> > reject that completely. >> > >> > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case does >> > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal >> > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the >> intention >> > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face >> > prosecution in the United States? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that we >> were >> > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think that >> > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? >> > Obviously, we have -- >> > >> > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm going >> to >> > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? >> > >> > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case against >> him. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much >> involved >> > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here on >> what >> > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to wade >> into >> > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? >> > >> > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it >> doesn't >> > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies and >> that >> > kind of thing. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Right. >> > >> > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved >> yourselves >> > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was >> going to >> > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other >> country, >> > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: As I said -- >> > >> > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in >> Beijing >> > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected to >> > that, correct? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies have >> cited >> > British law with regard to the statements they've made about potential >> > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, >> > international -- as compared to international law. >> > >> > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of whether >> they >> > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under >> British >> > law, I'm going to send you to them. >> > >> > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, there >> is >> > international law here too, and presumably the United State would >> oppose or >> > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government >> entering or >> > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the >> world, >> > no? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are standing on >> > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to >> what the >> > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the >> moment is. >> > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where we >> are >> > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? >> > >> > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back in >> 1979, >> > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a >> > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest of >> this >> > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? >> > >> > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by the >> > Justice Department. Does that include -- >> > >> > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is >> > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak to >> what >> > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. >> > >> > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't >> have >> > the details. OK? Thanks, guys. >> > >> > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) >> > >> > DPB #146 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 14:42:02 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 06:42:02 +1200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: There is an interesting article on the matter in one of the blogs by Jovan Kurbalija, see: http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/the-assange-asylum-case-five-possible-solutions-and-many-probable-consequences/ On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > The Assange debate reminds me of JFK when he was murdered for all the > wrong reasons. > > In Jordan, when a new government is installed, the prime minister is given > a couple of weeks to assemble his cabinet before they are given the vote of > confidence from the house of parliament. In Jordan's history, only one > government was not given the vote of confidence. The reason is because that > prime minister used the slogan of "Cracking Down Corruption". Corrupt > politicians do not want to be pointed at. > > I can see from the Assange case that one of the main reasons the world is > on their knees wanting him is - maybe - because corrupt politicians do not > want to get exposed. > > Fahd > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and >> legal details. >> >> It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, close >> Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian diplomats, >> does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political issues >> more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be >> investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from >> political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the >> rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can >> support Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still >> want to see him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that >> is a well-founded allegation. >> >> There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible >> solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) going >> on at: >> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences >> >> I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the sexual >> misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / or be >> mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? >> >> Cheers, Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >>> Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally >>> > >>> > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He >>> was >>> > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and >>> Rector >>> > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. >>> > >>> > >>> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ >>> > >>> > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation >>> from >>> > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after >>> immense >>> > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean >>> Embassy and >>> > seize Julian Assange. >>> > >>> > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna >>> Convention >>> > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which >>> encodes >>> > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled >>> > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most >>> > subscribed single international treaty in the world. >>> > >>> > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic >>> premises >>> > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification >>> or >>> > qualification elsewhere in the treaty. >>> > >>> > Article 22 >>> > >>> > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the >>> > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the >>> head of >>> > the mission. >>> > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate >>> steps >>> > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage >>> and >>> > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment >>> of its >>> > dignity. >>> > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property >>> thereon >>> > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, >>> > requisition, attachment or execution. >>> > >>> > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to >>> arrest the >>> > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold >>> War, >>> > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. >>> > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British >>> Embassy to >>> > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will >>> result >>> > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide. >>> > >>> > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a >>> strong >>> > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of >>> the >>> > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of >>> the >>> > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international >>> law. >>> > >>> > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British >>> legislation. >>> > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its >>> obligations in >>> > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the >>> > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the >>> > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would >>> leave >>> > British diplomats with no protection worldwide. >>> > >>> > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US >>> > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the >>> > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing >>> the move >>> > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken >>> in >>> > Number 10. >>> > >>> > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal >>> Democrats. >>> > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact >>> now in >>> > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government >>> salaries and >>> > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any >>> belief to >>> > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party >>> for >>> > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had >>> principles. >>> > >>> > *** >>> > >>> > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) >>> > >>> > The Geopolitics of Asylum >>> > >>> > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 >>> > >>> > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian Assange >>> from >>> > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted >>> political >>> > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human >>> rights >>> > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and >>> made it >>> > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, president >>> of the >>> > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation >>> today. >>> > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a >>> week in >>> > Ecuador for discussions of the case. >>> > >>> > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations >>> or by >>> > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In my >>> memory, >>> > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize someone >>> who has >>> > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic in >>> > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for political >>> > reasons. >>> > >>> > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, >>> Ecuadorian >>> > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the >>> British >>> > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the >>> United >>> > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such >>> > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, >>> Ricardo >>> > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit threat” to >>> > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British colony,” >>> Patiño >>> > added. >>> > >>> > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his >>> government >>> > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what >>> may be >>> > a prolonged showdown. >>> > >>> > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict >>> Assange and >>> > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator >>> Diane >>> > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called >>> for >>> > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong objections >>> from >>> > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may prefer >>> to >>> > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes with >>> the >>> > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in Sweden. >>> > >>> > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict >>> becomes >>> > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand off >>> against >>> > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the wave >>> of new >>> > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the >>> traditional US >>> > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa >>> joined >>> > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in June >>> 2009, >>> > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His >>> government >>> > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest, >>> in a >>> > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the >>> country.” >>> > He survived a coup attempt in 2010. >>> > >>> > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision without >>> > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive reaction >>> by the >>> > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify >>> Latin >>> > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in >>> relations >>> > with the United States. >>> > >>> > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked the >>> Obama >>> > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to participate >>> in >>> > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. >>> Shortly >>> > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy >>> chief, Dan >>> > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama >>> administration. >>> > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United >>> States and >>> > the region. >>> > >>> > *** >>> > >>> > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm >>> > >>> > >>> > Victoria Nuland >>> > >>> > Spokesperson >>> > >>> > Daily Press Briefing >>> > >>> > Washington, DC >>> > >>> > August 16, 2012 >>> > >>> > TRANSCRIPT: >>> > >>> > 12:44 p.m. EDT >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on >>> your >>> > minds. >>> > >>> > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant >>> > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the >>> Swedes. >>> > I don't have anything particular to add. >>> > >>> > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a >>> > completely neutral, independent observer of it? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it >>> is an >>> > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to interject >>> > ourselves. >>> > >>> > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or >>> where he >>> > may end up going, no. >>> > >>> > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the >>> Brits >>> > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any truth >>> to >>> > that at all. >>> > >>> > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits >>> do not >>> > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States >>> recognizes >>> > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS treaty >>> > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, >>> presumably, >>> > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. >>> recognize >>> > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal answer >>> to >>> > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. >>> > >>> > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, diplomatic >>> > asylum. >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or >>> the >>> > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were leaning >>> on >>> > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future >>> plans, >>> > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our >>> legal >>> > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get >>> back to >>> > you. >>> > >>> > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of >>> the -- >>> > of the OAS and those signatories. >>> > >>> > And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest >>> that >>> > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange >>> removed >>> > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just >>> that >>> > you're not aware of it? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in >>> this. >>> > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. >>> > >>> > [...] >>> > >>> > >>> > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason that >>> the >>> > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that -- >>> they >>> > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- >>> > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United >>> States >>> > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a >>> credible >>> > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government >>> persecution in >>> > the United States? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>> > >>> > Q: No? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>> > >>> > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, the >>> > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country >>> > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to show >>> up in >>> > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, you >>> don't >>> > view that as -- >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran >>> thought >>> > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to >>> > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. >>> > >>> > Q: OK. >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: OK? >>> > >>> > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would >>> face >>> > prosecution? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not >>> headed >>> > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to get >>> into >>> > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in >>> his >>> > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. >>> > >>> > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting >>> him, I >>> > reject that completely. >>> > >>> > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case >>> does >>> > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal >>> > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the >>> intention >>> > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face >>> > prosecution in the United States? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that >>> we were >>> > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think >>> that >>> > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? >>> > Obviously, we have -- >>> > >>> > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm >>> going to >>> > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? >>> > >>> > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case against >>> him. >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much >>> involved >>> > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here >>> on what >>> > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to >>> wade into >>> > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? >>> > >>> > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it >>> doesn't >>> > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies >>> and that >>> > kind of thing. >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Right. >>> > >>> > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved >>> yourselves >>> > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was >>> going to >>> > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other >>> country, >>> > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: As I said -- >>> > >>> > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in >>> Beijing >>> > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected to >>> > that, correct? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies have >>> cited >>> > British law with regard to the statements they've made about potential >>> > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, >>> > international -- as compared to international law. >>> > >>> > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of whether >>> they >>> > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under >>> British >>> > law, I'm going to send you to them. >>> > >>> > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, there >>> is >>> > international law here too, and presumably the United State would >>> oppose or >>> > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government >>> entering or >>> > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the >>> world, >>> > no? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are standing >>> on >>> > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to >>> what the >>> > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the >>> moment is. >>> > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where >>> we are >>> > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? >>> > >>> > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back in >>> 1979, >>> > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a >>> > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest of >>> this >>> > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? >>> > >>> > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by the >>> > Justice Department. Does that include -- >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is >>> > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak to >>> what >>> > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. >>> > >>> > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't >>> have >>> > the details. OK? Thanks, guys. >>> > >>> > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) >>> > >>> > DPB #146 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 14:50:35 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 21:50:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks Salanieta. This is the same article that was circulated by Ginger in an earlier e-mail. Fahd On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > There is an interesting article on the matter in one of the blogs by Jovan > Kurbalija, see: > http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/the-assange-asylum-case-five-possible-solutions-and-many-probable-consequences/ > > > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: > >> The Assange debate reminds me of JFK when he was murdered for all the >> wrong reasons. >> >> In Jordan, when a new government is installed, the prime minister is >> given a couple of weeks to assemble his cabinet before they are given the >> vote of confidence from the house of parliament. In Jordan's history, only >> one government was not given the vote of confidence. The reason is because >> that prime minister used the slogan of "Cracking Down Corruption". Corrupt >> politicians do not want to be pointed at. >> >> I can see from the Assange case that one of the main reasons the world is >> on their knees wanting him is - maybe - because corrupt politicians do not >> want to get exposed. >> >> Fahd >> >> >> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and >>> legal details. >>> >>> It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, close >>> Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian diplomats, >>> does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political issues >>> more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be >>> investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from >>> political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the >>> rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can >>> support Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still >>> want to see him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that >>> is a well-founded allegation. >>> >>> There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible >>> solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) >>> going on at: >>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences >>> >>> I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the >>> sexual misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / >>> or be mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? >>> >>> Cheers, Ginger >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. >>>> >>>> Mawaki >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally >>>> > >>>> > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He >>>> was >>>> > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and >>>> Rector >>>> > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ >>>> > >>>> > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation >>>> from >>>> > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after >>>> immense >>>> > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean >>>> Embassy and >>>> > seize Julian Assange. >>>> > >>>> > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna >>>> Convention >>>> > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which >>>> encodes >>>> > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled >>>> > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most >>>> > subscribed single international treaty in the world. >>>> > >>>> > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic >>>> premises >>>> > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no >>>> modification or >>>> > qualification elsewhere in the treaty. >>>> > >>>> > Article 22 >>>> > >>>> > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the >>>> > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the >>>> head of >>>> > the mission. >>>> > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate >>>> steps >>>> > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or >>>> damage and >>>> > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment >>>> of its >>>> > dignity. >>>> > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property >>>> thereon >>>> > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, >>>> > requisition, attachment or execution. >>>> > >>>> > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to >>>> arrest the >>>> > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold >>>> War, >>>> > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. >>>> > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British >>>> Embassy to >>>> > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will >>>> result >>>> > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide. >>>> > >>>> > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a >>>> strong >>>> > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of >>>> the >>>> > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of >>>> the >>>> > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international >>>> law. >>>> > >>>> > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British >>>> legislation. >>>> > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its >>>> obligations in >>>> > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the >>>> > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by >>>> the >>>> > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would >>>> leave >>>> > British diplomats with no protection worldwide. >>>> > >>>> > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US >>>> > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the >>>> > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing >>>> the move >>>> > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been >>>> taken in >>>> > Number 10. >>>> > >>>> > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal >>>> Democrats. >>>> > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact >>>> now in >>>> > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government >>>> salaries and >>>> > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any >>>> belief to >>>> > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party >>>> for >>>> > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had >>>> principles. >>>> > >>>> > *** >>>> > >>>> > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) >>>> > >>>> > The Geopolitics of Asylum >>>> > >>>> > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 >>>> > >>>> > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian Assange >>>> from >>>> > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted >>>> political >>>> > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human >>>> rights >>>> > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and >>>> made it >>>> > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, president >>>> of the >>>> > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation >>>> today. >>>> > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a >>>> week in >>>> > Ecuador for discussions of the case. >>>> > >>>> > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations >>>> or by >>>> > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In my >>>> memory, >>>> > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize someone >>>> who has >>>> > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic in >>>> > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for political >>>> > reasons. >>>> > >>>> > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, >>>> Ecuadorian >>>> > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the >>>> British >>>> > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the >>>> United >>>> > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such >>>> > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, >>>> Ricardo >>>> > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit threat” >>>> to >>>> > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British colony,” >>>> Patiño >>>> > added. >>>> > >>>> > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his >>>> government >>>> > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what >>>> may be >>>> > a prolonged showdown. >>>> > >>>> > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict >>>> Assange and >>>> > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator >>>> Diane >>>> > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called >>>> for >>>> > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong >>>> objections from >>>> > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may >>>> prefer to >>>> > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes >>>> with the >>>> > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in >>>> Sweden. >>>> > >>>> > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict >>>> becomes >>>> > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand off >>>> against >>>> > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the wave >>>> of new >>>> > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the >>>> traditional US >>>> > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa >>>> joined >>>> > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in >>>> June 2009, >>>> > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His >>>> government >>>> > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest, >>>> in a >>>> > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the >>>> country.” >>>> > He survived a coup attempt in 2010. >>>> > >>>> > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision without >>>> > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive reaction >>>> by the >>>> > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify >>>> Latin >>>> > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in >>>> relations >>>> > with the United States. >>>> > >>>> > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked >>>> the Obama >>>> > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to participate >>>> in >>>> > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. >>>> Shortly >>>> > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy >>>> chief, Dan >>>> > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama >>>> administration. >>>> > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United >>>> States and >>>> > the region. >>>> > >>>> > *** >>>> > >>>> > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Victoria Nuland >>>> > >>>> > Spokesperson >>>> > >>>> > Daily Press Briefing >>>> > >>>> > Washington, DC >>>> > >>>> > August 16, 2012 >>>> > >>>> > TRANSCRIPT: >>>> > >>>> > 12:44 p.m. EDT >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on >>>> your >>>> > minds. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant >>>> > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the >>>> Swedes. >>>> > I don't have anything particular to add. >>>> > >>>> > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a >>>> > completely neutral, independent observer of it? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it >>>> is an >>>> > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to interject >>>> > ourselves. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or >>>> where he >>>> > may end up going, no. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the >>>> Brits >>>> > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any truth >>>> to >>>> > that at all. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits >>>> do not >>>> > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States >>>> recognizes >>>> > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS >>>> treaty >>>> > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, >>>> presumably, >>>> > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. >>>> recognize >>>> > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal >>>> answer to >>>> > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, diplomatic >>>> > asylum. >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or >>>> the >>>> > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were >>>> leaning on >>>> > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future >>>> plans, >>>> > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our >>>> legal >>>> > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get >>>> back to >>>> > you. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of >>>> the -- >>>> > of the OAS and those signatories. >>>> > >>>> > And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest >>>> that >>>> > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange >>>> removed >>>> > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just >>>> that >>>> > you're not aware of it? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in >>>> this. >>>> > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. >>>> > >>>> > [...] >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason >>>> that the >>>> > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that -- >>>> they >>>> > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- >>>> > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United >>>> States >>>> > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a >>>> credible >>>> > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government >>>> persecution in >>>> > the United States? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>>> > >>>> > Q: No? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>>> > >>>> > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, >>>> the >>>> > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country >>>> > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to >>>> show up in >>>> > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, >>>> you don't >>>> > view that as -- >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran >>>> thought >>>> > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to >>>> > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. >>>> > >>>> > Q: OK. >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: OK? >>>> > >>>> > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would >>>> face >>>> > prosecution? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not >>>> headed >>>> > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to >>>> get into >>>> > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in >>>> his >>>> > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. >>>> > >>>> > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting >>>> him, I >>>> > reject that completely. >>>> > >>>> > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case >>>> does >>>> > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal >>>> > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the >>>> intention >>>> > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face >>>> > prosecution in the United States? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that >>>> we were >>>> > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think >>>> that >>>> > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? >>>> > Obviously, we have -- >>>> > >>>> > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm >>>> going to >>>> > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? >>>> > >>>> > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case >>>> against him. >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much >>>> involved >>>> > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here >>>> on what >>>> > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to >>>> wade into >>>> > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? >>>> > >>>> > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it >>>> doesn't >>>> > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies >>>> and that >>>> > kind of thing. >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Right. >>>> > >>>> > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved >>>> yourselves >>>> > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was >>>> going to >>>> > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other >>>> country, >>>> > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said -- >>>> > >>>> > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in >>>> Beijing >>>> > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected >>>> to >>>> > that, correct? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies >>>> have cited >>>> > British law with regard to the statements they've made about potential >>>> > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, >>>> > international -- as compared to international law. >>>> > >>>> > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of >>>> whether they >>>> > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under >>>> British >>>> > law, I'm going to send you to them. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, >>>> there is >>>> > international law here too, and presumably the United State would >>>> oppose or >>>> > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government >>>> entering or >>>> > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the >>>> world, >>>> > no? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are standing >>>> on >>>> > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to >>>> what the >>>> > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the >>>> moment is. >>>> > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where >>>> we are >>>> > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? >>>> > >>>> > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back >>>> in 1979, >>>> > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a >>>> > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest >>>> of this >>>> > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? >>>> > >>>> > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by the >>>> > Justice Department. Does that include -- >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is >>>> > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak to >>>> what >>>> > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't >>>> have >>>> > the details. OK? Thanks, guys. >>>> > >>>> > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) >>>> > >>>> > DPB #146 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> > >>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> > >>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 14:52:57 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 11:52:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act Message-ID: <1345315977.5752.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> postponed but may reappear very soon as they are committed to find solution to face the protest and opposition. Google was the major stakeholder to run protesting campaign against SOPA/PIPA . However, DMCA and OCILLA are intact in accordance with international treaties relating to copyrights. If we review Google activities and privacy policy; are they compliance with the current International Privacy Legislations? Privacy Act? ------------------------------ On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 5:15 PM PKT McTim wrote: >On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh >wrote: > >> Google has been heading the news lately for all the wrong reasons. They >> were doing fine until PIPA came into the frame. >> > > >There is no PIPA. It was proposed legislation, it did not pass. > > > >-- >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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 18 14:54:14 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 01:54:14 +0700 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <502FE4D6.3050002@gmx.net> On 8/19/2012 12:22 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and > legal details. Very mixed indeed. > > It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, > close Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian > diplomats, does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are > political issues more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can > Assange be investigated on possible criminal actions, but still > protected from political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an > assessment of the rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if > they are true. I can support Assanges' political situation and > Wikileaks activities and still want to see him held > accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that is a > well-founded allegation. But why this: " For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused to explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." Who can make them explain? > There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible > solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) > going on at: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences > > I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the > sexual misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead > to / or be mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? > > Cheers, Ginger Norbert -- Norbert Klein nhklein at gmx.net http://www.thinking21.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 14:56:45 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 00:26:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act In-Reply-To: <1345315977.5752.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1345315977.5752.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Privacy act - possibly not; with the new updates google has been making there are some situations where email ids (specifically @gmail ids) can be harvested along with the matching full name of the person. There's still holes in the system - they've not said its perfect; but yes if google is in a legal battle they could well form the losing side of it. -Chaitanya On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:22 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > postponed but may reappear very soon as they are committed to find > solution to face the protest and opposition. Google was the major > stakeholder to run protesting campaign against SOPA/PIPA . > However, DMCA and OCILLA are intact in accordance with international > treaties relating to copyrights. > If we review Google activities and privacy policy; are they compliance > with the current International Privacy Legislations? Privacy Act? > ------------------------------ > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 5:15 PM PKT McTim wrote: > > >On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh > >wrote: > > > >> Google has been heading the news lately for all the wrong reasons. They > >> were doing fine until PIPA came into the frame. > >> > > > > > >There is no PIPA. It was proposed legislation, it did not pass. > > > > > > > >-- > >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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 15:14:40 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:14:40 +1200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: @Fahd, you are right it is the same article, I did'nt realise it was the same. The original is the link that Ginger posted, the link that I picked up was from twitter...In any event, Jovan teases out potential diplomatic options. Assuming that the delicate negotiations are underway, we can only wait and see what the outcome will be. On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > Thanks Salanieta. > > This is the same article that was circulated by Ginger in an earlier > e-mail. > > Fahd > > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> There is an interesting article on the matter in one of the blogs by >> Jovan Kurbalija, see: >> http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/the-assange-asylum-case-five-possible-solutions-and-many-probable-consequences/ >> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < >> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> The Assange debate reminds me of JFK when he was murdered for all the >>> wrong reasons. >>> >>> In Jordan, when a new government is installed, the prime minister is >>> given a couple of weeks to assemble his cabinet before they are given the >>> vote of confidence from the house of parliament. In Jordan's history, only >>> one government was not given the vote of confidence. The reason is because >>> that prime minister used the slogan of "Cracking Down Corruption". Corrupt >>> politicians do not want to be pointed at. >>> >>> I can see from the Assange case that one of the main reasons the world >>> is on their knees wanting him is - maybe - because corrupt politicians do >>> not want to get exposed. >>> >>> Fahd >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>>> The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and >>>> legal details. >>>> >>>> It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, close >>>> Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian diplomats, >>>> does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political issues >>>> more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be >>>> investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from >>>> political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the >>>> rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can >>>> support Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still >>>> want to see him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that >>>> is a well-founded allegation. >>>> >>>> There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible >>>> solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) >>>> going on at: >>>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences >>>> >>>> I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the >>>> sexual misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / >>>> or be mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? >>>> >>>> Cheers, Ginger >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. >>>>> >>>>> Mawaki >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally >>>>> > >>>>> > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He >>>>> was >>>>> > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 >>>>> and Rector >>>>> > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ >>>>> > >>>>> > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation >>>>> from >>>>> > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after >>>>> immense >>>>> > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean >>>>> Embassy and >>>>> > seize Julian Assange. >>>>> > >>>>> > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna >>>>> Convention >>>>> > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which >>>>> encodes >>>>> > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled >>>>> > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most >>>>> > subscribed single international treaty in the world. >>>>> > >>>>> > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic >>>>> premises >>>>> > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no >>>>> modification or >>>>> > qualification elsewhere in the treaty. >>>>> > >>>>> > Article 22 >>>>> > >>>>> > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the >>>>> > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the >>>>> head of >>>>> > the mission. >>>>> > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all >>>>> appropriate steps >>>>> > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or >>>>> damage and >>>>> > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment >>>>> of its >>>>> > dignity. >>>>> > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property >>>>> thereon >>>>> > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from >>>>> search, >>>>> > requisition, attachment or execution. >>>>> > >>>>> > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to >>>>> arrest the >>>>> > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the >>>>> Cold War, >>>>> > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s >>>>> embassies. >>>>> > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British >>>>> Embassy to >>>>> > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law >>>>> will result >>>>> > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide. >>>>> > >>>>> > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a >>>>> strong >>>>> > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom >>>>> of the >>>>> > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of >>>>> the >>>>> > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of >>>>> international law. >>>>> > >>>>> > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British >>>>> legislation. >>>>> > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its >>>>> obligations in >>>>> > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the >>>>> > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by >>>>> the >>>>> > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would >>>>> leave >>>>> > British diplomats with no protection worldwide. >>>>> > >>>>> > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US >>>>> > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against >>>>> the >>>>> > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing >>>>> the move >>>>> > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been >>>>> taken in >>>>> > Number 10. >>>>> > >>>>> > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal >>>>> Democrats. >>>>> > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” >>>>> impact now in >>>>> > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government >>>>> salaries and >>>>> > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any >>>>> belief to >>>>> > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party >>>>> for >>>>> > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had >>>>> principles. >>>>> > >>>>> > *** >>>>> > >>>>> > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) >>>>> > >>>>> > The Geopolitics of Asylum >>>>> > >>>>> > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 >>>>> > >>>>> > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian >>>>> Assange from >>>>> > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted >>>>> political >>>>> > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human >>>>> rights >>>>> > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and >>>>> made it >>>>> > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, >>>>> president of the >>>>> > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation >>>>> today. >>>>> > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a >>>>> week in >>>>> > Ecuador for discussions of the case. >>>>> > >>>>> > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations >>>>> or by >>>>> > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In my >>>>> memory, >>>>> > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize someone >>>>> who has >>>>> > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic in >>>>> > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for >>>>> political >>>>> > reasons. >>>>> > >>>>> > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, >>>>> Ecuadorian >>>>> > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the >>>>> British >>>>> > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the >>>>> United >>>>> > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such >>>>> > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, >>>>> Ricardo >>>>> > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit threat” >>>>> to >>>>> > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British >>>>> colony,” Patiño >>>>> > added. >>>>> > >>>>> > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his >>>>> government >>>>> > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what >>>>> may be >>>>> > a prolonged showdown. >>>>> > >>>>> > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict >>>>> Assange and >>>>> > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator >>>>> Diane >>>>> > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called >>>>> for >>>>> > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong >>>>> objections from >>>>> > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may >>>>> prefer to >>>>> > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes >>>>> with the >>>>> > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in >>>>> Sweden. >>>>> > >>>>> > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict >>>>> becomes >>>>> > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand off >>>>> against >>>>> > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the wave >>>>> of new >>>>> > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the >>>>> traditional US >>>>> > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa >>>>> joined >>>>> > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in >>>>> June 2009, >>>>> > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His >>>>> government >>>>> > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest, >>>>> in a >>>>> > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the >>>>> country.” >>>>> > He survived a coup attempt in 2010. >>>>> > >>>>> > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision >>>>> without >>>>> > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive >>>>> reaction by the >>>>> > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify >>>>> Latin >>>>> > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in >>>>> relations >>>>> > with the United States. >>>>> > >>>>> > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked >>>>> the Obama >>>>> > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to >>>>> participate in >>>>> > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. >>>>> Shortly >>>>> > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy >>>>> chief, Dan >>>>> > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama >>>>> administration. >>>>> > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United >>>>> States and >>>>> > the region. >>>>> > >>>>> > *** >>>>> > >>>>> > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Victoria Nuland >>>>> > >>>>> > Spokesperson >>>>> > >>>>> > Daily Press Briefing >>>>> > >>>>> > Washington, DC >>>>> > >>>>> > August 16, 2012 >>>>> > >>>>> > TRANSCRIPT: >>>>> > >>>>> > 12:44 p.m. EDT >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s >>>>> on your >>>>> > minds. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to >>>>> grant >>>>> > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the >>>>> Swedes. >>>>> > I don't have anything particular to add. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a >>>>> > completely neutral, independent observer of it? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it >>>>> is an >>>>> > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to >>>>> interject >>>>> > ourselves. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or >>>>> where he >>>>> > may end up going, no. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the >>>>> Brits >>>>> > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any >>>>> truth to >>>>> > that at all. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits >>>>> do not >>>>> > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States >>>>> recognizes >>>>> > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS >>>>> treaty >>>>> > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, >>>>> presumably, >>>>> > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. >>>>> recognize >>>>> > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal >>>>> answer to >>>>> > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, >>>>> diplomatic >>>>> > asylum. >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or >>>>> the >>>>> > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were >>>>> leaning on >>>>> > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future >>>>> plans, >>>>> > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our >>>>> legal >>>>> > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get >>>>> back to >>>>> > you. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of >>>>> the -- >>>>> > of the OAS and those signatories. >>>>> > >>>>> > And then when you said that you don't have any information to >>>>> suggest that >>>>> > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange >>>>> removed >>>>> > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just >>>>> that >>>>> > you're not aware of it? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in >>>>> this. >>>>> > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. >>>>> > >>>>> > [...] >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason >>>>> that the >>>>> > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that >>>>> -- they >>>>> > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- >>>>> > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the >>>>> United States >>>>> > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a >>>>> credible >>>>> > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government >>>>> persecution in >>>>> > the United States? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: No? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, >>>>> the >>>>> > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country >>>>> > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to >>>>> show up in >>>>> > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, >>>>> you don't >>>>> > view that as -- >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran >>>>> thought >>>>> > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to >>>>> > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: OK. >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: OK? >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would >>>>> face >>>>> > prosecution? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was >>>>> not headed >>>>> > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to >>>>> get into >>>>> > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in >>>>> his >>>>> > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. >>>>> > >>>>> > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on >>>>> persecuting him, I >>>>> > reject that completely. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case >>>>> does >>>>> > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the >>>>> legal >>>>> > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the >>>>> intention >>>>> > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face >>>>> > prosecution in the United States? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that >>>>> we were >>>>> > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think >>>>> that >>>>> > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? >>>>> > Obviously, we have -- >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm >>>>> going to >>>>> > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case >>>>> against him. >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much >>>>> involved >>>>> > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here >>>>> on what >>>>> > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to >>>>> wade into >>>>> > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it >>>>> doesn't >>>>> > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies >>>>> and that >>>>> > kind of thing. >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Right. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved >>>>> yourselves >>>>> > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was >>>>> going to >>>>> > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other >>>>> country, >>>>> > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said -- >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in >>>>> Beijing >>>>> > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected >>>>> to >>>>> > that, correct? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies >>>>> have cited >>>>> > British law with regard to the statements they've made about >>>>> potential >>>>> > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, >>>>> > international -- as compared to international law. >>>>> > >>>>> > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of >>>>> whether they >>>>> > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under >>>>> British >>>>> > law, I'm going to send you to them. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, >>>>> there is >>>>> > international law here too, and presumably the United State would >>>>> oppose or >>>>> > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government >>>>> entering or >>>>> > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the >>>>> world, >>>>> > no? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are >>>>> standing on >>>>> > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to >>>>> what the >>>>> > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the >>>>> moment is. >>>>> > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where >>>>> we are >>>>> > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back >>>>> in 1979, >>>>> > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a >>>>> > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest >>>>> of this >>>>> > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by >>>>> the >>>>> > Justice Department. Does that include -- >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is >>>>> > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak >>>>> to what >>>>> > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't >>>>> have >>>>> > the details. OK? Thanks, guys. >>>>> > >>>>> > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) >>>>> > >>>>> > DPB #146 >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> > >>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> > >>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Aug 18 15:49:50 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 12:49:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act Message-ID: <1345319390.60349.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Sala, >Breach of privacy (when caught) = apology  As the case of Google settled a case by paying $00m and become the owner of the IP/copyright material of its users. >A few key governance issues come to mind (especially when one thinks of what Marilia had raised about Facebook and arbitrarily taking down pictures) Everyone has a minimal right of the protection of his privacy when s/he is browsing anonymously, he has protection of knowing others that who is he, what he is doing. But suddenly lost his rights when s/he use Google Apps or even Google Search engine. Why? >Who should the the likes of multinational organizations like Google, Facebook be answerable to? >Is there a basic minimum standard of acceptable behavior or does it differ with jurisdictions? These big organizations has influence on legislation and policy development process directly or indirectly. Google anti-SOPA/PIPA petition shows 4.5m vote. >Do we just leave it to the countries to deal with these multinationals such as in the case of Germany when they rebuked Facebook for the "like" feature or in India with Vinay Rai when he took Google, Facebook to the New Delhi High Court to get them to take down obscene publications or in the case of Australia as described in the link that Imran sent? I suggest that this governance issue must be discussed on global forum (instead of leaving this policy making process by countries individually), and to provide guidance a statement should be released in favor of the Global Internet Users Community, (the public) and should try to bring these big organizations on a dialogue table to negotiate with them to change their Anti-Privacy activities. Regards Imran -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 16:01:00 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 01:31:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act In-Reply-To: <1345319390.60349.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1345319390.60349.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Surely they dont become OWNERS of the IP/copyright!!?? On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:19 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > Dear Sala, > >Breach of privacy (when caught) = apology > > As the case of Google settled a case by paying $00m and become the owner > of the IP/copyright material of its users. > > > >A few key governance issues come to mind (especially when one thinks of > what Marilia had raised about Facebook and arbitrarily taking down pictures) > > Everyone has a minimal right of the protection of his privacy when s/he is > browsing anonymously, he has protection of knowing others that who is he, > what he is doing. > > But suddenly lost his rights when s/he use Google Apps or even Google > Search engine. Why? > > >Who should the the likes of multinational organizations like Google, > Facebook be answerable to? > > >Is there a basic minimum standard of acceptable behavior or does it > differ with jurisdictions? > > These big organizations has influence on legislation and policy > development process directly or indirectly. > > Google anti-SOPA/PIPA > petition shows 4.5m vote. > > >Do we just leave it to the countries to deal with these multinationals > such as in the case of Germany when they rebuked Facebook for the "like" > feature or in India with Vinay Rai when he took Google, Facebook to the New > Delhi High Court to get them to take down obscene publications or in the > case of Australia as described in the link that Imran sent? > > I suggest that this governance issue must be discussed on global forum > (instead of leaving this policy making process by countries individually), > and to provide guidance a statement should be released in favor of the > Global Internet Users Community, (the public) and should try to bring these > big organizations on a dialogue table to negotiate with them to change > their Anti-Privacy activities. > > Regards > > Imran > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 18 18:03:58 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:33:58 -0430 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <502FE4D6.3050002@gmx.net> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <502FE4D6.3050002@gmx.net> Message-ID: Norbert said: "But why this: " For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused to explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." Who can make them explain?" Ginger says: That's it in a nutshell, Norbert, thank you: Indeed, why couldn't the investigation/questioning take place in the UK? Or why couldn't he be questioned, in court, and face his accusers, by remote participation? This is done in criminal cases, when the witnesses might be in danger. Why can't it be done when the defendant might be in danger? Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 18 August 2012 14:24, Norbert Klein wrote: > On 8/19/2012 12:22 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and > legal details. > > Very mixed indeed. > > > It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, close > Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian diplomats, > does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political issues > more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be > investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from > political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the > rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can > support Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still > want to see him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that > is a well-founded allegation. > > But why this: > > " For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused to > explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." > > Who can make them explain? > > There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible > solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) going > on at: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences > > I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the sexual > misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / or be > mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? > > Cheers, Ginger > > > Norbert > > -- > Norbert Klein > nhklein at gmx.net > http://www.thinking21.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Sat Aug 18 18:24:47 2012 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:54:47 -0430 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: Aldo, I think it is very important that facing his responsibilities re: the sexual misconduct charges, should not put Assange in danger of real or imagined charges in the WikiLeaks matter. But three, not two worst-case scenarios are possible: 1. Assange is turned over to a third country to face unrelated charges, when he is sent to Sweden to face charges of sexual misconduct. 2. Assange does not get a fair trial on the sexual misconduct charges, because of prejudice about the WikiLeaks case. **3. Assange does not face charges of sexual misconduct, because he is using the WikiLeaks situation as a shield. Victimless crimes might easily be settled by plea bargaining, or through justice at a discount. I don't think rape should be included in this possibility. Assange should have a chance to face his accusers, and defend himself, or pay the price, if he is guilty. As you (Aldo) point out, there are other options than sending Assange to Sweden or not sending him to Sweden. (As Norbert points out realistically in another post). Possible strategies: --Questioning in the UK. --Video questioning. --Remote video questioning, real-time, in a courtroom. I am sure legal experts can come up with other more creative, and workable options to allow the sexual misconduct charges to be fully and clearly aired, without endangering Assange's political rights. I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated harassment or charge. I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing charges of rape if the are legitimate. I'm not sure this has anything to do with IG. But I do think it is important. Ginger On 18 August 2012 14:00, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > Ginger, > > the question is not whether the allegations are true - factual issues we > can't decide. > The question is whether Sweden, acting as proxy, will take that excuse to > jail him for good and throw away the key. > After all, that's what the US want. > > My feeling is that there is some truth in the criminal matter > but that Assange would not get a "fair" trial, in the sense that the usual > discretionary possibilities will be denied to him. > One fears a self-righteous Swede - see Bergman movies. > > Don't forget: over 90% of the cases are plea-bargained in the US. It is > normal to get "justice at a discount". Why not here? > > Aldo > > > > > > > On 18 August 2012 19:22, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and >> legal details. >> >> It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, close >> Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian diplomats, >> does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political issues >> more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be >> investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from >> political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the >> rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can >> support Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still >> want to see him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that >> is a well-founded allegation. >> >> There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible >> solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) going >> on at: >> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences >> >> I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the sexual >> misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / or be >> mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? >> >> Cheers, Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >>> Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally >>> > >>> > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He >>> was >>> > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and >>> Rector >>> > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. >>> > >>> > >>> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ >>> > >>> > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation >>> from >>> > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after >>> immense >>> > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean >>> Embassy and >>> > seize Julian Assange. >>> > >>> > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna >>> Convention >>> > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which >>> encodes >>> > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled >>> > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most >>> > subscribed single international treaty in the world. >>> > >>> > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic >>> premises >>> > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification >>> or >>> > qualification elsewhere in the treaty. >>> > >>> > Article 22 >>> > >>> > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the >>> > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the >>> head of >>> > the mission. >>> > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate >>> steps >>> > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage >>> and >>> > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment >>> of its >>> > dignity. >>> > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property >>> thereon >>> > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, >>> > requisition, attachment or execution. >>> > >>> > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to >>> arrest the >>> > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold >>> War, >>> > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. >>> > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British >>> Embassy to >>> > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will >>> result >>> > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide. >>> > >>> > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a >>> strong >>> > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of >>> the >>> > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of >>> the >>> > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international >>> law. >>> > >>> > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British >>> legislation. >>> > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its >>> obligations in >>> > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the >>> > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the >>> > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would >>> leave >>> > British diplomats with no protection worldwide. >>> > >>> > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US >>> > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the >>> > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing >>> the move >>> > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken >>> in >>> > Number 10. >>> > >>> > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal >>> Democrats. >>> > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact >>> now in >>> > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government >>> salaries and >>> > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any >>> belief to >>> > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party >>> for >>> > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had >>> principles. >>> > >>> > *** >>> > >>> > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) >>> > >>> > The Geopolitics of Asylum >>> > >>> > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 >>> > >>> > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian Assange >>> from >>> > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted >>> political >>> > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human >>> rights >>> > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and >>> made it >>> > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, president >>> of the >>> > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation >>> today. >>> > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a >>> week in >>> > Ecuador for discussions of the case. >>> > >>> > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations >>> or by >>> > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In my >>> memory, >>> > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize someone >>> who has >>> > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic in >>> > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for political >>> > reasons. >>> > >>> > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, >>> Ecuadorian >>> > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the >>> British >>> > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the >>> United >>> > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such >>> > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, >>> Ricardo >>> > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit threat” to >>> > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British colony,” >>> Patiño >>> > added. >>> > >>> > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his >>> government >>> > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what >>> may be >>> > a prolonged showdown. >>> > >>> > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict >>> Assange and >>> > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator >>> Diane >>> > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called >>> for >>> > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong objections >>> from >>> > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may prefer >>> to >>> > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes with >>> the >>> > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in Sweden. >>> > >>> > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict >>> becomes >>> > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand off >>> against >>> > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the wave >>> of new >>> > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the >>> traditional US >>> > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa >>> joined >>> > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in June >>> 2009, >>> > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His >>> government >>> > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest, >>> in a >>> > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the >>> country.” >>> > He survived a coup attempt in 2010. >>> > >>> > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision without >>> > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive reaction >>> by the >>> > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify >>> Latin >>> > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in >>> relations >>> > with the United States. >>> > >>> > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked the >>> Obama >>> > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to participate >>> in >>> > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. >>> Shortly >>> > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy >>> chief, Dan >>> > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama >>> administration. >>> > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United >>> States and >>> > the region. >>> > >>> > *** >>> > >>> > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm >>> > >>> > >>> > Victoria Nuland >>> > >>> > Spokesperson >>> > >>> > Daily Press Briefing >>> > >>> > Washington, DC >>> > >>> > August 16, 2012 >>> > >>> > TRANSCRIPT: >>> > >>> > 12:44 p.m. EDT >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on >>> your >>> > minds. >>> > >>> > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant >>> > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the >>> Swedes. >>> > I don't have anything particular to add. >>> > >>> > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a >>> > completely neutral, independent observer of it? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it >>> is an >>> > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to interject >>> > ourselves. >>> > >>> > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or >>> where he >>> > may end up going, no. >>> > >>> > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the >>> Brits >>> > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any truth >>> to >>> > that at all. >>> > >>> > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits >>> do not >>> > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States >>> recognizes >>> > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS treaty >>> > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, >>> presumably, >>> > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. >>> recognize >>> > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal answer >>> to >>> > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. >>> > >>> > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, diplomatic >>> > asylum. >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or >>> the >>> > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were leaning >>> on >>> > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future >>> plans, >>> > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our >>> legal >>> > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get >>> back to >>> > you. >>> > >>> > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of >>> the -- >>> > of the OAS and those signatories. >>> > >>> > And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest >>> that >>> > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange >>> removed >>> > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just >>> that >>> > you're not aware of it? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in >>> this. >>> > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. >>> > >>> > [...] >>> > >>> > >>> > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason that >>> the >>> > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that -- >>> they >>> > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- >>> > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United >>> States >>> > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a >>> credible >>> > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government >>> persecution in >>> > the United States? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>> > >>> > Q: No? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>> > >>> > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, the >>> > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country >>> > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to show >>> up in >>> > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, you >>> don't >>> > view that as -- >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran >>> thought >>> > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to >>> > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. >>> > >>> > Q: OK. >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: OK? >>> > >>> > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would >>> face >>> > prosecution? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not >>> headed >>> > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to get >>> into >>> > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in >>> his >>> > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. >>> > >>> > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting >>> him, I >>> > reject that completely. >>> > >>> > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case >>> does >>> > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal >>> > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the >>> intention >>> > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face >>> > prosecution in the United States? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that >>> we were >>> > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think >>> that >>> > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? >>> > Obviously, we have -- >>> > >>> > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm >>> going to >>> > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? >>> > >>> > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case against >>> him. >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much >>> involved >>> > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here >>> on what >>> > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to >>> wade into >>> > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? >>> > >>> > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it >>> doesn't >>> > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies >>> and that >>> > kind of thing. >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Right. >>> > >>> > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved >>> yourselves >>> > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was >>> going to >>> > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other >>> country, >>> > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: As I said -- >>> > >>> > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in >>> Beijing >>> > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected to >>> > that, correct? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies have >>> cited >>> > British law with regard to the statements they've made about potential >>> > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, >>> > international -- as compared to international law. >>> > >>> > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of whether >>> they >>> > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under >>> British >>> > law, I'm going to send you to them. >>> > >>> > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, there >>> is >>> > international law here too, and presumably the United State would >>> oppose or >>> > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government >>> entering or >>> > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the >>> world, >>> > no? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are standing >>> on >>> > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to >>> what the >>> > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the >>> moment is. >>> > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where >>> we are >>> > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? >>> > >>> > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back in >>> 1979, >>> > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a >>> > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest of >>> this >>> > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? >>> > >>> > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by the >>> > Justice Department. Does that include -- >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is >>> > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak to >>> what >>> > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. >>> > >>> > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? >>> > >>> > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't >>> have >>> > the details. OK? Thanks, guys. >>> > >>> > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) >>> > >>> > DPB #146 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Aldo Matteucci > 65, Pourtalèsstr. > CH 3074 MURI b. Bern > Switzerland > aldo.matteucci at gmail.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 18:34:33 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (c.a.) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 19:34:33 -0300 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <502EAB2C.3060201@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <3111EABB-8335-4D7F-A1A0-772F5ACA7864@cafonso.ca> So, what would you have then against Verisign? Sent from a tablet On 17/08/2012, at 23:59, McTim wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I assume McTim has already analyzed ownership relations of all domain > name proponents? > > You are mixing apples and oranges. I identified the public interest being served by allowing more gTLDs. > > > > > I would not dare to assume anything before doing this. > In my view as far as I can see (who "owns", who operates etc), the big > domain companies will keep most of the pie. > > > Would you serve a greater public interest by denying orgs the ability to apply for the name they want because they may be large/corporate/rich/US orgs? > > > -- > 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 18:45:22 2012 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:45:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <502FE4D6.3050002@gmx.net> Message-ID: <1F559791-B3B1-4A55-BC22-EC64E05EB7BB@gmail.com> Assange case is an example about how laws and international conventions and institutons are only applied according to political and geopolitical interest. As an ecuadorian and from Ecuador I have to recognize that ecuadorian President is doing right from a legal (both national and international) And political point of view. Internationa Relations are plenty of situations where political (read militar and/or commercial) presure is applied to maintein the international status in favor of status quo of hegemonic powers. Carlos Vera Enviado desde mi iPhone El 18/08/2012, a las 17:03, Ginger Paque escribió: > The Assange asylum case: possible solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) going on at: http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 18:46:21 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:46:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <502FA588.8050508@panamo.eu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <502EAB2C.3060201@cafonso.ca> <502FA588.8050508@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Le 18/08/12 04:59, McTim a écrit : > > Would you serve a greater public interest by denying orgs the ability to > apply for the name they want because they may be large/corporate/rich/US > orgs? > > Worldwide public interest in an unbalanced world! > If you *really* want to internationalize, it could/should be ruled for > instance: > > *"Each applicant / technical operator can submit for 10 TLDs max."* > > I was told that we can obtain change if we ask for it. So it is still > possible. Let's just talk... > The rules are made now, you want to change them after ppl have invested? Good Luck with that! FWIW, I was never a big fan of new gTLDs, but we have what we have after many years of rule making. -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 18:53:00 2012 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 17:53:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0819D322-2A7F-45DE-9974-2A038A38AB1E@gmail.com> > facing his responsibilities re: the sexual misconduct charges Do you know that: the misconduct is about not inform both girls he was no using protection in the sexual relation? It's not about other actions from Assange I wonder how this girls does not were aware of this by themself This is a very particular case in Sweden legislation I guess... Carlos Vera Enviado desde mi iPhone El 18/08/2012, a las 17:24, Ginger Paque escribió: > Aldo, > I think it is very important that facing his responsibilities re: the sexual misconduct charges, should not put Assange in danger of real or imagined charges in the WikiLeaks matter. > > But three, not two worst-case scenarios are possible: > 1. Assange is turned over to a third country to face unrelated charges, when he is sent to Sweden to face charges of sexual misconduct. > 2. Assange does not get a fair trial on the sexual misconduct charges, because of prejudice about the WikiLeaks case. > **3. Assange does not face charges of sexual misconduct, because he is using the WikiLeaks situation as a shield. Victimless crimes might easily be settled by plea bargaining, or through justice at a discount. I don't think rape should be included in this possibility. Assange should have a chance to face his accusers, and defend himself, or pay the price, if he is guilty. > > As you (Aldo) point out, there are other options than sending Assange to Sweden or not sending him to Sweden. (As Norbert points out realistically in another post). Possible strategies: > --Questioning in the UK. > --Video questioning. > --Remote video questioning, real-time, in a courtroom. > I am sure legal experts can come up with other more creative, and workable options to allow the sexual misconduct charges to be fully and clearly aired, without endangering Assange's political rights. > > I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated harassment or charge. > I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing charges of rape if the are legitimate. > > I'm not sure this has anything to do with IG. But I do think it is important. > > Ginger > > > > > > > > On 18 August 2012 14:00, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > Ginger, > > the question is not whether the allegations are true - factual issues we can't decide. > The question is whether Sweden, acting as proxy, will take that excuse to jail him for good and throw away the key. > After all, that's what the US want. > > My feeling is that there is some truth in the criminal matter > but that Assange would not get a "fair" trial, in the sense that the usual discretionary possibilities will be denied to him. > One fears a self-righteous Swede - see Bergman movies. > > Don't forget: over 90% of the cases are plea-bargained in the US. It is normal to get "justice at a discount". Why not here? > > Aldo > > > > > > > On 18 August 2012 19:22, Ginger Paque wrote: > The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and legal details. > > It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, close Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian diplomats, does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political issues more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can support Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still want to see him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that is a well-founded allegation. > > There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) going on at: http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences > > I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the sexual misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / or be mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? > > Cheers, Ginger > > > > > > > On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. > > Mawaki > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > > > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally > > > > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was > > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector > > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. > > > > http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ > > > > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from > > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense > > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and > > seize Julian Assange. > > > > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention > > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes > > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled > > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most > > subscribed single international treaty in the world. > > > > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic premises > > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification or > > qualification elsewhere in the treaty. > > > > Article 22 > > > > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the > > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of > > the mission. > > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps > > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and > > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its > > dignity. > > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon > > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, > > requisition, attachment or execution. > > > > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the > > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, > > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. > > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to > > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result > > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide. > > > > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong > > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the > > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the > > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law. > > > > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. > > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in > > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the > > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the > > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave > > British diplomats with no protection worldwide. > > > > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US > > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the > > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the move > > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in > > Number 10. > > > > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal Democrats. > > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact now in > > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries and > > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any belief to > > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for > > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had principles. > > > > *** > > > > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) > > > > The Geopolitics of Asylum > > > > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 > > > > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian Assange from > > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted political > > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human rights > > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and made it > > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, president of the > > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation today. > > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a week in > > Ecuador for discussions of the case. > > > > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations or by > > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In my memory, > > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize someone who has > > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic in > > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for political > > reasons. > > > > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, Ecuadorian > > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the British > > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the United > > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such > > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, Ricardo > > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit threat” to > > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British colony,” Patiño > > added. > > > > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his government > > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what may be > > a prolonged showdown. > > > > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict Assange and > > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator Diane > > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called for > > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong objections from > > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may prefer to > > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes with the > > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in Sweden. > > > > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict becomes > > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand off against > > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the wave of new > > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the traditional US > > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa joined > > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in June 2009, > > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His government > > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest, in a > > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the country.” > > He survived a coup attempt in 2010. > > > > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision without > > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive reaction by the > > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify Latin > > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in relations > > with the United States. > > > > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked the Obama > > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to participate in > > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. Shortly > > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy chief, Dan > > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama administration. > > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United States and > > the region. > > > > *** > > > > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm > > > > > > Victoria Nuland > > > > Spokesperson > > > > Daily Press Briefing > > > > Washington, DC > > > > August 16, 2012 > > > > TRANSCRIPT: > > > > 12:44 p.m. EDT > > > > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on your > > minds. > > > > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant > > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? > > > > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the Swedes. > > I don't have anything particular to add. > > > > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a > > completely neutral, independent observer of it? > > > > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it is an > > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to interject > > ourselves. > > > > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? > > > > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or where he > > may end up going, no. > > > > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the Brits > > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. > > > > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any truth to > > that at all. > > > > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits do not > > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States recognizes > > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS treaty > > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, presumably, > > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. recognize > > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? > > > > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal answer to > > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. > > > > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, diplomatic > > asylum. > > > > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or the > > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were leaning on > > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future plans, > > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our legal > > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get back to > > you. > > > > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of the -- > > of the OAS and those signatories. > > > > And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest that > > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange removed > > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just that > > you're not aware of it? > > > > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in this. > > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. > > > > [...] > > > > > > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason that the > > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that -- they > > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- > > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United States > > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a credible > > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government persecution in > > the United States? > > > > MS. NULAND: No. > > > > Q: No? > > > > MS. NULAND: No. > > > > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, the > > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country > > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to show up in > > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, you don't > > view that as -- > > > > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran thought > > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to > > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. > > > > Q: OK. > > > > MS. NULAND: OK? > > > > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would face > > prosecution? > > > > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not headed > > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to get into > > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in his > > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. > > > > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting him, I > > reject that completely. > > > > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case does > > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal > > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the intention > > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face > > prosecution in the United States? > > > > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that we were > > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think that > > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? > > Obviously, we have -- > > > > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. > > > > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm going to > > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? > > > > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case against him. > > > > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much involved > > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here on what > > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to wade into > > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? > > > > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it doesn't > > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies and that > > kind of thing. > > > > MS. NULAND: Right. > > > > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved yourselves > > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was going to > > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other country, > > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? > > > > MS. NULAND: As I said -- > > > > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in Beijing > > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected to > > that, correct? > > > > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies have cited > > British law with regard to the statements they've made about potential > > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, > > international -- as compared to international law. > > > > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of whether they > > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under British > > law, I'm going to send you to them. > > > > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, there is > > international law here too, and presumably the United State would oppose or > > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government entering or > > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the world, > > no? > > > > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are standing on > > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to what the > > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the moment is. > > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where we are > > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? > > > > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back in 1979, > > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? > > > > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a > > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest of this > > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? > > > > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by the > > Justice Department. Does that include -- > > > > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is > > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak to what > > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. > > > > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? > > > > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't have > > the details. OK? Thanks, guys. > > > > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) > > > > DPB #146 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Aldo Matteucci > 65, Pourtalèsstr. > CH 3074 MURI b. Bern > Switzerland > aldo.matteucci at gmail.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 19:13:42 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:13:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <0819D322-2A7F-45DE-9974-2A038A38AB1E@gmail.com> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <0819D322-2A7F-45DE-9974-2A038A38AB1E@gmail.com> Message-ID: A fundamental principle in criminal law is that only if Sweden had already laid charges and served this on him physically, then they can begin to make demands. As for extradition requests of this nature or obligations stemming from various extraditions can only kick in after the charge has been served on the person and the usual summons to attend trial. Question is were charges laid against Assange? On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > facing his responsibilities re: the sexual misconduct charges > > > Do you know that: the misconduct is about not inform both girls he was no > using protection in the sexual relation? It's not about other actions from > Assange > > I wonder how this girls does not were aware of this by themself > > This is a very particular case in Sweden legislation I guess... > > Carlos Vera > Enviado desde mi iPhone > > El 18/08/2012, a las 17:24, Ginger Paque escribió: > > Aldo, > I think it is very important that facing his responsibilities re: the > sexual misconduct charges, should not put Assange in danger of real or > imagined charges in the WikiLeaks matter. > > But three, not two worst-case scenarios are possible: > 1. Assange is turned over to a third country to face unrelated charges, > when he is sent to Sweden to face charges of sexual misconduct. > 2. Assange does not get a fair trial on the sexual misconduct charges, > because of prejudice about the WikiLeaks case. > **3. Assange does not face charges of sexual misconduct, because he is > using the WikiLeaks situation as a shield. Victimless crimes might easily > be settled by plea bargaining, or through justice at a discount. I don't > think rape should be included in this possibility. Assange should have a > chance to face his accusers, and defend himself, or pay the price, if he is > guilty. > > As you (Aldo) point out, there are other options than sending Assange to > Sweden or not sending him to Sweden. (As Norbert points out realistically > in another post). Possible strategies: > --Questioning in the UK. > --Video questioning. > --Remote video questioning, real-time, in a courtroom. > I am sure legal experts can come up with other more creative, and workable > options to allow the sexual misconduct charges to be fully and clearly > aired, without endangering Assange's political rights. > > I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks > work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated > harassment or charge. > I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing > charges of rape if the are legitimate. > > I'm not sure this has anything to do with IG. But I do think it is > important. > > Ginger > > > > > > > > On 18 August 2012 14:00, Aldo Matteucci wrote: > >> Ginger, >> >> the question is not whether the allegations are true - factual issues we >> can't decide. >> The question is whether Sweden, acting as proxy, will take that excuse to >> jail him for good and throw away the key. >> After all, that's what the US want. >> >> My feeling is that there is some truth in the criminal matter >> but that Assange would not get a "fair" trial, in the sense that the >> usual discretionary possibilities will be denied to him. >> One fears a self-righteous Swede - see Bergman movies. >> >> Don't forget: over 90% of the cases are plea-bargained in the US. It is >> normal to get "justice at a discount". Why not here? >> >> Aldo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18 August 2012 19:22, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and >>> legal details. >>> >>> It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, close >>> Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian diplomats, >>> does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political issues >>> more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be >>> investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from >>> political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the >>> rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can >>> support Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still >>> want to see him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that >>> is a well-founded allegation. >>> >>> There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible >>> solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) >>> going on at: >>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences >>> >>> I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the >>> sexual misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / >>> or be mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? >>> >>> Cheers, Ginger >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. >>>> >>>> Mawaki >>>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally >>>> > >>>> > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He >>>> was >>>> > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and >>>> Rector >>>> > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ >>>> > >>>> > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation >>>> from >>>> > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after >>>> immense >>>> > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean >>>> Embassy and >>>> > seize Julian Assange. >>>> > >>>> > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna >>>> Convention >>>> > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which >>>> encodes >>>> > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled >>>> > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most >>>> > subscribed single international treaty in the world. >>>> > >>>> > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic >>>> premises >>>> > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no >>>> modification or >>>> > qualification elsewhere in the treaty. >>>> > >>>> > Article 22 >>>> > >>>> > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the >>>> > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the >>>> head of >>>> > the mission. >>>> > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate >>>> steps >>>> > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or >>>> damage and >>>> > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment >>>> of its >>>> > dignity. >>>> > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property >>>> thereon >>>> > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, >>>> > requisition, attachment or execution. >>>> > >>>> > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to >>>> arrest the >>>> > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold >>>> War, >>>> > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. >>>> > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British >>>> Embassy to >>>> > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will >>>> result >>>> > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide. >>>> > >>>> > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a >>>> strong >>>> > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of >>>> the >>>> > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of >>>> the >>>> > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international >>>> law. >>>> > >>>> > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British >>>> legislation. >>>> > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its >>>> obligations in >>>> > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the >>>> > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by >>>> the >>>> > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would >>>> leave >>>> > British diplomats with no protection worldwide. >>>> > >>>> > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US >>>> > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the >>>> > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing >>>> the move >>>> > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been >>>> taken in >>>> > Number 10. >>>> > >>>> > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal >>>> Democrats. >>>> > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact >>>> now in >>>> > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government >>>> salaries and >>>> > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any >>>> belief to >>>> > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party >>>> for >>>> > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had >>>> principles. >>>> > >>>> > *** >>>> > >>>> > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) >>>> > >>>> > The Geopolitics of Asylum >>>> > >>>> > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 >>>> > >>>> > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian Assange >>>> from >>>> > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted >>>> political >>>> > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human >>>> rights >>>> > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and >>>> made it >>>> > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, president >>>> of the >>>> > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation >>>> today. >>>> > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a >>>> week in >>>> > Ecuador for discussions of the case. >>>> > >>>> > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations >>>> or by >>>> > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In my >>>> memory, >>>> > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize someone >>>> who has >>>> > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic in >>>> > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for political >>>> > reasons. >>>> > >>>> > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, >>>> Ecuadorian >>>> > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the >>>> British >>>> > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the >>>> United >>>> > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such >>>> > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, >>>> Ricardo >>>> > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit threat” >>>> to >>>> > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British colony,” >>>> Patiño >>>> > added. >>>> > >>>> > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his >>>> government >>>> > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what >>>> may be >>>> > a prolonged showdown. >>>> > >>>> > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict >>>> Assange and >>>> > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator >>>> Diane >>>> > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called >>>> for >>>> > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong >>>> objections from >>>> > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may >>>> prefer to >>>> > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes >>>> with the >>>> > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in >>>> Sweden. >>>> > >>>> > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict >>>> becomes >>>> > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand off >>>> against >>>> > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the wave >>>> of new >>>> > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the >>>> traditional US >>>> > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa >>>> joined >>>> > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in >>>> June 2009, >>>> > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His >>>> government >>>> > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest, >>>> in a >>>> > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the >>>> country.” >>>> > He survived a coup attempt in 2010. >>>> > >>>> > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision without >>>> > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive reaction >>>> by the >>>> > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify >>>> Latin >>>> > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in >>>> relations >>>> > with the United States. >>>> > >>>> > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked >>>> the Obama >>>> > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to participate >>>> in >>>> > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. >>>> Shortly >>>> > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy >>>> chief, Dan >>>> > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama >>>> administration. >>>> > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United >>>> States and >>>> > the region. >>>> > >>>> > *** >>>> > >>>> > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Victoria Nuland >>>> > >>>> > Spokesperson >>>> > >>>> > Daily Press Briefing >>>> > >>>> > Washington, DC >>>> > >>>> > August 16, 2012 >>>> > >>>> > TRANSCRIPT: >>>> > >>>> > 12:44 p.m. EDT >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on >>>> your >>>> > minds. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant >>>> > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the >>>> Swedes. >>>> > I don't have anything particular to add. >>>> > >>>> > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a >>>> > completely neutral, independent observer of it? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it >>>> is an >>>> > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to interject >>>> > ourselves. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or >>>> where he >>>> > may end up going, no. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the >>>> Brits >>>> > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any truth >>>> to >>>> > that at all. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits >>>> do not >>>> > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States >>>> recognizes >>>> > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS >>>> treaty >>>> > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, >>>> presumably, >>>> > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. >>>> recognize >>>> > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal >>>> answer to >>>> > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, diplomatic >>>> > asylum. >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or >>>> the >>>> > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were >>>> leaning on >>>> > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future >>>> plans, >>>> > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our >>>> legal >>>> > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get >>>> back to >>>> > you. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of >>>> the -- >>>> > of the OAS and those signatories. >>>> > >>>> > And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest >>>> that >>>> > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange >>>> removed >>>> > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just >>>> that >>>> > you're not aware of it? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in >>>> this. >>>> > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. >>>> > >>>> > [...] >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason >>>> that the >>>> > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that -- >>>> they >>>> > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- >>>> > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United >>>> States >>>> > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a >>>> credible >>>> > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government >>>> persecution in >>>> > the United States? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>>> > >>>> > Q: No? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>>> > >>>> > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, >>>> the >>>> > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country >>>> > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to >>>> show up in >>>> > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, >>>> you don't >>>> > view that as -- >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran >>>> thought >>>> > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to >>>> > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. >>>> > >>>> > Q: OK. >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: OK? >>>> > >>>> > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would >>>> face >>>> > prosecution? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not >>>> headed >>>> > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to >>>> get into >>>> > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in >>>> his >>>> > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. >>>> > >>>> > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting >>>> him, I >>>> > reject that completely. >>>> > >>>> > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case >>>> does >>>> > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal >>>> > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the >>>> intention >>>> > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face >>>> > prosecution in the United States? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that >>>> we were >>>> > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think >>>> that >>>> > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? >>>> > Obviously, we have -- >>>> > >>>> > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm >>>> going to >>>> > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? >>>> > >>>> > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case >>>> against him. >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much >>>> involved >>>> > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here >>>> on what >>>> > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to >>>> wade into >>>> > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? >>>> > >>>> > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it >>>> doesn't >>>> > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies >>>> and that >>>> > kind of thing. >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Right. >>>> > >>>> > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved >>>> yourselves >>>> > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was >>>> going to >>>> > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other >>>> country, >>>> > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said -- >>>> > >>>> > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in >>>> Beijing >>>> > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected >>>> to >>>> > that, correct? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies >>>> have cited >>>> > British law with regard to the statements they've made about potential >>>> > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, >>>> > international -- as compared to international law. >>>> > >>>> > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of >>>> whether they >>>> > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under >>>> British >>>> > law, I'm going to send you to them. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, >>>> there is >>>> > international law here too, and presumably the United State would >>>> oppose or >>>> > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government >>>> entering or >>>> > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the >>>> world, >>>> > no? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are standing >>>> on >>>> > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to >>>> what the >>>> > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the >>>> moment is. >>>> > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where >>>> we are >>>> > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? >>>> > >>>> > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back >>>> in 1979, >>>> > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a >>>> > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest >>>> of this >>>> > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? >>>> > >>>> > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by the >>>> > Justice Department. Does that include -- >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is >>>> > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak to >>>> what >>>> > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. >>>> > >>>> > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? >>>> > >>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't >>>> have >>>> > the details. OK? Thanks, guys. >>>> > >>>> > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) >>>> > >>>> > DPB #146 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> > >>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> > >>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Aldo Matteucci >> 65, Pourtalèsstr. >> CH 3074 MURI b. Bern >> Switzerland >> aldo.matteucci at gmail.com >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 19:17:31 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:17:31 +1200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <0819D322-2A7F-45DE-9974-2A038A38AB1E@gmail.com> Message-ID: meant to say *from various extradition treaties On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > A fundamental principle in criminal law is that only if Sweden had already > laid charges and served this on him physically, then they can begin to make > demands. As for extradition requests of this nature or obligations stemming > from various extraditions can only kick in after the charge has been served > on the person and the usual summons to attend trial. > > Question is were charges laid against Assange? > > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > >> facing his responsibilities re: the sexual misconduct charges >> >> >> Do you know that: the misconduct is about not inform both girls he was no >> using protection in the sexual relation? It's not about other actions from >> Assange >> >> I wonder how this girls does not were aware of this by themself >> >> This is a very particular case in Sweden legislation I guess... >> >> Carlos Vera >> Enviado desde mi iPhone >> >> El 18/08/2012, a las 17:24, Ginger Paque escribió: >> >> Aldo, >> I think it is very important that facing his responsibilities re: the >> sexual misconduct charges, should not put Assange in danger of real or >> imagined charges in the WikiLeaks matter. >> >> But three, not two worst-case scenarios are possible: >> 1. Assange is turned over to a third country to face unrelated charges, >> when he is sent to Sweden to face charges of sexual misconduct. >> 2. Assange does not get a fair trial on the sexual misconduct charges, >> because of prejudice about the WikiLeaks case. >> **3. Assange does not face charges of sexual misconduct, because he is >> using the WikiLeaks situation as a shield. Victimless crimes might easily >> be settled by plea bargaining, or through justice at a discount. I don't >> think rape should be included in this possibility. Assange should have a >> chance to face his accusers, and defend himself, or pay the price, if he is >> guilty. >> >> As you (Aldo) point out, there are other options than sending Assange to >> Sweden or not sending him to Sweden. (As Norbert points out realistically >> in another post). Possible strategies: >> --Questioning in the UK. >> --Video questioning. >> --Remote video questioning, real-time, in a courtroom. >> I am sure legal experts can come up with other more creative, and >> workable options to allow the sexual misconduct charges to be fully and >> clearly aired, without endangering Assange's political rights. >> >> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks >> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated >> harassment or charge. >> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing >> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >> >> I'm not sure this has anything to do with IG. But I do think it is >> important. >> >> Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18 August 2012 14:00, Aldo Matteucci wrote: >> >>> Ginger, >>> >>> the question is not whether the allegations are true - factual issues we >>> can't decide. >>> The question is whether Sweden, acting as proxy, will take that excuse >>> to jail him for good and throw away the key. >>> After all, that's what the US want. >>> >>> My feeling is that there is some truth in the criminal matter >>> but that Assange would not get a "fair" trial, in the sense that the >>> usual discretionary possibilities will be denied to him. >>> One fears a self-righteous Swede - see Bergman movies. >>> >>> Don't forget: over 90% of the cases are plea-bargained in the US. It is >>> normal to get "justice at a discount". Why not here? >>> >>> Aldo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 18 August 2012 19:22, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>>> The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and >>>> legal details. >>>> >>>> It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, close >>>> Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian diplomats, >>>> does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political issues >>>> more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be >>>> investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from >>>> political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the >>>> rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can >>>> support Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still >>>> want to see him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that >>>> is a well-founded allegation. >>>> >>>> There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible >>>> solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) >>>> going on at: >>>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences >>>> >>>> I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the >>>> sexual misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / >>>> or be mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? >>>> >>>> Cheers, Ginger >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. >>>>> >>>>> Mawaki >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally >>>>> > >>>>> > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He >>>>> was >>>>> > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 >>>>> and Rector >>>>> > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ >>>>> > >>>>> > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation >>>>> from >>>>> > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after >>>>> immense >>>>> > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean >>>>> Embassy and >>>>> > seize Julian Assange. >>>>> > >>>>> > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna >>>>> Convention >>>>> > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which >>>>> encodes >>>>> > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled >>>>> > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most >>>>> > subscribed single international treaty in the world. >>>>> > >>>>> > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic >>>>> premises >>>>> > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no >>>>> modification or >>>>> > qualification elsewhere in the treaty. >>>>> > >>>>> > Article 22 >>>>> > >>>>> > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the >>>>> > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the >>>>> head of >>>>> > the mission. >>>>> > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all >>>>> appropriate steps >>>>> > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or >>>>> damage and >>>>> > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment >>>>> of its >>>>> > dignity. >>>>> > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property >>>>> thereon >>>>> > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from >>>>> search, >>>>> > requisition, attachment or execution. >>>>> > >>>>> > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to >>>>> arrest the >>>>> > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the >>>>> Cold War, >>>>> > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s >>>>> embassies. >>>>> > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British >>>>> Embassy to >>>>> > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law >>>>> will result >>>>> > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide. >>>>> > >>>>> > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a >>>>> strong >>>>> > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom >>>>> of the >>>>> > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of >>>>> the >>>>> > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of >>>>> international law. >>>>> > >>>>> > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British >>>>> legislation. >>>>> > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its >>>>> obligations in >>>>> > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the >>>>> > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by >>>>> the >>>>> > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would >>>>> leave >>>>> > British diplomats with no protection worldwide. >>>>> > >>>>> > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US >>>>> > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against >>>>> the >>>>> > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing >>>>> the move >>>>> > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been >>>>> taken in >>>>> > Number 10. >>>>> > >>>>> > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal >>>>> Democrats. >>>>> > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” >>>>> impact now in >>>>> > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government >>>>> salaries and >>>>> > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any >>>>> belief to >>>>> > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party >>>>> for >>>>> > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had >>>>> principles. >>>>> > >>>>> > *** >>>>> > >>>>> > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) >>>>> > >>>>> > The Geopolitics of Asylum >>>>> > >>>>> > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 >>>>> > >>>>> > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian >>>>> Assange from >>>>> > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted >>>>> political >>>>> > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human >>>>> rights >>>>> > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and >>>>> made it >>>>> > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, >>>>> president of the >>>>> > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation >>>>> today. >>>>> > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a >>>>> week in >>>>> > Ecuador for discussions of the case. >>>>> > >>>>> > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations >>>>> or by >>>>> > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In my >>>>> memory, >>>>> > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize someone >>>>> who has >>>>> > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic in >>>>> > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for >>>>> political >>>>> > reasons. >>>>> > >>>>> > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, >>>>> Ecuadorian >>>>> > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the >>>>> British >>>>> > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the >>>>> United >>>>> > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such >>>>> > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, >>>>> Ricardo >>>>> > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit threat” >>>>> to >>>>> > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British >>>>> colony,” Patiño >>>>> > added. >>>>> > >>>>> > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his >>>>> government >>>>> > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what >>>>> may be >>>>> > a prolonged showdown. >>>>> > >>>>> > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict >>>>> Assange and >>>>> > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator >>>>> Diane >>>>> > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called >>>>> for >>>>> > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong >>>>> objections from >>>>> > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may >>>>> prefer to >>>>> > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes >>>>> with the >>>>> > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in >>>>> Sweden. >>>>> > >>>>> > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict >>>>> becomes >>>>> > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand off >>>>> against >>>>> > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the wave >>>>> of new >>>>> > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the >>>>> traditional US >>>>> > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa >>>>> joined >>>>> > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in >>>>> June 2009, >>>>> > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His >>>>> government >>>>> > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest, >>>>> in a >>>>> > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the >>>>> country.” >>>>> > He survived a coup attempt in 2010. >>>>> > >>>>> > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision >>>>> without >>>>> > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive >>>>> reaction by the >>>>> > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify >>>>> Latin >>>>> > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in >>>>> relations >>>>> > with the United States. >>>>> > >>>>> > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked >>>>> the Obama >>>>> > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to >>>>> participate in >>>>> > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. >>>>> Shortly >>>>> > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy >>>>> chief, Dan >>>>> > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama >>>>> administration. >>>>> > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United >>>>> States and >>>>> > the region. >>>>> > >>>>> > *** >>>>> > >>>>> > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Victoria Nuland >>>>> > >>>>> > Spokesperson >>>>> > >>>>> > Daily Press Briefing >>>>> > >>>>> > Washington, DC >>>>> > >>>>> > August 16, 2012 >>>>> > >>>>> > TRANSCRIPT: >>>>> > >>>>> > 12:44 p.m. EDT >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s >>>>> on your >>>>> > minds. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to >>>>> grant >>>>> > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the >>>>> Swedes. >>>>> > I don't have anything particular to add. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a >>>>> > completely neutral, independent observer of it? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it >>>>> is an >>>>> > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to >>>>> interject >>>>> > ourselves. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or >>>>> where he >>>>> > may end up going, no. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the >>>>> Brits >>>>> > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any >>>>> truth to >>>>> > that at all. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits >>>>> do not >>>>> > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States >>>>> recognizes >>>>> > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS >>>>> treaty >>>>> > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, >>>>> presumably, >>>>> > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. >>>>> recognize >>>>> > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal >>>>> answer to >>>>> > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, >>>>> diplomatic >>>>> > asylum. >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or >>>>> the >>>>> > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were >>>>> leaning on >>>>> > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future >>>>> plans, >>>>> > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our >>>>> legal >>>>> > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get >>>>> back to >>>>> > you. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of >>>>> the -- >>>>> > of the OAS and those signatories. >>>>> > >>>>> > And then when you said that you don't have any information to >>>>> suggest that >>>>> > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange >>>>> removed >>>>> > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just >>>>> that >>>>> > you're not aware of it? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in >>>>> this. >>>>> > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. >>>>> > >>>>> > [...] >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason >>>>> that the >>>>> > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that >>>>> -- they >>>>> > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- >>>>> > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the >>>>> United States >>>>> > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a >>>>> credible >>>>> > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government >>>>> persecution in >>>>> > the United States? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: No? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, >>>>> the >>>>> > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country >>>>> > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to >>>>> show up in >>>>> > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, >>>>> you don't >>>>> > view that as -- >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran >>>>> thought >>>>> > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to >>>>> > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: OK. >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: OK? >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would >>>>> face >>>>> > prosecution? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was >>>>> not headed >>>>> > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to >>>>> get into >>>>> > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in >>>>> his >>>>> > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. >>>>> > >>>>> > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on >>>>> persecuting him, I >>>>> > reject that completely. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case >>>>> does >>>>> > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the >>>>> legal >>>>> > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the >>>>> intention >>>>> > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face >>>>> > prosecution in the United States? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that >>>>> we were >>>>> > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think >>>>> that >>>>> > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? >>>>> > Obviously, we have -- >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm >>>>> going to >>>>> > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case >>>>> against him. >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much >>>>> involved >>>>> > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here >>>>> on what >>>>> > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to >>>>> wade into >>>>> > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it >>>>> doesn't >>>>> > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies >>>>> and that >>>>> > kind of thing. >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Right. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved >>>>> yourselves >>>>> > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was >>>>> going to >>>>> > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other >>>>> country, >>>>> > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said -- >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in >>>>> Beijing >>>>> > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected >>>>> to >>>>> > that, correct? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies >>>>> have cited >>>>> > British law with regard to the statements they've made about >>>>> potential >>>>> > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, >>>>> > international -- as compared to international law. >>>>> > >>>>> > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of >>>>> whether they >>>>> > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under >>>>> British >>>>> > law, I'm going to send you to them. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, >>>>> there is >>>>> > international law here too, and presumably the United State would >>>>> oppose or >>>>> > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government >>>>> entering or >>>>> > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the >>>>> world, >>>>> > no? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are >>>>> standing on >>>>> > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to >>>>> what the >>>>> > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the >>>>> moment is. >>>>> > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where >>>>> we are >>>>> > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back >>>>> in 1979, >>>>> > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a >>>>> > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest >>>>> of this >>>>> > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by >>>>> the >>>>> > Justice Department. Does that include -- >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is >>>>> > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak >>>>> to what >>>>> > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. >>>>> > >>>>> > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? >>>>> > >>>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't >>>>> have >>>>> > the details. OK? Thanks, guys. >>>>> > >>>>> > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) >>>>> > >>>>> > DPB #146 >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> > >>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> > >>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Aldo Matteucci >>> 65, Pourtalèsstr. >>> CH 3074 MURI b. Bern >>> Switzerland >>> aldo.matteucci at gmail.com >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 19:20:31 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 04:20:31 +0500 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Adam, I did read this proposal (http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/w2012/proposals) not only after its approval but after its submission. I saw a Google policy leader's name there as well as a google person in remote moderation but its missing a bit of government representation and it would have been nice to hear China, India, Brazil or Russia for that matter but that would just be much wanted desi spice ;o) On my earlier note, here is a link where a two-sided market trying to affect policy under the name of devising "innovation" based policies: http://innovation.gop.pk/ http://pitb.gov.pk/news_july2012_june2013 I have put up requests for funding but nothing complete yet. Ticket? one should not objectively question the hand that feeds him? ;o) Best FoO On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:32 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> Google sponsored and moderated workshop? >> > > No, read the proposal. > > Who will pay for your ticket? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > >> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> There will be a workshop in Baku covering some of these issues (not the ITR >>> part, though it's possibly an issue, but it is not one any Asian country I >>> know of has raised in the regional preparatory process for ITRs) >>> >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> I was asked an interesting question today by a colleague on the discussion >>>> about Google's interference in national electronic commerce/e-payment, >>>> privacy and ITU-ITRs positions in developing countries in Asia. >>>> >>>> She asked whether developing countries should regulate two-sided market >>>> economies where the platforms were US based content and services providers >>>> and tax them and design laws to prevent their interference within a >>>> sovereign country's policies? >>>> >>>> Fouad Bajwa >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Sat Aug 18 19:26:09 2012 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:56:09 -0430 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <0819D322-2A7F-45DE-9974-2A038A38AB1E@gmail.com> Message-ID: A very important point is stated at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 This would appear to make the extradition unnecessary. This doesn't mean that the sexual misconduct charges should not be investigated (whatever they actually are: I don't know). 18 November 2010 Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Sweden's Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says he has not been available for questioning. Mr Assange's British lawyer Mark Stephens says his client offered to be interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or Scotland Yard or via video link. He accuses Ms Ny of "abusing her powers" in insisting that Mr Assange return to Sweden. On 18 August 2012 18:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > meant to say *from various extradition treaties > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> A fundamental principle in criminal law is that only if Sweden had >> already laid charges and served this on him physically, then they can begin >> to make demands. As for extradition requests of this nature or obligations >> stemming from various extraditions can only kick in after the charge has >> been served on the person and the usual summons to attend trial. >> >> Question is were charges laid against Assange? >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: >> >>> facing his responsibilities re: the sexual misconduct charges >>> >>> >>> Do you know that: the misconduct is about not inform both girls he was >>> no using protection in the sexual relation? It's not about other actions >>> from Assange >>> >>> I wonder how this girls does not were aware of this by themself >>> >>> This is a very particular case in Sweden legislation I guess... >>> >>> Carlos Vera >>> Enviado desde mi iPhone >>> >>> El 18/08/2012, a las 17:24, Ginger Paque escribió: >>> >>> Aldo, >>> I think it is very important that facing his responsibilities re: the >>> sexual misconduct charges, should not put Assange in danger of real or >>> imagined charges in the WikiLeaks matter. >>> >>> But three, not two worst-case scenarios are possible: >>> 1. Assange is turned over to a third country to face unrelated charges, >>> when he is sent to Sweden to face charges of sexual misconduct. >>> 2. Assange does not get a fair trial on the sexual misconduct charges, >>> because of prejudice about the WikiLeaks case. >>> **3. Assange does not face charges of sexual misconduct, because he is >>> using the WikiLeaks situation as a shield. Victimless crimes might easily >>> be settled by plea bargaining, or through justice at a discount. I don't >>> think rape should be included in this possibility. Assange should have a >>> chance to face his accusers, and defend himself, or pay the price, if he is >>> guilty. >>> >>> As you (Aldo) point out, there are other options than sending Assange to >>> Sweden or not sending him to Sweden. (As Norbert points out realistically >>> in another post). Possible strategies: >>> --Questioning in the UK. >>> --Video questioning. >>> --Remote video questioning, real-time, in a courtroom. >>> I am sure legal experts can come up with other more creative, and >>> workable options to allow the sexual misconduct charges to be fully and >>> clearly aired, without endangering Assange's political rights. >>> >>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his >>> WikiLeaks work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically >>> motivated harassment or charge. >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing >>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>> >>> I'm not sure this has anything to do with IG. But I do think it is >>> important. >>> >>> Ginger >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 18 August 2012 14:00, Aldo Matteucci wrote: >>> >>>> Ginger, >>>> >>>> the question is not whether the allegations are true - factual issues >>>> we can't decide. >>>> The question is whether Sweden, acting as proxy, will take that excuse >>>> to jail him for good and throw away the key. >>>> After all, that's what the US want. >>>> >>>> My feeling is that there is some truth in the criminal matter >>>> but that Assange would not get a "fair" trial, in the sense that the >>>> usual discretionary possibilities will be denied to him. >>>> One fears a self-righteous Swede - see Bergman movies. >>>> >>>> Don't forget: over 90% of the cases are plea-bargained in the US. It is >>>> normal to get "justice at a discount". Why not here? >>>> >>>> Aldo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18 August 2012 19:22, Ginger Paque wrote: >>>> >>>>> The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and >>>>> legal details. >>>>> >>>>> It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, >>>>> close Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian >>>>> diplomats, does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political >>>>> issues more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be >>>>> investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from >>>>> political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the >>>>> rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can >>>>> support Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still >>>>> want to see him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that >>>>> is a well-founded allegation. >>>>> >>>>> There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible >>>>> solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) >>>>> going on at: >>>>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences >>>>> >>>>> I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the >>>>> sexual misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / >>>>> or be mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, Ginger >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mawaki >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. >>>>>> He was >>>>>> > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 >>>>>> and Rector >>>>>> > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation >>>>>> from >>>>>> > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after >>>>>> immense >>>>>> > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean >>>>>> Embassy and >>>>>> > seize Julian Assange. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna >>>>>> Convention >>>>>> > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which >>>>>> encodes >>>>>> > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled >>>>>> > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most >>>>>> > subscribed single international treaty in the world. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic >>>>>> premises >>>>>> > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no >>>>>> modification or >>>>>> > qualification elsewhere in the treaty. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Article 22 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the >>>>>> > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the >>>>>> head of >>>>>> > the mission. >>>>>> > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all >>>>>> appropriate steps >>>>>> > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or >>>>>> damage and >>>>>> > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or >>>>>> impairment of its >>>>>> > dignity. >>>>>> > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property >>>>>> thereon >>>>>> > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from >>>>>> search, >>>>>> > requisition, attachment or execution. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to >>>>>> arrest the >>>>>> > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the >>>>>> Cold War, >>>>>> > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s >>>>>> embassies. >>>>>> > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British >>>>>> Embassy to >>>>>> > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law >>>>>> will result >>>>>> > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment >>>>>> worldwide. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a >>>>>> strong >>>>>> > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom >>>>>> of the >>>>>> > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era >>>>>> of the >>>>>> > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of >>>>>> international law. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British >>>>>> legislation. >>>>>> > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its >>>>>> obligations in >>>>>> > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the >>>>>> > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by >>>>>> the >>>>>> > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would >>>>>> leave >>>>>> > British diplomats with no protection worldwide. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US >>>>>> > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against >>>>>> the >>>>>> > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing >>>>>> the move >>>>>> > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been >>>>>> taken in >>>>>> > Number 10. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal >>>>>> Democrats. >>>>>> > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” >>>>>> impact now in >>>>>> > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government >>>>>> salaries and >>>>>> > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any >>>>>> belief to >>>>>> > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that >>>>>> party for >>>>>> > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had >>>>>> principles. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > *** >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The Geopolitics of Asylum >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian >>>>>> Assange from >>>>>> > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted >>>>>> political >>>>>> > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international >>>>>> human rights >>>>>> > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and >>>>>> made it >>>>>> > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, >>>>>> president of the >>>>>> > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation >>>>>> today. >>>>>> > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a >>>>>> week in >>>>>> > Ecuador for discussions of the case. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through >>>>>> negotiations or by >>>>>> > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In >>>>>> my memory, >>>>>> > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize >>>>>> someone who has >>>>>> > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic >>>>>> in >>>>>> > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for >>>>>> political >>>>>> > reasons. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, >>>>>> Ecuadorian >>>>>> > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the >>>>>> British >>>>>> > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the >>>>>> United >>>>>> > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such >>>>>> > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, >>>>>> Ricardo >>>>>> > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit >>>>>> threat” to >>>>>> > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British >>>>>> colony,” Patiño >>>>>> > added. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his >>>>>> government >>>>>> > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for >>>>>> what may be >>>>>> > a prolonged showdown. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict >>>>>> Assange and >>>>>> > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator >>>>>> Diane >>>>>> > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have >>>>>> called for >>>>>> > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong >>>>>> objections from >>>>>> > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may >>>>>> prefer to >>>>>> > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes >>>>>> with the >>>>>> > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in >>>>>> Sweden. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the >>>>>> conflict becomes >>>>>> > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand >>>>>> off against >>>>>> > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the >>>>>> wave of new >>>>>> > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the >>>>>> traditional US >>>>>> > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa >>>>>> joined >>>>>> > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in >>>>>> June 2009, >>>>>> > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His >>>>>> government >>>>>> > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon >>>>>> rainforest, in a >>>>>> > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the >>>>>> country.” >>>>>> > He survived a coup attempt in 2010. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision >>>>>> without >>>>>> > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive >>>>>> reaction by the >>>>>> > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to >>>>>> solidify Latin >>>>>> > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in >>>>>> relations >>>>>> > with the United States. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked >>>>>> the Obama >>>>>> > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to >>>>>> participate in >>>>>> > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. >>>>>> Shortly >>>>>> > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy >>>>>> chief, Dan >>>>>> > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama >>>>>> administration. >>>>>> > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United >>>>>> States and >>>>>> > the region. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > *** >>>>>> > >>>>>> > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Victoria Nuland >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Spokesperson >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Daily Press Briefing >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Washington, DC >>>>>> > >>>>>> > August 16, 2012 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > TRANSCRIPT: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 12:44 p.m. EDT >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s >>>>>> on your >>>>>> > minds. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to >>>>>> grant >>>>>> > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the >>>>>> Swedes. >>>>>> > I don't have anything particular to add. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of >>>>>> a >>>>>> > completely neutral, independent observer of it? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, >>>>>> it is an >>>>>> > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to >>>>>> interject >>>>>> > ourselves. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or >>>>>> where he >>>>>> > may end up going, no. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing >>>>>> the Brits >>>>>> > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any >>>>>> truth to >>>>>> > that at all. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the >>>>>> Brits do not >>>>>> > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States >>>>>> recognizes >>>>>> > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS >>>>>> treaty >>>>>> > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, >>>>>> presumably, >>>>>> > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. >>>>>> recognize >>>>>> > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal >>>>>> answer to >>>>>> > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, >>>>>> diplomatic >>>>>> > asylum. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making >>>>>> or the >>>>>> > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were >>>>>> leaning on >>>>>> > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future >>>>>> plans, >>>>>> > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our >>>>>> legal >>>>>> > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and >>>>>> get back to >>>>>> > you. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines >>>>>> of the -- >>>>>> > of the OAS and those signatories. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > And then when you said that you don't have any information to >>>>>> suggest that >>>>>> > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. >>>>>> Assange removed >>>>>> > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or >>>>>> just that >>>>>> > you're not aware of it? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves >>>>>> in this. >>>>>> > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > [...] >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason >>>>>> that the >>>>>> > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that >>>>>> -- they >>>>>> > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- >>>>>> > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the >>>>>> United States >>>>>> > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a >>>>>> credible >>>>>> > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government >>>>>> persecution in >>>>>> > the United States? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: No? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, >>>>>> the >>>>>> > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country >>>>>> > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to >>>>>> show up in >>>>>> > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, >>>>>> you don't >>>>>> > view that as -- >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran >>>>>> thought >>>>>> > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to >>>>>> > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: OK. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: OK? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would >>>>>> face >>>>>> > prosecution? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was >>>>>> not headed >>>>>> > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to >>>>>> get into >>>>>> > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been >>>>>> in his >>>>>> > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on >>>>>> persecuting him, I >>>>>> > reject that completely. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case >>>>>> does >>>>>> > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the >>>>>> legal >>>>>> > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the >>>>>> intention >>>>>> > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face >>>>>> > prosecution in the United States? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action >>>>>> that we were >>>>>> > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think >>>>>> that >>>>>> > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? >>>>>> > Obviously, we have -- >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm >>>>>> going to >>>>>> > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case >>>>>> against him. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much >>>>>> involved >>>>>> > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics >>>>>> here on what >>>>>> > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to >>>>>> wade into >>>>>> > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it >>>>>> doesn't >>>>>> > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies >>>>>> and that >>>>>> > kind of thing. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Right. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved >>>>>> yourselves >>>>>> > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was >>>>>> going to >>>>>> > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other >>>>>> country, >>>>>> > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said -- >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in >>>>>> Beijing >>>>>> > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have >>>>>> objected to >>>>>> > that, correct? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies >>>>>> have cited >>>>>> > British law with regard to the statements they've made about >>>>>> potential >>>>>> > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, >>>>>> > international -- as compared to international law. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of >>>>>> whether they >>>>>> > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under >>>>>> British >>>>>> > law, I'm going to send you to them. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, >>>>>> there is >>>>>> > international law here too, and presumably the United State would >>>>>> oppose or >>>>>> > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government >>>>>> entering or >>>>>> > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the >>>>>> world, >>>>>> > no? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are >>>>>> standing on >>>>>> > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to >>>>>> what the >>>>>> > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the >>>>>> moment is. >>>>>> > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know >>>>>> where we are >>>>>> > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back >>>>>> in 1979, >>>>>> > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a >>>>>> > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest >>>>>> of this >>>>>> > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by >>>>>> the >>>>>> > Justice Department. Does that include -- >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department >>>>>> is >>>>>> > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak >>>>>> to what >>>>>> > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really >>>>>> don't have >>>>>> > the details. OK? Thanks, guys. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > DPB #146 >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> > >>>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Aldo Matteucci >>>> 65, Pourtalèsstr. >>>> CH 3074 MURI b. Bern >>>> Switzerland >>>> aldo.matteucci at gmail.com >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 19:58:51 2012 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:58:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <0819D322-2A7F-45DE-9974-2A038A38AB1E@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ecuadorian gov. Express to Mr Assange he is welcome to Ecuador from the begining of rhis affair. If he only would listen from that time this political advise... Carlos Vera Enviado desde mi iPhone El 18/08/2012, a las 18:26, Ginger Paque escribió: > A very important point is stated at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 > This would appear to make the extradition unnecessary. > > This doesn't mean that the sexual misconduct charges should not be investigated (whatever they actually are: I don't know). > > 18 November 2010 > > Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Sweden's Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says he has not been available for questioning. > > Mr Assange's British lawyer Mark Stephens says his client offered to be interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or Scotland Yard or via video link. He accuses Ms Ny of "abusing her powers" in insisting that Mr Assange return to Sweden. > > > > > > > > On 18 August 2012 18:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > meant to say *from various extradition treaties > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > A fundamental principle in criminal law is that only if Sweden had already laid charges and served this on him physically, then they can begin to make demands. As for extradition requests of this nature or obligations stemming from various extraditions can only kick in after the charge has been served on the person and the usual summons to attend trial. > > Question is were charges laid against Assange? > > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: >> facing his responsibilities re: the sexual misconduct charges > > Do you know that: the misconduct is about not inform both girls he was no using protection in the sexual relation? It's not about other actions from Assange > > I wonder how this girls does not were aware of this by themself > > This is a very particular case in Sweden legislation I guess... > > Carlos Vera > Enviado desde mi iPhone > > El 18/08/2012, a las 17:24, Ginger Paque escribió: > >> Aldo, >> I think it is very important that facing his responsibilities re: the sexual misconduct charges, should not put Assange in danger of real or imagined charges in the WikiLeaks matter. >> >> But three, not two worst-case scenarios are possible: >> 1. Assange is turned over to a third country to face unrelated charges, when he is sent to Sweden to face charges of sexual misconduct. >> 2. Assange does not get a fair trial on the sexual misconduct charges, because of prejudice about the WikiLeaks case. >> **3. Assange does not face charges of sexual misconduct, because he is using the WikiLeaks situation as a shield. Victimless crimes might easily be settled by plea bargaining, or through justice at a discount. I don't think rape should be included in this possibility. Assange should have a chance to face his accusers, and defend himself, or pay the price, if he is guilty. >> >> As you (Aldo) point out, there are other options than sending Assange to Sweden or not sending him to Sweden. (As Norbert points out realistically in another post). Possible strategies: >> --Questioning in the UK. >> --Video questioning. >> --Remote video questioning, real-time, in a courtroom. >> I am sure legal experts can come up with other more creative, and workable options to allow the sexual misconduct charges to be fully and clearly aired, without endangering Assange's political rights. >> >> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated harassment or charge. >> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing charges of rape if the are legitimate. >> >> I'm not sure this has anything to do with IG. But I do think it is important. >> >> Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18 August 2012 14:00, Aldo Matteucci wrote: >> Ginger, >> >> the question is not whether the allegations are true - factual issues we can't decide. >> The question is whether Sweden, acting as proxy, will take that excuse to jail him for good and throw away the key. >> After all, that's what the US want. >> >> My feeling is that there is some truth in the criminal matter >> but that Assange would not get a "fair" trial, in the sense that the usual discretionary possibilities will be denied to him. >> One fears a self-righteous Swede - see Bergman movies. >> >> Don't forget: over 90% of the cases are plea-bargained in the US. It is normal to get "justice at a discount". Why not here? >> >> Aldo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18 August 2012 19:22, Ginger Paque wrote: >> The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and legal details. >> >> It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, close Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian diplomats, does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political issues more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can support Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still want to see him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that is a well-founded allegation. >> >> There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) going on at: http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences >> >> I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the sexual misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / or be mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? >> >> Cheers, Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. >> >> Mawaki >> >> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> > >> > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally >> > >> > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was >> > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector >> > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. >> > >> > http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ >> > >> > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation from >> > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after immense >> > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean Embassy and >> > seize Julian Assange. >> > >> > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention >> > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes >> > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled >> > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most >> > subscribed single international treaty in the world. >> > >> > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic premises >> > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification or >> > qualification elsewhere in the treaty. >> > >> > Article 22 >> > >> > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the >> > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of >> > the mission. >> > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps >> > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and >> > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its >> > dignity. >> > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon >> > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, >> > requisition, attachment or execution. >> > >> > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the >> > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, >> > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. >> > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to >> > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result >> > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide. >> > >> > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong >> > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the >> > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the >> > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law. >> > >> > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. >> > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in >> > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the >> > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the >> > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave >> > British diplomats with no protection worldwide. >> > >> > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US >> > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the >> > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the move >> > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in >> > Number 10. >> > >> > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal Democrats. >> > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact now in >> > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries and >> > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any belief to >> > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for >> > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had principles. >> > >> > *** >> > >> > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) >> > >> > The Geopolitics of Asylum >> > >> > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 >> > >> > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian Assange from >> > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted political >> > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human rights >> > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and made it >> > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, president of the >> > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation today. >> > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a week in >> > Ecuador for discussions of the case. >> > >> > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations or by >> > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In my memory, >> > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize someone who has >> > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic in >> > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for political >> > reasons. >> > >> > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, Ecuadorian >> > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the British >> > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the United >> > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such >> > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, Ricardo >> > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit threat” to >> > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British colony,” Patiño >> > added. >> > >> > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his government >> > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what may be >> > a prolonged showdown. >> > >> > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict Assange and >> > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator Diane >> > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called for >> > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong objections from >> > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may prefer to >> > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes with the >> > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in Sweden. >> > >> > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict becomes >> > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand off against >> > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the wave of new >> > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the traditional US >> > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa joined >> > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in June 2009, >> > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His government >> > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest, in a >> > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the country.” >> > He survived a coup attempt in 2010. >> > >> > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision without >> > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive reaction by the >> > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify Latin >> > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in relations >> > with the United States. >> > >> > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked the Obama >> > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to participate in >> > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. Shortly >> > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy chief, Dan >> > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama administration. >> > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United States and >> > the region. >> > >> > *** >> > >> > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm >> > >> > >> > Victoria Nuland >> > >> > Spokesperson >> > >> > Daily Press Briefing >> > >> > Washington, DC >> > >> > August 16, 2012 >> > >> > TRANSCRIPT: >> > >> > 12:44 p.m. EDT >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on your >> > minds. >> > >> > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant >> > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the Swedes. >> > I don't have anything particular to add. >> > >> > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a >> > completely neutral, independent observer of it? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it is an >> > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to interject >> > ourselves. >> > >> > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or where he >> > may end up going, no. >> > >> > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the Brits >> > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any truth to >> > that at all. >> > >> > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits do not >> > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States recognizes >> > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS treaty >> > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, presumably, >> > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. recognize >> > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal answer to >> > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. >> > >> > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, diplomatic >> > asylum. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or the >> > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were leaning on >> > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future plans, >> > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our legal >> > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get back to >> > you. >> > >> > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of the -- >> > of the OAS and those signatories. >> > >> > And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest that >> > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange removed >> > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just that >> > you're not aware of it? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in this. >> > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. >> > >> > [...] >> > >> > >> > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason that the >> > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that -- they >> > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- >> > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United States >> > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a credible >> > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government persecution in >> > the United States? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: No. >> > >> > Q: No? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: No. >> > >> > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, the >> > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country >> > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to show up in >> > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, you don't >> > view that as -- >> > >> > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran thought >> > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to >> > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. >> > >> > Q: OK. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: OK? >> > >> > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would face >> > prosecution? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not headed >> > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to get into >> > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in his >> > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. >> > >> > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting him, I >> > reject that completely. >> > >> > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case does >> > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal >> > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the intention >> > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face >> > prosecution in the United States? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that we were >> > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think that >> > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right? >> > Obviously, we have -- >> > >> > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm going to >> > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? >> > >> > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case against him. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much involved >> > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here on what >> > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to wade into >> > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? >> > >> > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it doesn't >> > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies and that >> > kind of thing. >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Right. >> > >> > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved yourselves >> > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was going to >> > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other country, >> > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: As I said -- >> > >> > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in Beijing >> > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected to >> > that, correct? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies have cited >> > British law with regard to the statements they've made about potential >> > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, >> > international -- as compared to international law. >> > >> > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of whether they >> > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under British >> > law, I'm going to send you to them. >> > >> > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, there is >> > international law here too, and presumably the United State would oppose or >> > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government entering or >> > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the world, >> > no? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are standing on >> > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to what the >> > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the moment is. >> > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where we are >> > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? >> > >> > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back in 1979, >> > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a >> > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest of this >> > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? >> > >> > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by the >> > Justice Department. Does that include -- >> > >> > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is >> > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak to what >> > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. >> > >> > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? >> > >> > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't have >> > the details. OK? Thanks, guys. >> > >> > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) >> > >> > DPB #146 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Aldo Matteucci >> 65, Pourtalèsstr. >> CH 3074 MURI b. Bern >> Switzerland >> aldo.matteucci at gmail.com >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 18 21:44:27 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:44:27 +0700 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <0819D322-2A7F-45DE-9974-2A038A38AB1E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <503044FB.5050007@gmx.net> On 8/19/2012 6:26 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > A very important point is stated at > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 > This would appear to make the extradition unnecessary. > > This doesn't mean that the sexual misconduct charges should not be > investigated (whatever they actually are: I don't know). > > > 18 November 2010 > > Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for > questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful > coercion. Sweden's Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says he has not > been available for questioning. > > Mr Assange's British lawyer Mark Stephens says his client offered to > be interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or Scotland Yard or > via video link. He accuses Ms Ny of "abusing her powers" in insisting > that Mr Assange return to Sweden. > As I said before: I think this is extremely important - guilty or not is not what I would like to see discussed at present. I repeat: "For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused to explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." Norbert Klein nhklein at gmx.net http://www.thinking21.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 22:26:09 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 22:26:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <0819D322-2A7F-45DE-9974-2A038A38AB1E@gmail.com> Message-ID: Two things: 1. Has anyone looked into or analyzed what the ground is in that Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 on which the UK authorities are basing their argument and decision? and how is that act supposed to relate to the Vienna Convention of 1961? Maybe there is some defect in the conditions/circumstance that surrounded the attribution of those premises or building to the Ecuador? I mean, what could possibly be the legally defensible basis from a domestic law that came about more than a quarter century after an international convention to which the concerned country was signatory - while nobody seems to have known that that law meant for the said country an amendment or a notable qualification to some significant provisions of the convention? 2. It might be a little too late for anyone to be able to disentangle possible political motivations from these legal procedures (in UK and Sweden). The party that appears the most obscure to me in terms of their true motivation and intent is the Swedish judiciary, surprisingly. To my recollection, the charges of sexual misconduct were dropped at some point and a while thereafter they were taken up again by another (higher?) level of the judiciary in Sweden. I have never come across any credible account as to why that was so, and I was surprised at the time I couldn't hear much about (at least not any substantial investigation of) that question in the US-based cable news as I tried to find an explanation. Adding to that the questions raised above by Norbert and also emphasized by Ginger... Furthermore, I too (as Carlos Vera) remember that it was mentioned in the news reports that the substance of the sexual charges - or at least the allegations - revolved around Assange not using a protection during those encounters, etc. I am not sure whether - indeed, I did not hear that - the presumed victims have alleged any physical coercion to that effect or whether those news reports were accurate as to the exact or official content of the charges, if any. The fact is, it is already difficult enough to get to the bottom of allegations of rape without third party witness and without evidence of violence, but now you have some hot political concoction surrounding it... Troubling. Mawaki On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > Ecuadorian gov. Express to Mr Assange he is welcome to Ecuador from the > begining of rhis affair. If he only would listen from that time this > political advise... > > Carlos Vera > > Enviado desde mi iPhone > > El 18/08/2012, a las 18:26, Ginger Paque escribió: > > A very important point is stated at > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 > This would appear to make the extradition unnecessary. > > This doesn't mean that the sexual misconduct charges should not be > investigated (whatever they actually are: I don't know). > > 18 November 2010 > > Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for > questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. > Sweden's Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says he has not been available > for questioning. > > Mr Assange's British lawyer Mark Stephens says his client offered to be > interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or Scotland Yard or via video > link. He accuses Ms Ny of "abusing her powers" in insisting that Mr Assange > return to Sweden. > > > > > > On 18 August 2012 18:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >> meant to say *from various extradition treaties >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> >>> A fundamental principle in criminal law is that only if Sweden had >>> already laid charges and served this on him physically, then they can begin >>> to make demands. As for extradition requests of this nature or obligations >>> stemming from various extraditions can only kick in after the charge has >>> been served on the person and the usual summons to attend trial. >>> >>> Question is were charges laid against Assange? >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Carlos Vera Quintana >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> facing his responsibilities re: the sexual misconduct charges >>>> >>>> >>>> Do you know that: the misconduct is about not inform both girls he was >>>> no using protection in the sexual relation? It's not about other actions >>>> from Assange >>>> >>>> I wonder how this girls does not were aware of this by themself >>>> >>>> This is a very particular case in Sweden legislation I guess... >>>> >>>> Carlos Vera >>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone >>>> >>>> El 18/08/2012, a las 17:24, Ginger Paque escribió: >>>> >>>> Aldo, >>>> I think it is very important that facing his responsibilities re: the >>>> sexual misconduct charges, should not put Assange in danger of real or >>>> imagined charges in the WikiLeaks matter. >>>> >>>> But three, not two worst-case scenarios are possible: >>>> 1. Assange is turned over to a third country to face unrelated charges, >>>> when he is sent to Sweden to face charges of sexual misconduct. >>>> 2. Assange does not get a fair trial on the sexual misconduct charges, >>>> because of prejudice about the WikiLeaks case. >>>> **3. Assange does not face charges of sexual misconduct, because he is >>>> using the WikiLeaks situation as a shield. Victimless crimes might easily be >>>> settled by plea bargaining, or through justice at a discount. I don't think >>>> rape should be included in this possibility. Assange should have a chance to >>>> face his accusers, and defend himself, or pay the price, if he is guilty. >>>> >>>> As you (Aldo) point out, there are other options than sending Assange to >>>> Sweden or not sending him to Sweden. (As Norbert points out realistically in >>>> another post). Possible strategies: >>>> --Questioning in the UK. >>>> --Video questioning. >>>> --Remote video questioning, real-time, in a courtroom. >>>> I am sure legal experts can come up with other more creative, and >>>> workable options to allow the sexual misconduct charges to be fully and >>>> clearly aired, without endangering Assange's political rights. >>>> >>>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his >>>> WikiLeaks work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically >>>> motivated harassment or charge. >>>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing >>>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure this has anything to do with IG. But I do think it is >>>> important. >>>> >>>> Ginger >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18 August 2012 14:00, Aldo Matteucci >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ginger, >>>>> >>>>> the question is not whether the allegations are true - factual issues >>>>> we can't decide. >>>>> The question is whether Sweden, acting as proxy, will take that excuse >>>>> to jail him for good and throw away the key. >>>>> After all, that's what the US want. >>>>> >>>>> My feeling is that there is some truth in the criminal matter >>>>> but that Assange would not get a "fair" trial, in the sense that the >>>>> usual discretionary possibilities will be denied to him. >>>>> One fears a self-righteous Swede - see Bergman movies. >>>>> >>>>> Don't forget: over 90% of the cases are plea-bargained in the US. It is >>>>> normal to get "justice at a discount". Why not here? >>>>> >>>>> Aldo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 18 August 2012 19:22, Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and >>>>>> legal details. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, >>>>>> close Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian >>>>>> diplomats, does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political >>>>>> issues more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be >>>>>> investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from >>>>>> political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the rape >>>>>> charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can support >>>>>> Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still want to see >>>>>> him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that is a >>>>>> well-founded allegation. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible >>>>>> solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) going on >>>>>> at: >>>>>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the >>>>>> sexual misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / >>>>>> or be mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, Ginger >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mawaki >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. >>>>>>> > He was >>>>>>> > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 >>>>>>> > and Rector >>>>>>> > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation >>>>>>> > from >>>>>>> > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after >>>>>>> > immense >>>>>>> > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean >>>>>>> > Embassy and >>>>>>> > seize Julian Assange. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna >>>>>>> > Convention >>>>>>> > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which >>>>>>> > encodes >>>>>>> > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled >>>>>>> > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most >>>>>>> > subscribed single international treaty in the world. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic >>>>>>> > premises >>>>>>> > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no >>>>>>> > modification or >>>>>>> > qualification elsewhere in the treaty. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Article 22 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of >>>>>>> > the >>>>>>> > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the >>>>>>> > head of >>>>>>> > the mission. >>>>>>> > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all >>>>>>> > appropriate steps >>>>>>> > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or >>>>>>> > damage and >>>>>>> > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or >>>>>>> > impairment of its >>>>>>> > dignity. >>>>>>> > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property >>>>>>> > thereon >>>>>>> > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from >>>>>>> > search, >>>>>>> > requisition, attachment or execution. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to >>>>>>> > arrest the >>>>>>> > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the >>>>>>> > Cold War, >>>>>>> > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s >>>>>>> > embassies. >>>>>>> > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British >>>>>>> > Embassy to >>>>>>> > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law >>>>>>> > will result >>>>>>> > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment >>>>>>> > worldwide. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a >>>>>>> > strong >>>>>>> > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom >>>>>>> > of the >>>>>>> > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era >>>>>>> > of the >>>>>>> > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of >>>>>>> > international law. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British >>>>>>> > legislation. >>>>>>> > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its >>>>>>> > obligations in >>>>>>> > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the >>>>>>> > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by >>>>>>> > the >>>>>>> > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would >>>>>>> > leave >>>>>>> > British diplomats with no protection worldwide. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US >>>>>>> > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against >>>>>>> > the >>>>>>> > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing >>>>>>> > the move >>>>>>> > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been >>>>>>> > taken in >>>>>>> > Number 10. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal >>>>>>> > Democrats. >>>>>>> > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” >>>>>>> > impact now in >>>>>>> > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government >>>>>>> > salaries and >>>>>>> > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any >>>>>>> > belief to >>>>>>> > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that >>>>>>> > party for >>>>>>> > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had >>>>>>> > principles. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > *** >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > The Geopolitics of Asylum >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian >>>>>>> > Assange from >>>>>>> > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted >>>>>>> > political >>>>>>> > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international >>>>>>> > human rights >>>>>>> > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and >>>>>>> > made it >>>>>>> > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, >>>>>>> > president of the >>>>>>> > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation >>>>>>> > today. >>>>>>> > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a >>>>>>> > week in >>>>>>> > Ecuador for discussions of the case. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through >>>>>>> > negotiations or by >>>>>>> > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In >>>>>>> > my memory, >>>>>>> > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize >>>>>>> > someone who has >>>>>>> > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic >>>>>>> > in >>>>>>> > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for >>>>>>> > political >>>>>>> > reasons. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, >>>>>>> > Ecuadorian >>>>>>> > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the >>>>>>> > British >>>>>>> > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the >>>>>>> > United >>>>>>> > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. >>>>>>> > Such >>>>>>> > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, >>>>>>> > Ricardo >>>>>>> > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit >>>>>>> > threat” to >>>>>>> > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British >>>>>>> > colony,” Patiño >>>>>>> > added. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his >>>>>>> > government >>>>>>> > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for >>>>>>> > what may be >>>>>>> > a prolonged showdown. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict >>>>>>> > Assange and >>>>>>> > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator >>>>>>> > Diane >>>>>>> > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have >>>>>>> > called for >>>>>>> > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong >>>>>>> > objections from >>>>>>> > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may >>>>>>> > prefer to >>>>>>> > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes >>>>>>> > with the >>>>>>> > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in >>>>>>> > Sweden. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the >>>>>>> > conflict becomes >>>>>>> > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand >>>>>>> > off against >>>>>>> > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the >>>>>>> > wave of new >>>>>>> > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the >>>>>>> > traditional US >>>>>>> > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa >>>>>>> > joined >>>>>>> > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in >>>>>>> > June 2009, >>>>>>> > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His >>>>>>> > government >>>>>>> > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon >>>>>>> > rainforest, in a >>>>>>> > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the >>>>>>> > country.” >>>>>>> > He survived a coup attempt in 2010. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision >>>>>>> > without >>>>>>> > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive >>>>>>> > reaction by the >>>>>>> > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to >>>>>>> > solidify Latin >>>>>>> > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in >>>>>>> > relations >>>>>>> > with the United States. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked >>>>>>> > the Obama >>>>>>> > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to >>>>>>> > participate in >>>>>>> > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. >>>>>>> > Shortly >>>>>>> > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy >>>>>>> > chief, Dan >>>>>>> > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama >>>>>>> > administration. >>>>>>> > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United >>>>>>> > States and >>>>>>> > the region. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > *** >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Victoria Nuland >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Spokesperson >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Daily Press Briefing >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Washington, DC >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > August 16, 2012 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > TRANSCRIPT: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > 12:44 p.m. EDT >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s >>>>>>> > on your >>>>>>> > minds. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to >>>>>>> > grant >>>>>>> > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the >>>>>>> > Swedes. >>>>>>> > I don't have anything particular to add. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of >>>>>>> > a >>>>>>> > completely neutral, independent observer of it? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, >>>>>>> > it is an >>>>>>> > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to >>>>>>> > interject >>>>>>> > ourselves. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or >>>>>>> > where he >>>>>>> > may end up going, no. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing >>>>>>> > the Brits >>>>>>> > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any >>>>>>> > truth to >>>>>>> > that at all. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the >>>>>>> > Brits do not >>>>>>> > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States >>>>>>> > recognizes >>>>>>> > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS >>>>>>> > treaty >>>>>>> > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, >>>>>>> > presumably, >>>>>>> > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. >>>>>>> > recognize >>>>>>> > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal >>>>>>> > answer to >>>>>>> > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, >>>>>>> > diplomatic >>>>>>> > asylum. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making >>>>>>> > or the >>>>>>> > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were >>>>>>> > leaning on >>>>>>> > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future >>>>>>> > plans, >>>>>>> > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our >>>>>>> > legal >>>>>>> > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and >>>>>>> > get back to >>>>>>> > you. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines >>>>>>> > of the -- >>>>>>> > of the OAS and those signatories. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > And then when you said that you don't have any information to >>>>>>> > suggest that >>>>>>> > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. >>>>>>> > Assange removed >>>>>>> > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or >>>>>>> > just that >>>>>>> > you're not aware of it? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves >>>>>>> > in this. >>>>>>> > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > [...] >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason >>>>>>> > that the >>>>>>> > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that >>>>>>> > -- they >>>>>>> > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- >>>>>>> > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the >>>>>>> > United States >>>>>>> > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a >>>>>>> > credible >>>>>>> > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government >>>>>>> > persecution in >>>>>>> > the United States? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: No? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: No. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, >>>>>>> > the >>>>>>> > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country >>>>>>> > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to >>>>>>> > show up in >>>>>>> > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, >>>>>>> > you don't >>>>>>> > view that as -- >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran >>>>>>> > thought >>>>>>> > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention >>>>>>> > to >>>>>>> > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: OK. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: OK? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would >>>>>>> > face >>>>>>> > prosecution? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was >>>>>>> > not headed >>>>>>> > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to >>>>>>> > get into >>>>>>> > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been >>>>>>> > in his >>>>>>> > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on >>>>>>> > persecuting him, I >>>>>>> > reject that completely. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case >>>>>>> > does >>>>>>> > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the >>>>>>> > legal >>>>>>> > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the >>>>>>> > intention >>>>>>> > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face >>>>>>> > prosecution in the United States? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action >>>>>>> > that we were >>>>>>> > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think >>>>>>> > that >>>>>>> > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, >>>>>>> > right? >>>>>>> > Obviously, we have -- >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm >>>>>>> > going to >>>>>>> > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case >>>>>>> > against him. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much >>>>>>> > involved >>>>>>> > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics >>>>>>> > here on what >>>>>>> > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to >>>>>>> > wade into >>>>>>> > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it >>>>>>> > doesn't >>>>>>> > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies >>>>>>> > and that >>>>>>> > kind of thing. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Right. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved >>>>>>> > yourselves >>>>>>> > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was >>>>>>> > going to >>>>>>> > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other >>>>>>> > country, >>>>>>> > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said -- >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in >>>>>>> > Beijing >>>>>>> > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have >>>>>>> > objected to >>>>>>> > that, correct? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies >>>>>>> > have cited >>>>>>> > British law with regard to the statements they've made about >>>>>>> > potential >>>>>>> > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, >>>>>>> > international -- as compared to international law. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of >>>>>>> > whether they >>>>>>> > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under >>>>>>> > British >>>>>>> > law, I'm going to send you to them. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, >>>>>>> > there is >>>>>>> > international law here too, and presumably the United State would >>>>>>> > oppose or >>>>>>> > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government >>>>>>> > entering or >>>>>>> > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the >>>>>>> > world, >>>>>>> > no? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are >>>>>>> > standing on >>>>>>> > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to >>>>>>> > what the >>>>>>> > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the >>>>>>> > moment is. >>>>>>> > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know >>>>>>> > where we are >>>>>>> > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back >>>>>>> > in 1979, >>>>>>> > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a >>>>>>> > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest >>>>>>> > of this >>>>>>> > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by >>>>>>> > the >>>>>>> > Justice Department. Does that include -- >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department >>>>>>> > is >>>>>>> > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak >>>>>>> > to what >>>>>>> > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really >>>>>>> > don't have >>>>>>> > the details. OK? Thanks, guys. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > DPB #146 >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Aldo Matteucci >>>>> 65, Pourtalèsstr. >>>>> CH 3074 MURI b. Bern >>>>> Switzerland >>>>> aldo.matteucci at gmail.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To 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 >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 22:27:56 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:27:56 +1200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <503044FB.5050007@gmx.net> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <0819D322-2A7F-45DE-9974-2A038A38AB1E@gmail.com> <503044FB.5050007@gmx.net> Message-ID: If Assange knows what's good for him, he would not be interrogated even in Scotland Yard because then the the *Treaty of Amsterdam (1997)* would kick in and he could get arrested by the UK and extradited to Sweden and upon an extradition/rendition request from the US be sent to the US and possibly walk the last green mile depending on where he is tried. This is of interest because Assange and Wikileaks are synonymous with freedom of information regardless of the source or how the information was extracted even if it means violating national sovereignty arguments of "national security". I aem sure that some countries are already classifying Assange as a terrorist. His character is sort of like the Robin Hood of the digital age. So is he a terrorist or Robin Hood? On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > On 8/19/2012 6:26 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > A very important point is stated at > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 > This would appear to make the extradition unnecessary. > > This doesn't mean that the sexual misconduct charges should not be > investigated (whatever they actually are: I don't know). > > 18 November 2010 > > Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for > questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. > Sweden's Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says he has not been available > for questioning. > > Mr Assange's British lawyer Mark Stephens says his client offered to be > interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or Scotland Yard or via video > link. He accuses Ms Ny of "abusing her powers" in insisting that Mr Assange > return to Sweden. > > As I said before: I think this is extremely important - guilty or not is > not what I would like to see discussed at present. > > I repeat: "For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has > refused to explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." > > > > Norbert Klein > nhklein at gmx.net > http://www.thinking21.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 23:44:02 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:44:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] US opens up access to WCIT documents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E749F@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> The US has not opened up access to WCIT documents. It has told people that they can join an ITAC email list. ITAC is a long-standing advisory committee, dominated by private industry, which discusses and prepares for ITU meetings. I will be making some document release requests of the USG on that list. I will let you know what I get. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:51 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] US opens up access to WCIT documents Interesting write up on the same issue. http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49142&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10&utm_campaign=DailyNews170812ITUOpensItsDoors&utm_medium=email&utm_source=TTV-Daily-News-Alert -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 18 23:55:59 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:55:59 +1200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <0819D322-2A7F-45DE-9974-2A038A38AB1E@gmail.com> Message-ID: Snip.... On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 2:26 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Two things: > > 1. Has anyone looked into or analyzed what the ground is in that > Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 on which the UK > authorities are basing their argument and decision? and how is that > act supposed to relate to the Vienna Convention of 1961? > This is the "fail safe" option or the last resort. However, for the UK to do that for a "sexual misconduct" investigation is like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut and the political ramifications are tremendous because it goes beyond just Sweden, Ecuador and the UK but it will also not inspire confidence within the diplomatic community. It follows then that whilst options are available, they are available within a highly volatile context that if not handled carefully could spin off and have other catastrophic impact on other key areas in relations. Snip.. > 2. It might be a little too late for anyone to be able to disentangle > possible political motivations from these legal procedures (in UK and > Sweden). The party that appears the most obscure to me in terms of > their true motivation and intent is the Swedish judiciary, > surprisingly. To my recollection, the charges of sexual misconduct > were dropped at some point and a while thereafter they were taken up > again by another (higher?) level of the judiciary in Sweden. > Troubling. > Troubling indeed. > > Mawaki > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 00:01:36 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 04:01:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E6AFA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E74BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Fahd: Thanks for the response. Here is my response. Two points here: * I would have preferred to say "Some Saudi Citizens" (or any other appropriate phrasing) since the comments made do not reflect the opinion of the Saudi government [Milton L Mueller] Yes, it is the official spokesperson of the KSA, or at least someone claiming to be a spokesperson for the Kingdom. Once the many TLDs that they have commented on - and I have too - are delegated and active, it is a matter of a simple rule on the "Great Saudi Arabian Firewall" (mind you with the term since it is always used for the Chinese Firewall) to block them all. [Milton L Mueller] Yes, I understand that KSA has a strict censorship regime. I just don't understand how they can believe they ought to impose it on the rest of the world. The Saudi's - and for that matter many Muslims around the world - see these kind of TLDs as violating to the basics of the Islamic religion. Islam rejects pornography, trans-sexuality, gay/lesbianism... and any other form of sexual act that almost every religion in this planet opposes to. [Milton L Mueller] It is fine for followers of the Islamic religion to urge its adherents to reject these things. It is not acceptable for either side to attempt to use the force of the state to ban discussion or symbolic recognition of those practices on a global basis. Muslims need to learn the wisdom of tolerance - just as do the Christians in my country who try to prevent peaceful Muslims from building mosques in their community. Remember, some people reject Islam - so would they be justified in trying to object to or ban any mention of Islam in a TLD? Remember too that some people reject religion, i.e. are atheists. P.S. I am not trying to get into any religious debates here, but I am trying to explain the views and concerns of the comments comming out of Saudi Arabia and many other Arab/Muslim countries. I myself being a father would strongly oppose to my kids being exposed to such TLDs at their tender young age. [Milton L Mueller] First, it is not the TLDs you are concerned about it is the content they harbor. Second, as a father it is your responsibility to watch out for what your kids are exposed to. Third, this material is already on the internet. Blocking TLDs will not change that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Sun Aug 19 00:19:24 2012 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:19:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <502FE4D6.3050002@gmx.net> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <502FE4D6.3050002@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20120819041922.GA7732@liro.tarvainen.info> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 01:54:14AM +0700, Norbert Klein (nhklein at gmx.net) wrote: > >The Assange case > But why this: > > " For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused to > explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." In my eyes, that is perhaps the most suspicious thing in the whole affair. Even remembering the old maxim that one should not invoke malice where stupidity is sufficient explanation, and remembering how obstinate officials can sometimes be, I can't help wondering why they haven't addressed this in public, not even to the extent of digging out some obscure detail of Swedish law that'd prevent it. -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 00:32:41 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 04:32:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <502F37E2.2020609@itforchange.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E6AFA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <502F37E2.2020609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E7506@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Neither, the rhetoric of attacking positions that make you feel good, which positions you know I never hold; like, your claim that I am on the side of 'people who want to control and regulate the use of common word in order to ensure that they are used "properly" or "fairly"" When, if I am saying anything at all, I am saying that common words should be allowed to be freely used by all, and not inappropriately pushed into private domains, which is a form of 'control' over the use of those 'common words'. [Milton L Mueller] Nice rhetoric, but you are really ducking the argument. I honestly think you don’t understand the issue here, so let me try to explain more carefully. A TLD string must be unique. Therefore it can only be assigned to one entity. That entity, the registrant of, let’s say, .WORD, decides what policies and practices determine what domains are registered under .WORD. Tell me how you translate the idea that “common words (as domain names) should be allowed to be freely used by all” into a specific policy without violating the uniqueness and exclusivity constraint? “Internet governance” is a generic term, and yet, we at IGP have registered it under .org. And no, it cannot be freely used by all. It’s ours. It is a domain administered by IGP, just as ‘IT’ and ‘change’ are common words that your organization administers as its private domain. Our registration of that generic term Internet governance has not stopped dozens of other organizations having a significant profile in the area – Diplo, IGC, etc. The only way to implement what you seem to be calling for is to set up a “word authority” that a) defines which words will be generic or common enough to be denied registration by any private actor; b) imposes on these generic terms a specific set of policies regarding how registrations are made. And that is what I mean when I say – with complete sincerity – that you will end up advocating the control and regulation of these common words. Suppose your Word Authority dictates that .BOOK must follow the same open registration policy as now exists in .COM. Would that be “freely used by all?” No, even then, “open to all” will simply mean that second level domains will be registered on a first-come, first-served basis..COM and .ORG are open to any registrant, but that simply means that if I register BOOK.COM or BOOK.ORG, I get to have this common word all to myself at the second level. So to get what you seem to want, you would have to impose an even more stringent collective governance regime on how names are allocated and assigned within .BOOK. If that is not correct please explain, in specific, implementable terms, how you would do it differently. Even more ludicrous is your claim that "It is only a matter of time before you join the trademark lobby in their never ending quest to ensure that politically approved true rights holders are allowed to use specific words in specific ways " [Milton L Mueller] OK, I admit it, you will never “join the trademark lobby”, but only because you would never be caught dead with those corporate, commercial types. My point however, is that your argument takes the exact same form and leads to the same kinds of policies: some central authority has to control who registers every name. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 00:52:49 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 16:52:49 +1200 Subject: [governance] Welcome to New Members! Message-ID: Dear All, Firstly, I would like to take the time to welcome all new subscribers to the IGC. Since the beginning of the year, there are subscribers added to the list and it continues to grow. We warmly welcome all new subscribers this year and invite you to participate in the dialogue and interactions on the list. For those of you who have yet to get acquainted with what the IGC is about, please visit the website and have a read of its contents. If you have specific questions and require clarification, please email the coordinators at coordinators at igcaucus.org To the global Muslim community, we wish you Eid Mubarak as you end your month-long Ramadan fast and begin your new year. To the Afghanis on the list, we wish you well on your 93rd year of Independence and to the Hungarians, Happy St Stephen's day as you celebrate your National Day soon! Warm Regards, Izumi and Sala -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 01:15:50 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:45:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Welcome to New Members! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks very much Sala, for the invite and for the welcome. For those who find it of interest - "Ramadan" - usually written with a "d" is always pronounced with a "z" as "Ramazan" (like Rum-zahn). Best regards, Chaitanya Dhareshwar On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly, I would like to take the time to welcome all new subscribers to > the IGC. Since the beginning of the year, there are subscribers added to > the list and it continues to grow. We warmly welcome all new subscribers > this year and invite you to participate in the dialogue and interactions on > the list. For those of you who have yet to get acquainted with what the IGC > is about, please visit the website and have a read of its contents. If you > have specific questions and require clarification, please email the > coordinators at coordinators at igcaucus.org > > To the global Muslim community, we wish you Eid Mubarak as you end your > month-long Ramadan fast and begin your new year. To the Afghanis on the > list, we wish you well on your 93rd year of Independence and to the > Hungarians, Happy St Stephen's day as you celebrate your National Day soon! > > Warm Regards, > > Izumi and Sala > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Aug 19 01:29:11 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:29:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] State Department Wants You on ITAC Advisory, Opens All ITU docs Message-ID: <06a101cd7dcb$a3419630$e9c4c290$@gmail.com> Begin forwarded message: From: David Farber Date: August 17, 2012 9:02:18 AM EDT To: "ip" Subject: [IP] State Department Wants You on ITAC Advisory, Opens All ITU docs Reply-To: dave at farber.net Begin forwarded message: From: Dave Burstein Subject: State Department Wants You on ITAC Advisory, Opens All ITU docs Date: August 17, 2012 8:54:53 AM EDT To: Dave Farber Dave I don't often send my reporting for the list, but I think this one may interest people. Any American interested in the ITU/WCIT governing the net debate should join the mailing list of State Department International Telecommunications Advisory Committee. Simply send an email to join ITAC_Listserve_Requests at state. gov and you automatically have access to ITAC. Until recently, I was typically the only person to speak up at meetings who wasn't government or with strong dorporate ties. But they've now decided to reach out, looking to make the "multi-stakeholder" model more democratic. Anyone with questions can email me offlist adn I'll point them in the right direction. It's an opportunity to have influence beyond just the usual talk. db http://fastnetnews.com/policy/177-p/4826-itu-secrecy-disappearing-as-us-itac-open-to-all ITU Secrecy Disappearing as U.S. ITAC Open to All Join me and make a difference. 303,000,000 Americans have just been offered access to the notoriously secret ITU WCIT documents. Just join ITAC, the State Department International Telecommunications Advisory Committee, and enjoy access. “It takes a simple email to Mr. Julian Minard, with a request to be placed on the ITAC listserv, based on some material interest in a given topic,” Paul Najarian of State writes. Simply send an email to join ITAC_Listserve_Requests at state. gov and you automatically have access to ITAC. That's actually proving true, and email me if you need details how to make this work for you. Until now, no one knew about it so almost no one applies except insiders. It’s really that simple. I’ve recommended three people and they were all treated respectfully. Uncle Sam wants you, as Ambassador Terry Kramer makes clear below and confirmed to me in a brief phone call. “We welcome all interested stakeholders to participate in our WCITpreparatory process and help the U.S. Government form positions in advance of the conference. We solicit this input and feedback through the United States International Telecommunications Advisory Committee (ITAC).” His colleague, Ambassador Phil Verveer testified to Congress, that ITAC is “open to all interested parties to review and advise on the regional and national contributions to WCIT as they are submitted.” To my amazement, the discussions are substantive. With almost no one outside the system, it's become a convenient forum for State to share information with NTIA, FCC, and others, as well as two dozen or so corporate people who are on the inside. So it's actually a useful point to express your opinion. Being on ITAC gives you access to the main ITU and WCIT documents, along with a painful number of exceedingly boring emails. The meetings are in D.C. at State and generally have call-ins. Until recently, I was the only person speaking at most meetings who wasn’t part ofgovernment or have strong corporate ties. No one else spoke up, for example, when U.S.proposals for NGN resembled a blueprint for the Great Firewall of China. (Our security agencies have similar requirements.) I wrote that the ITU wanted to open the documents http://fastnetnews.com/itu/186-i/4822-itu-qmembers-free-to-publish-any-documentsq-and-they-will-im-told based on ITU sources and some comments from Europe. I had no expectation the U.S. would join actively, but that’s exactly what Ambassador Kramer promises “Recently, the ITU Council announced its decision to make public one of the summary documents of proposals to amend the International Telecommunications Regulations. In addition, at the recent meeting in Geneva, the Secretary General stressed that “all ITU members have full access to all WCIT-12 documents and can share them within their constituencies.” Accordingly, I want to take a moment to update you on the U.S. Government’s approach to stakeholder participation and input for the December conference and also my decision on how we will share and distribute WCIT documents going forward. First, we welcome all interested stakeholders to participate in our WCIT preparatory process and help the U.S. Government form positions in advance of the conference. We solicit this input and feedback through the United States International Telecommunications Advisory Committee (ITAC). I believe that the ITAC process is critically important in helping the U.S. Government convene the type of open, public, and necessary consultations from all stakeholders that helps strengthen our positions in advance of the WCIT. The ITAC has advised the Department of State on U.S. participation in international telecommunications treaty organizations such as the International Telecommunication Union for decades and has, accordingly, been critical in the preparation of prior U.S. positions for meetings of international treaty organizations, developing and coordinating proposed contributions to international meetings and submitting them to the Department of State for consideration. For the WCIT, the ITAC will continue to serve this critical role. Therefore, we welcome any person and any and all organizations, whether corporate or non-profit, to participate in the ITAC if they would like to assist with the WCIT preparatory process. Second, all WCIT preparatory documents – including revisions of the TD-62 compilations of Member States proposals, the final report of the Council Working Group, and Member State proposals – have been and will continue to be made available to interested ITAC member. It is imperative that we ensure full consideration of a WCIT proposal’s impact on economic growth, the Internet’s openness, and the world at large and this is best done through the adoption of open and transparent processes that allow for wide consultation. Thus, we will continue to share these WCIT documents with stakeholder so that they can provide more informed views and help us develop positions that reflect the input of the diverse range of interests in the United States. Starting this week, I will proactively communicate our positions on participation and document availability to underscore the US Government’s commitment to transparency. Terry D. Kramer U.S. Ambassador Head of U.S. Delegation’ http://fastnetnews.com/policy/177-p/4827-state-department-actively-reaching-out-to-public-knowledge-a-others State Department Actively Reaching Out To Public Knowledge & Others Monday, 30 July 2012 12:51 Looking for civil society support at ITU. “The USG did reach out to us and that is good,” Rashmi Rangnath of Public Knowledge emails. “They are certainly interested in hearing what we have to say.” Another key D.C. public interest group confirmed to me State was reaching out to them as well. AT ITU and WCIT discussions, the U.S. "multi-stakeholder" model is just a veneer on corporate interests. A Verizon lobbyist sits on the board of ISOC, where’s he joined by a Comcast engineer; Comcast went to court to oppose even the very weak U.S. neutrality rules and led a massive lobbying campaign against neutrality. Another Verizon lobbyist is on the official U.S. delegation to WTPF. The U.S. ITAC until recently had dozens of corporate representatives and essentially no one from civil society. Terry Kramer, the head of the U.S. delegation to WCIT comes from Vodafone/Verizon. The State Department lead, Ambassador Phil Verveer, is a former Verizon/AT&T/USTA lawyer, although Verveer is rumored to be a lame duck these days. His telco ties certainly didn't hurt his chances for the job. Probably more important was that he and his wife were friends since college with Bill and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. U.S. credibility requires incorporating people like Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge, -- Editor, DSL Prime, Fast Net News and A Wireless Cloud Author with Jennie Bourne DSL (Wiley, 2002) and Web Video: Making It Great, Getting It Noticed (Peachpit, 2008) Archives Description: https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg| Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now Description: https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 465 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 3173 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Aug 19 01:29:11 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:29:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars In-Reply-To: References: <4432146A-DF79-4FC0-9E60-34F7F992C8B9@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <06af01cd7dcb$a6e71e90$f4b55bb0$@gmail.com> It appears that the globalization of the mechanisms of "governance" has already happened but it is Mickey Mouse err... the US copyright industry which has managed the feat and one can be assured that the result will be little truck or trade re: supporting "the public interest". M From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 3:58 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dewayne Hendricks Date: Saturday, August 18, 2012 Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Private justice: How Hollywood money put a Brit behind bars Industry-funded prosecution leads to 4-year sentence for SurfTheChannel owner. By Timothy B. Lee Aug 16 2012 Anton Vickerman, 38-year old owner of the once popular link site surfthechannel.com (STC), was sentenced to four years in prison on Tuesday by a British judge. But the prosecutors sitting across the courtroom from him didn't work for the Crown-they were lawyers for the movie studio trade group Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT). FACT, not public officials in the UK, was the driving force behind Vickerman's prosecution. Indeed, FACT effectively took on the role of a private law enforcement agency. Private investigators hired by FACT first identified Vickerman as the administrator of STC and built the case against him. His assets were frozen at FACT's request by a government agency-which was itself funded by FACT. And when the UK's public prosecutors decided not to press charges against Vickerman at all, FACT initiated a criminal prosecution on its own dime. This is a new development for anti-piracy efforts. Organizations like the MPAA, RIAA, IFPA, and FACT have long lobbied law enforcement officials to prosecute "rogue sites" and have provided them with information and logistical support to do so. But public prosecutors generally have the final say on who will be indicted. In the Vickerman case, the public prosecutors concluded that there wasn't enough evidence to merit prosecution. FACT disagreed and invoked what one lawyer told us is an "archaic right" for a private organization to bring criminal prosecutions against other private parties. Vickerman posted a lengthy testimonial to his site after he was convicted. In it, he describes FACT as a lawless conspiracy to shut down his site for the benefit of competing video sites, and he portrays Judge Evans as an "imbecile" who didn't understand the legal issues in the case. While many of the accusations seem overwrought, Vickerman did include a cache of documents that came out during his trial. From them we can paint a clear picture of just how far one private party was allowed to go in its bid for justice. FACT confirmed the authenticity of the court documents for us but declined to get into the specifics of Vickerman's account-arguing that his conviction by a jury of his peers speaks for itself. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 01:33:20 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 11:03:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] State Department Wants You on ITAC Advisory, Opens All ITU docs In-Reply-To: <06a101cd7dcb$a3419630$e9c4c290$@gmail.com> References: <06a101cd7dcb$a3419630$e9c4c290$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Why 303 mil?? Why not 666 mil to reflect the "true nature" (kidding) -C On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:59 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Begin forwarded message:**** > > *From:* David Farber > *Date:* August 17, 2012 9:02:18 AM EDT > *To:* "ip" > *Subject:* *[IP] State Department Wants You on ITAC Advisory, Opens All > ITU docs* > *Reply-To:* dave at farber.net**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Begin forwarded message:**** > > ** ** > > *From: *Dave Burstein **** > > *Subject: State Department Wants You on ITAC Advisory, Opens All ITU docs* > **** > > *Date: *August 17, 2012 8:54:53 AM EDT**** > > *To: *Dave Farber **** > > > Dave**** > > ** ** > > I don't often send my reporting for the list, but I think this one may > interest people. Any American interested in the ITU/WCIT governing the net > debate should join the mailing list of State Department International > Telecommunications Advisory Committee. Simply send an email to join > ITAC_Listserve_Requests at state. gov and you > automatically have access to ITAC. **** > > ** ** > > Until recently, I was typically the only person to speak up at > meetings who wasn't government or with strong dorporate ties. But they've > now decided to reach out, looking to make the "multi-stakeholder" model > more democratic. Anyone with questions can email me offlist adn I'll point > them in the right direction. **** > > ** ** > > It's an opportunity to have influence beyond just the usual talk. db** > ** > > ** ** > > > http://fastnetnews.com/policy/177-p/4826-itu-secrecy-disappearing-as-us-itac-open-to-all > **** > > ITU Secrecy Disappearing as U.S. ITAC Open to All**** > > Join me and make a difference. 303,000,000 Americans have just been > offered access to the notoriously secret ITU WCIT documents. Just join > ITAC, the State Department International Telecommunications Advisory > Committee, and enjoy access. “It takes a simple email to Mr. Julian Minard, > with a request to be placed on the ITAC listserv, based on some material > interest in a given topic,” Paul Najarian of State writes. Simply send an > email to join ITAC_Listserve_Requests at state. > gov and you automatically have access > to ITAC. That's actually proving true, and email me if you need details > how to make this work for you. Until now, no one knew about it so almost no > one applies except insiders. It’s really that simple. I’ve recommended > three people and they were all treated respectfully.**** > > Uncle Sam wants you, as Ambassador Terry Kramer makes clear below and > confirmed to me in a brief phone call. “We welcome all interested > stakeholders to participate in our WCITpreparatory process and help the > U.S. Government form positions in advance of the conference. We solicit > this input and feedback through the United States International > Telecommunications Advisory Committee (ITAC).” His colleague, Ambassador > Phil Verveer testified to Congress, that ITAC is “open to all interested > parties to review and advise on the regional and national contributions to > WCIT as they are submitted.” > To my amazement, the discussions are substantive. With almost no one > outside the system, it's become a convenient forum for State to share > information with NTIA, FCC, and others, as well as two dozen or so > corporate people who are on the inside. So it's actually a useful point to > express your opinion. Being on ITAC gives you access to the main ITU and > WCIT documents, along with a painful number of exceedingly boring emails. > The meetings are in D.C. at State and generally have call-ins. > Until recently, I was the only person speaking at most meetings who > wasn’t part ofgovernment or have strong corporate ties. No one else spoke > up, for example, when U.S.proposals for NGN resembled a blueprint for the > Great Firewall of China. (Our security agencies have similar requirements.) > I wrote that the ITU wanted to open the documents > http://fastnetnews.com/itu/186-i/4822-itu-qmembers-free-to-publish-any-documentsq-and-they-will-im-told based > on ITU sources and some comments from Europe. I had no expectation the > U.S. would join actively, but that’s exactly what Ambassador Kramer promises > > “Recently, the ITU Council announced its decision to make public one of > the summary documents of proposals to amend the International > Telecommunications Regulations. In addition, at the recent meeting in > Geneva, the Secretary General stressed that “all ITU members have full > access to all WCIT-12 documents and can share them within their > constituencies.”**** > > > Accordingly, I want to take a moment to update you on the > U.S. Government’s approach to stakeholder participation and input for the > December conference and also my decision on how we will share and > distribute WCIT documents going forward. > First, we welcome all interested stakeholders to participate in our > WCIT preparatory process and help the U.S. Government form positions in > advance of the conference. We solicit this input and feedback through the > United States International Telecommunications Advisory Committee (ITAC). > I believe that the ITAC process is critically important in helping the > U.S. Government convene the type of open, public, and necessary > consultations from all stakeholders that helps strengthen our positions in > advance of the WCIT. The ITAC has advised the Department of State on > U.S. participation in international telecommunications treaty organizations > such as the International Telecommunication Union for decades and has, > accordingly, been critical in the preparation of prior U.S. positions for > meetings of international treaty organizations, developing and coordinating > proposed contributions to international meetings and submitting them to the > Department of State for consideration. For the WCIT, the ITAC will > continue to serve this critical role. Therefore, we welcome any person and > any and all organizations, whether corporate or non-profit, to participate > in the ITAC if they would like to assist with the WCIT preparatory process. > Second, all WCIT preparatory documents – including revisions of the TD-62 > compilations of Member States proposals, the final report of the Council > Working Group, and Member State proposals – have been and will continue to > be made available to interested ITAC member. It is imperative that we > ensure full consideration of a WCIT proposal’s impact on economic growth, > the Internet’s openness, and the world at large and this is best done > through the adoption of open and transparent processes that allow > for wide consultation. Thus, we will continue to share these WCIT > documents with stakeholder so that they can provide more informed views and > help us develop positions that reflect the input of the diverse range of > interests in the United States. > Starting this week, I will proactively communicate our positions on > participation and document availability to underscore the US Government’s > commitment to > transparency. > Terry D. Kramer > U.S. Ambassador > Head of U.S. Delegation’ **** > > ** ** > > > http://fastnetnews.com/policy/177-p/4827-state-department-actively-reaching-out-to-public-knowledge-a-others > **** > > ** ** > > *State Department Actively Reaching Out To Public Knowledge & Others > * > > ** ** > > Monday, 30 July 2012 12:51**** > > Looking for civil society support at ITU. “The USG did reach out to us and > that is good,” Rashmi Rangnath of Public Knowledge emails. “They are > certainly interested in hearing what we have to say.” Another key D.C. > public interest group confirmed to me State was reaching out to them as > well. > AT ITU and WCIT discussions, the U.S. "multi-stakeholder" model is just a > veneer on corporate interests. A Verizon lobbyist sits on the board of > ISOC, where’s he joined by a Comcast engineer; Comcast went to court to > oppose even the very weak U.S. neutrality rules and led a massive lobbying > campaign against neutrality. Another Verizon lobbyist is on the official > U.S. delegation to WTPF. The U.S. ITAC until recently had dozens of > corporate representatives and essentially no one from civil society. > Terry Kramer, the head of the U.S. delegation to WCIT comes from > Vodafone/Verizon. The State Department lead, Ambassador Phil Verveer, is a > former Verizon/AT&T/USTA lawyer, although Verveer is rumored to be a lame > duck these days. His telco ties certainly didn't hurt his chances for the > job. Probably more important was that he and his wife were friends since > college with Bill and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. > U.S. credibility requires incorporating people like Gigi Sohn of > Public Knowledge, **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > -- > Editor, DSL Prime, Fast Net News and A Wireless Cloud > Author with Jennie Bourne DSL (Wiley, 2002) and Web Video: Making It > Great, Getting It Noticed (Peachpit, 2008)**** > > ** ** > > Archives [image: > Description: https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]| > ModifyYour Subscription | Unsubscribe > Now > **** > > [image: Description: https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] > **** > > ** ** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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: image002.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 3173 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 465 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 02:32:41 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:02:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50308889.8060904@itforchange.net> Sala (and Fouad) I am a bit surprised at your emails discussing in such a positive manner the need for developing countries to assert themselves in global regulation of the Internet, which regulation we all know does in any case happen by default by powerful countries. For if indeed this is your political position or even inclination, why, when a UN CIRP kind of proposal is brought up even just as a dialogue opener, does everyone join the bandwagon of a shrill 'down, down' , even without giving it an opportunity of a reasoned discussion. To discuss just one global Internet policy related issue that you have touched upon, fair distribution of taxes accruing, or that should accrue, from commercial transactions on the Internet, europe has an inter-country agreement on it.... Why shouldnt developing country also be party to such agreements, so that they dont lose revenue. However, when any real institutional proposal to move in such directions comes up, as CIRP is, how easily we all - and I address this specially to civil society from developing countries - merrily follow the pied pipper's tune of 'threat to the Internet', 'theat to FoE' and the such, towards our continued collective bondage and domination by the North .... Any political position, I would say. is only as good as the willingness to work on the corresponding real political possibilities. If you dont like a CIRP like possibility, sure, do suggest others. But what is the point in vain musings, without putting your political currency where your mouth is. parminder On Saturday 18 August 2012 11:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > I don't see why they could be exempt from taxes and why they should > not be regulated. Ordinarily just as any person travelling to another > country is subject to the laws of that country and this is true from > the moment you step into their airspace or water or cyber space. What > made the US take down Rojadirecta? See: http://www.rojadirecta.com/ > where you will see evidence of a domain name take down by ICE Homeland > Security Investigations? > > The only material difference really is that developing countries have > been dormant and sleeping. If you look at the regulatory trends around > the world, the developed world has been efficiently keeping companies > hosting content on the Internet in check and making sure they act > responsibly. All of a sudden when the "sleeping giant" awakens, ie. > the developing world wanting to do the same thing there are all kinds > of marketing strategies designed to take the focus away from the core > issues. The reality is that this is a new day, markets are being > levelled, knowledge is free and the developing world has been > empowered. [/Slight bunny trail: If you think about how some of these > countries were formerly under the dominion of others, where much of > their wealth and natural resources were sized to build empires whilst > their own countries lie in ruins. Countries are now awakening to build > their nations, their infrastructures, their economies etc/] > > Why should'nt the developing world regulate two-sided market > economies? At the end of the day, the objections to "Taxation" are > about the "bottom line" and if that is countries' only mechanism > available for making these corporates act responsibly. > > In my view the crux of the complex debates revolving around > Regulations stems from the notion of "borders". Countries have the > responsibility of looking out for their respective interests. > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Fouad Bajwa > wrote: > > I was asked an interesting question today by a colleague on the > discussion about Google's interference in national electronic > commerce/e-payment, privacy and ITU-ITRs positions in developing > countries in Asia. > > She asked whether developing countries should regulate two-sided > market economies where the platforms were US based content and > services providers and tax them and design laws to prevent their > interference within a sovereign country's policies? > > Fouad Bajwa > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 03:24:35 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 19:24:35 +1200 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: <50308889.8060904@itforchange.net> References: <50308889.8060904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Firstly, personally, I find it sad when people try to box or categorise the developing world as "South". It's a broad attempt for someone's convenience to paint us all with the same brush. It oversimplifies people's positions and "assumes" that people all think the same way or are wired the same way. Nothing could be further from the truth. Secondly, I do not see why it should surprise anyone that I am pro-development as I have always been since I was six years old. The reality is that no country is the same and there are different challenges, contexts that cause people to hold certain positions. Snip > > ..... why, when a UN CIRP kind of proposal is brought up even just as a > dialogue opener, does everyone join the bandwagon of a shrill 'down, down' > , even without giving it an opportunity of a reasoned discussion. > For the simple reason that I do not believe in the methodology. My personal view is that people need to sit together and dialogue and take stock. To want to take control of root servers just because majority of them are housed in the US in my personal view is not the answer. [I am prepared to change my view if and when convinced otherwise] Too me it is just countries wanting more geo-political control so they can also strengthen their reach. > > To discuss just one global Internet policy related issue that you have > touched upon, fair distribution of taxes accruing, or that should accrue, > from commercial transactions on the Internet, europe has an inter-country > agreement on it.... Why shouldnt developing country also be party to such > agreements, so that they dont lose revenue. > I agree. This is different from the UN CIRP that was tabled and first introduced in Nairobi last year. What I have yet to see really is building dialogue on what the ecosystem or universe is as far as the cyber environment is concerned. In my view there are many things that we should fix that require prioritization of resources. Things like capacity building to enable meaningful participation. How would taking over critical internet resources by force be any good for the developing world if there are competing DNS roots? Globally we have not addressed the fair competition aspects revolving around wholesale transit costs and can you imagine Pandora's box unleased when there is competition at the root level. A brief look at the manner in which telecommunications regulation has evolved around the world should be enough to suggest that any transition should be well thought out. In plain speak, the world is just not ready yet. On the other there is a need to identify and list all fears and all concerns and to always bear in mind that whilst searching for solutions, the integrity of the architecture and more importantly the stability of the Internet is preserved. > However, when any real institutional proposal to move in such directions > comes up, as CIRP is, how easily we all - and I address this specially to > civil society from developing countries - merrily follow the pied pipper's > tune of 'threat to the Internet', 'theat to FoE' and the such, towards our > continued collective bondage and domination by the North .... > > We do have the capacity to make up our own minds and if we are perceived to be under the bondage of the so called "Pied Piper", that is just a matter of perception. > Any political position, I would say. is only as good as the willingness to > work on the corresponding real political possibilities. If you dont like a > CIRP like possibility, sure, do suggest others. > "Capacity Building" to enable meaningful participation because when people are empowered, they can meaningfully participate in policy decisions in their own countries and in other regional and international foras. This includes all stakeholders working together for the greater good so instead of tearing each other down look into ways to collaborate. There are topics of great interest to the developing world as far as the WCIT is concerned. But what is the point in vain musings, without putting your political > currency where your mouth is. > I can only do so much as an individual. So far I have tried to do this by serving my region within the At Large community in ICANN along with hundreds of other volunteers to comment on policies looking out after the interests of ordinary internet users. Being active within my region in the discussion of these issues, raising awareness, facilitating trainings making submissions, crafting policies etc whether this is with the Regulators, ISPs, ITU, SPC etc. I did not attend the Asian Pacific Regional IGF because I was engaged in awareness and national consultations with a certain Pacific country as we were invited by their Government. > > > > parminder > > > > > On Saturday 18 August 2012 11:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > I don't see why they could be exempt from taxes and why they should not be > regulated. Ordinarily just as any person travelling to another country is > subject to the laws of that country and this is true from the moment you > step into their airspace or water or cyber space. What made the US take > down Rojadirecta? See: http://www.rojadirecta.com/ where you will see > evidence of a domain name take down by ICE Homeland Security > Investigations? > > The only material difference really is that developing countries have > been dormant and sleeping. If you look at the regulatory trends around the > world, the developed world has been efficiently keeping companies hosting > content on the Internet in check and making sure they act responsibly. All > of a sudden when the "sleeping giant" awakens, ie. the developing world > wanting to do the same thing there are all kinds of marketing strategies > designed to take the focus away from the core issues. The reality is that > this is a new day, markets are being levelled, knowledge is free and the > developing world has been empowered. [*Slight bunny trail: If you think > about how some of these countries were formerly under the dominion of > others, where much of their wealth and natural resources were sized to > build empires whilst their own countries lie in ruins. Countries are now > awakening to build their nations, their infrastructures, their economies etc > *] > > Why should'nt the developing world regulate two-sided market economies? At > the end of the day, the objections to "Taxation" are about the "bottom > line" and if that is countries' only mechanism available for making these > corporates act responsibly. > > In my view the crux of the complex debates revolving around Regulations > stems from the notion of "borders". Countries have the responsibility of > looking out for their respective interests. > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> I was asked an interesting question today by a colleague on the >> discussion about Google's interference in national electronic >> commerce/e-payment, privacy and ITU-ITRs positions in developing countries >> in Asia. >> >> She asked whether developing countries should regulate two-sided market >> economies where the platforms were US based content and services providers >> and tax them and design laws to prevent their interference within a >> sovereign country's policies? >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 04:44:36 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:44:36 +0500 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: <50308889.8060904@itforchange.net> References: <50308889.8060904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, I don't remember taking a position in favor of or against a UN CIRP and my neutrality on the control or regulation issue remains because my country appears to remain outside the IGF, takes OIC positions in the HRC and is highly pro-surveillance, pro-content filtering, pro-blocking and our internet rights groups are either Internet Giants funded or live off donor agendas that fund only false war torn and gender abuse and separatist peace security propaganda. It is a false accusation that Pakistan has its own say in such matters as its part of a larger bloc called the OIC, see what OIC is saying in the context of the Syrian crisis. I try to balance things in view of facts, figures and context but it is an irony that in the US, people want an open and network neutral Internet but their companies seem to be playing around anything but that and their citizens are harassed and jailed in the name of Copyrights and IP and their companies are seemingly living off technologies patent wars with sometimes stuff they didn't even create but own patents to! The kind of people that i can foresee will end up discussing Internet policy in such a proposed UNCIRP setting is very dangerous with the usual topi-drama by private sector led business and information cartels, civil society funded by Internet Giants and dominant governments stepping on developing countries will be the norm. Attempting to create a new IGF with more concrete UN or multilateral funding isn't going to take the Internet anywhere, make what you have effective and prove that it will work! The world tends to remain ignorant on internet public policy issues trying to pump life into the IGF as well as other policy settings displaying the dilemma you shared and many opportunistic people that know anything about it are busy milking cows. Where's the love my friend! Fouad Bajwa On Aug 19, 2012 11:33 AM, "parminder" wrote: > Sala (and Fouad) > > I am a bit surprised at your emails discussing in such a positive manner > the need for developing countries to assert themselves in global regulation > of the Internet, which regulation we all know does in any case happen by > default by powerful countries. For if indeed this is your political > position or even inclination, why, when a UN CIRP kind of proposal is > brought up even just as a dialogue opener, does everyone join the bandwagon > of a shrill 'down, down' , even without giving it an opportunity of a > reasoned discussion. > > To discuss just one global Internet policy related issue that you have > touched upon, fair distribution of taxes accruing, or that should accrue, > from commercial transactions on the Internet, europe has an inter-country > agreement on it.... Why shouldnt developing country also be party to such > agreements, so that they dont lose revenue. However, when any real > institutional proposal to move in such directions comes up, as CIRP is, how > easily we all - and I address this specially to civil society from > developing countries - merrily follow the pied pipper's tune of 'threat to > the Internet', 'theat to FoE' and the such, towards our continued > collective bondage and domination by the North .... > > Any political position, I would say. is only as good as the willingness to > work on the corresponding real political possibilities. If you dont like a > CIRP like possibility, sure, do suggest others. But what is the point in > vain musings, without putting your political currency where your mouth is. > > parminder > > > > > On Saturday 18 August 2012 11:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > I don't see why they could be exempt from taxes and why they should not be > regulated. Ordinarily just as any person travelling to another country is > subject to the laws of that country and this is true from the moment you > step into their airspace or water or cyber space. What made the US take > down Rojadirecta? See: http://www.rojadirecta.com/ where you will see > evidence of a domain name take down by ICE Homeland Security > Investigations? > > The only material difference really is that developing countries have > been dormant and sleeping. If you look at the regulatory trends around the > world, the developed world has been efficiently keeping companies hosting > content on the Internet in check and making sure they act responsibly. All > of a sudden when the "sleeping giant" awakens, ie. the developing world > wanting to do the same thing there are all kinds of marketing strategies > designed to take the focus away from the core issues. The reality is that > this is a new day, markets are being levelled, knowledge is free and the > developing world has been empowered. [*Slight bunny trail: If you think > about how some of these countries were formerly under the dominion of > others, where much of their wealth and natural resources were sized to > build empires whilst their own countries lie in ruins. Countries are now > awakening to build their nations, their infrastructures, their economies etc > *] > > Why should'nt the developing world regulate two-sided market economies? At > the end of the day, the objections to "Taxation" are about the "bottom > line" and if that is countries' only mechanism available for making these > corporates act responsibly. > > In my view the crux of the complex debates revolving around Regulations > stems from the notion of "borders". Countries have the responsibility of > looking out for their respective interests. > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> I was asked an interesting question today by a colleague on the >> discussion about Google's interference in national electronic >> commerce/e-payment, privacy and ITU-ITRs positions in developing countries >> in Asia. >> >> She asked whether developing countries should regulate two-sided market >> economies where the platforms were US based content and services providers >> and tax them and design laws to prevent their interference within a >> sovereign country's policies? >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 04:46:08 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:46:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Fouad On Aug 18, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I was asked an interesting question today by a colleague on the discussion about Google's interference in national electronic commerce/e-payment, privacy and ITU-ITRs positions in developing countries in Asia. > What exactly do you mean by interfering? Lobbying for its positions, which all companies do? Explaining why they think that regulating the Internet via the ITRs is a bad idea (which the Pakistani government seems to have embraced)? Funding local people like yourself to attend international meetings? > She asked whether developing countries should regulate two-sided market economies where the platforms were US based content and services providers and tax them and design laws to prevent their interference within a sovereign country's policies? > Sure they should devise their own policies, and if companies find these overly restrictive they can either lobby to change them (which you don't want them to do) or not come into the market (which you also don't want them to do, per your complaints about PayPal not working there). That's how it works…? BD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 05:22:33 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:22:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 19, 2012 1:46 PM, "William Drake" wrote: > > Hi Fouad > > On Aug 18, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> >> I was asked an interesting question today by a colleague on the discussion about Google's interference in national electronic commerce/e-payment, privacy and ITU-ITRs positions in developing countries in Asia. > > What exactly do you mean by interfering? Lobbying for its positions, which all companies do? Explaining why they think that regulating the Internet via the ITRs is a bad idea (which the Pakistani government seems to have embraced)? Funding local people like yourself to attend international meetings? > You find lobbying not interfering and mean to say that all companies lobby the Pakistani government to change its policies and since its such a nice term anyone should be allowed to do so? Just because a company sponsored a regional IGF activity and its participants means all should bow to it and, I should be the one pointed out on everyone's behalf from dozens of sponsored people for its great deed, that's quite ironic. I should then beg mercy from every other IG and IPP related event globally that are heavily funded by the private sector and divert all advocacy work towards that sponsor. Nice. Is that what the new internet world order is? Discriminating indeed. >> She asked whether developing countries should regulate two-sided market economies where the platforms were US based content and services providers and tax them and design laws to prevent their interference within a sovereign country's policies? > > Sure they should devise their own policies, and if companies find these overly restrictive they can either lobby to change them (which you don't want them to do) or not come into the market (which you also don't want them to do, per your complaints about PayPal not working there). That's how it works…? > I believe our notions of national needs and Internet policy advocacy are different and is an example relevant to the rosy garden scenario. I don't mind that but it continues to solidify that there is a clear line between meeting room and diplomacy and actual meaningful participatory advocacy. I'll let the Pakistani govt know that it should let companies like Google etc design all its policies because the rest of the world is so enlightened and peaceful with all the new services and offerings and it will from now on sponsor everything from baby food to birth control pills.....! I am really happy to learn these views. > BD > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 05:39:49 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:09:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: References: <50308889.8060904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5030B465.6000502@itforchange.net> Sala On Sunday 19 August 2012 12:54 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Firstly, personally, I find it sad when people try to box or > categorise the developing world as "South". It's a broad attempt for > someone's convenience to paint us all with the same brush. It > oversimplifies people's positions and "assumes" that people all think > the same way or are wired the same way. Nothing could be further from > the truth. But it is who you made the categories and put the regulatory issue between them, isnt it!!? From your last email "The only material difference really is that developing countries have been dormant and sleeping. If you look at the regulatory trends around the world, the developed world has been efficiently keeping companies hosting content on the Internet in check and making sure they act responsibly. All of a sudden when the "sleeping giant" awakens, ie. the developing world wanting to do the same thing there are all kinds of marketing strategies designed to take the focus away from the core issues. " (Sala) Whether it is developed/ developing or North/South, it is a difference of accent. I merely asked you, if you indeed think this is a problem, and you further quoted the specific issue of taxes on the Internet, what is your proposed solution to it. Why would not a all-country platform to discuss such issues qualify.... You havent answered other than to say, the solution is to build capacity of developing countries to participate.... participate in what?! While there are indeed limitation of capacity, it is very unfair to developing country to deny them legitimate avenues where participation will be meaningful to produce the necessary policy outcomes (which ones do you suggest?), and blame it on their capacity.... People and countries do not need to have capacity to claim equality of place on the policy table. > snip > For the simple reason that I do not believe in the methodology. what part of 'methodology' do you object against. pl be specific. > My personal view is that people need to sit together and dialogue and > take stock. yes, IGF is for that (where a discussion on enhanced cooperation has been solidly blocked fr years) and UN CIRP is supposed to another, futher focussing efforts towards policy outcomes/ > To want to take control of root servers just because majority of them > are housed in the US in my personal view is not the answer. ?! Sala, CIRP had nothing at all to do with the 13 root servers. Where did you infer this from ? > [I am prepared to change my view if and when convinced otherwise] Too > me it is just countries wanting more geo-political control so they can > also strengthen their reach. like, to be able, as you want, to get the appropriate tax revenue from cross border commercial transactions over the Internet.... Everything in politics can be given this bad name 'control' . Wonder why all the controls of US do not hit the same sensitive chords. > > > To discuss just one global Internet policy related issue that you > have touched upon, fair distribution of taxes accruing, or that > should accrue, from commercial transactions on the Internet, > europe has an inter-country agreement on it.... Why shouldnt > developing country also be party to such agreements, so that they > dont lose revenue. > > > I agree. This is different from the UN CIRP that was tabled and first > introduced in Nairobi last year. Not at all. This (these kinds of issues) was and is what CIRP is mostly about. Ok, you tell me, how you read CIRP, and then we can have a discussion about it. IT fro Change's background paper for the Rio meeting, a distinct forerunner to the CIRP, specifically discusses Internet taxes as a key policy issue that require resolution. IF people insist on reading CIRP as something other than what it primarily is, what can one do. It is the power of the hegemonic discourse.... The kind of dis-balance that civil society should try to correct. > What I have yet to see really is building dialogue on what the > ecosystem or universe is as far as the cyber environment is concerned. > In my view there are many things that we should fix that require > prioritization of resources. Things like capacity building to enable > meaningful participation. > > How would taking over critical internet resources by force be any > good for the developing world if there are competing DNS roots? Sala, are you now going even further to suggest that CIRP proposed 'competing DNS roots'...... Even if you are referring to the recent discussion on root server operators, neither side advocated any kind of 'competing roots'....what should I make of your such extreme mis characterisation of views of those whom you simply wish to disagree with. parminder > Any political position, I would say. is only as good as the > willingness to work on the corresponding real political possibilities. > If you dont like a CIRP like possibility, sure, do suggest others. > > "Capacity Building" to enable meaningful participation because when > people are empowered, they can meaningfully participate in policy > decisions in their own countries and in other regional and > international foras. > This includes all stakeholders working together for the greater good > so instead of tearing each other down look into ways to collaborate. > > There are topics of great interest to the developing world as far as > the WCIT is concerned. > > But what is the point in vain musings, without putting your > political currency where your mouth is. > > > I can only do so much as an individual. So far I have tried to do > this by serving my region within the At Large community in ICANN along > with hundreds of other volunteers to comment on policies looking out > after the interests of ordinary internet users. > > Being active within my region in the discussion of these issues, > raising awareness, facilitating trainings making submissions, crafting > policies etc whether this is with the Regulators, ISPs, ITU, SPC etc. > > I did not attend the Asian Pacific Regional IGF because I was engaged > in awareness and national consultations with a certain Pacific country > as we were invited by their Government. > > > > parminder > > > > > On Saturday 18 August 2012 11:19 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> I don't see why they could be exempt from taxes and why they >> should not be regulated. Ordinarily just as any person travelling >> to another country is subject to the laws of that country and >> this is true from the moment you step into their airspace or >> water or cyber space. What made the US take down Rojadirecta? >> See: http://www.rojadirecta.com/ where you will see evidence of a >> domain name take down by ICE Homeland Security Investigations? >> >> The only material difference really is that developing countries >> have been dormant and sleeping. If you look at the regulatory >> trends around the world, the developed world has been efficiently >> keeping companies hosting content on the Internet in check and >> making sure they act responsibly. All of a sudden when the >> "sleeping giant" awakens, ie. the developing world wanting to do >> the same thing there are all kinds of marketing strategies >> designed to take the focus away from the core issues. The reality >> is that this is a new day, markets are being levelled, knowledge >> is free and the developing world has been empowered. [/Slight >> bunny trail: If you think about how some of these countries were >> formerly under the dominion of others, where much of their wealth >> and natural resources were sized to build empires whilst their >> own countries lie in ruins. Countries are now awakening to build >> their nations, their infrastructures, their economies etc/] >> >> Why should'nt the developing world regulate two-sided market >> economies? At the end of the day, the objections to "Taxation" >> are about the "bottom line" and if that is countries' only >> mechanism available for making these corporates act responsibly. >> >> In my view the crux of the complex debates revolving around >> Regulations stems from the notion of "borders". Countries have >> the responsibility of looking out for their respective interests. >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Fouad Bajwa >> > wrote: >> >> I was asked an interesting question today by a colleague on >> the discussion about Google's interference in national >> electronic commerce/e-payment, privacy and ITU-ITRs positions >> in developing countries in Asia. >> >> She asked whether developing countries should regulate >> two-sided market economies where the platforms were US based >> content and services providers and tax them and design laws >> to prevent their interference within a sovereign country's >> policies? >> >> Fouad Bajwa >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 06:09:47 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:09:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E74BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E6AFA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E74BC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Milton. On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Fahd:**** > > Thanks for the response. Here is my response.**** > > ** ** > > Two points here:**** > > - I would have preferred to say "Some Saudi Citizens" (or any other > appropriate phrasing) since the comments made do not reflect the opinion of > the Saudi government **** > > *[Milton L Mueller] Yes, it is the official spokesperson of the KSA, or > at least someone claiming to be a spokesperson for the Kingdom.* > I can guarantee you that the person is claiming to be a spokesperson of the KSA government and is commenting at his personal capacity. I have read his comments, and I would never agree less that the style of commenting is unprofessional to be submitted in the name of a government. ** > > Once the many TLDs that they have commented on - and I have too - are > delegated and active, it is a matter of a simple rule on the "Great Saudi > Arabian Firewall" (mind you with the term since it is always used for the > Chinese Firewall) to block them all.**** > > *[Milton L Mueller] Yes, I understand that KSA has a strict censorship > regime. I just don’t understand how they can believe they ought to impose > it on the rest of the world.* > Well, they are good friends of the West, so they have the liberty to say and try to enforce what they believe to be right. I have to KSA several times, and I can assure you that their censorship rules can easily be bypassed by proxy servers and VPNs, and the government does not crack down on those who do so. > * * > > The Saudi's - and for that matter many Muslims around the world - see > these kind of TLDs as violating to the basics of the Islamic religion. > Islam rejects pornography, trans-sexuality, gay/lesbianism... and any other > form of sexual act that almost every religion in this planet opposes to.** > ** > > *[Milton L Mueller] It is fine for followers of the Islamic religion to > urge its adherents to reject these things. It is not acceptable for either > side to attempt to use the force of the state to ban discussion or symbolic > recognition of those practices on a global basis.* > True. But there is always no harm in speaking out. Some find strength when speaking out at a personal capacity, while others find strength when speaking at a governmental level. In some parts of the Arab world - unfortunately, people feel empowered when claiming to speak on behalf of their respective governments (they think they claims will be met by doing so) while in fact their respective governments do not know about the whole issue. > *Muslims need to learn the wisdom of tolerance – just as do the > Christians in my country who try to prevent peaceful Muslims from building > mosques in their community. Remember, some people reject Islam – so would > they be justified in trying to object to or ban any mention of Islam in a > TLD? Remember too that some people reject religion, i.e. are atheists.* > When we oppose to something, Islam teaches us to try change it physically (not through violence - mind you), and if not possible, via speaking out, and if not possible, by keeping ones silence. One might not understand this statement as it is applied in the Islamic world until one experiences it personally. I do agree though that Muslims must learn the wisdom of tolerating and focusing more on the bigger picture. I have had these discussions several times with high caliber figures, but they are never convinced. This is why I believe the West have excelled in progressing forward while we are following behind. > * * > > P.S. I am not trying to get into any religious debates here, but I am > trying to explain the views and concerns of the comments comming out of > Saudi Arabia and many other Arab/Muslim countries. I myself being a father > would strongly oppose to my kids being exposed to such TLDs at their tender > young age.**** > > *[Milton L Mueller] First, it is not the TLDs you are concerned about it > is the content they harbor. Second, as a father it is your responsibility > to watch out for what your kids are exposed to. Third, this material is > already on the internet. Blocking TLDs will not change that.* > I agree, but this is part of the story. In order to ensure safer surfing to our kids, we have to slice-and-dice them all. For example, I can control my kids when they surf the Internet at home, but can I control them when they are off to their friends house? This is where ensuring a clean Internet ecosystem comes to place. Finding pornographic content under a .xxx (or any other porn content) is easier than finding them under any other non-porno TLDs. BTW, I am against censoring the Internet by any means. It is us as humans that must decide what acts we conduct. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 06:24:38 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 22:24:38 +1200 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: <5030B465.6000502@itforchange.net> References: <50308889.8060904@itforchange.net> <5030B465.6000502@itforchange.net> Message-ID: > > Whether it is developed/ developing or North/South, it is a difference of > accent. > > Sala: I hear you but we can agree to disagree. Developing has different > connotations, to use a very simple analogy using a human, imagine a > toddler, an adolescent and an adult. The term "developing" has these > connotations which is why there are terms such as LDCs and graduations to > imply levels of growth. When one uses "South" it's like a blanket > categorisation. > Snip > I merely asked you, if you indeed think this is a problem, and you further > quoted the specific issue of taxes on the Internet, what is your proposed > solution to it. > Countries are free to assess how they want to deal with them and if through their assessments and counsel from their internal stakeholders decide how they wish to deal with, then this is their right as sovereign countries. Why would not a all-country platform to discuss such issues qualify.... You > havent answered other than to say, the solution is to build capacity of > developing countries to participate.... participate in what?! > Development of Policies, Laws etc whether in-country or international forums. If two people were playing golf where one was a professional golfer and the other with a handicap of 300 or say a professional tennis player and one who is just given a racquet to play the game of their life. Similarly, building capacity means to empower people to be aware of the issues and meaningfully participate in policy processes whether this is giving feedback to the Security Stability and Advisory Committee within ICANN or participating within the WTO/WIPO etc. The WGIG 2005 Report mentions "meaningful participation" and one common ground that I see with all the stakeholders within the Internet Universe is that they all have some element of "development aspects". While there are indeed limitation of capacity, it is very unfair to > developing country to deny them legitimate avenues where participation will > be meaningful to produce the necessary policy outcomes (which ones do you > suggest?), > [Please refer to my analogy -the developing world is invited to participate and their systems in place to enable that. On the other hand the ability and capacity to participate and understand the core issues can be a challenge. The issue is not denial of legitimate avenue, the issue is providing a mechanism in order to facilitate contributions. and blame it on their capacity.... People and countries do not need to have > capacity to claim equality of place on the policy table. > > Again the issue is not equality of place, the issue is "meaningful > participation" > > On the CIRP - I promise to find the time to read it and revert with my > specific comments (can't promise when but I will). > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 06:28:15 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:28:15 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks > work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated > harassment or charge. > I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing > charges of rape if the are legitimate. > > Ginger That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 06:37:18 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:37:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] Welcome to New Members! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Salanieta. Today is our first day of Eid celebrations. Fahd On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly, I would like to take the time to welcome all new subscribers to > the IGC. Since the beginning of the year, there are subscribers added to > the list and it continues to grow. We warmly welcome all new subscribers > this year and invite you to participate in the dialogue and interactions on > the list. For those of you who have yet to get acquainted with what the IGC > is about, please visit the website and have a read of its contents. If you > have specific questions and require clarification, please email the > coordinators at coordinators at igcaucus.org > > To the global Muslim community, we wish you Eid Mubarak as you end your > month-long Ramadan fast and begin your new year. To the Afghanis on the > list, we wish you well on your 93rd year of Independence and to the > Hungarians, Happy St Stephen's day as you celebrate your National Day soon! > > Warm Regards, > > Izumi and Sala > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 06:39:30 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:39:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] Welcome to New Members! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Chaitanya, On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > For those who find it of interest - "Ramadan" - usually written with a "d" > is always pronounced with a "z" as "Ramazan" (like Rum-zahn). > For Urdu speaking communities, it is pronounced with a 'z'. As for Arabic speaking communities, it is pronounced with a 'd'. The holy book of Qur'an pronounces it as Ramadan (with a 'd'). Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Aug 19 06:43:42 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 19:43:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: "Who, What, Why: Is it legal to hide in an embassy?" From May, so not influenced by the most recent Assange events. Looks to me like the UK's screwed up. About his alleged crimes Seems "no means no" hasn't quite got through. Assange's lawyer's attempts to brand the two women as CIA plants, etc., pretty disgusting. And I am not sure what this has to do with Internet governance. Adam On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks >> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated >> harassment or charge. >> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing >> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >> >> Ginger > > > That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! > > Fahd > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Sun Aug 19 07:15:56 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 13:15:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> Rape? Charged? 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at a Swedish sense: /"Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of rape. There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving violence but not violence of the utmost horror. And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking generally, and not about the Assange case, this might involve *putting emotional pressure on someone*./ /The three categories involve prison sentences of *10, six and four years* respectively. *The lawyer for the two women* who have complained against Mr Assange will not spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to the accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that Mr Assange could expect, indicating that *he is suspected of this third, less serious category*." / And the great conclusion is: "/The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of women's rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest rate in Europe. The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but it seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the crime are more significant factors./" See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet Governance issues. - Lawful here, unlawful there. - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. How would you deal with these questions? @+, Dominique Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > > I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his > WikiLeaks work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face > politically motivated harassment or charge. > I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid > facing charges of rape if the are legitimate. > > Ginger > > > That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! > > Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 07:19:08 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 16:49:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> Message-ID: So if you just look at someone funny you could be legally liable as per Swedish law? Just to clarify. -C On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Rape? Charged? > > 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some > questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... > 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at a > Swedish sense: > > *"Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of rape. > There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. > But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving > violence but not violence of the utmost horror. > And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking > generally, and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting > emotional pressure on someone.* > > *The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four yearsrespectively. > The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange will > not spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to > the accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that > Mr Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, > less serious category." > * > > And the great conclusion is: > > "*The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of > women's rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. > Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest rate in > Europe. > The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but it > seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the > crime are more significant factors.*" > See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 > > Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? > > Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet Governance > issues. > - Lawful here, unlawful there. > - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. > > How would you deal with these questions? > > @+, Dominique > > Dominique Lacroix > Société européenne de l'Internethttp://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > > > > Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks >> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated >> harassment or charge. >> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing >> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >> >> Ginger > > > That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! > > Fahd > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Aug 19 07:42:30 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:42:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> Message-ID: Dominique, hi. On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Rape? Charged? > Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. > 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some > questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... > 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at a > Swedish sense: > I very much hope not. Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. > "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of rape. > There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. > But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving > violence but not violence of the utmost horror. > And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking generally, > and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional > pressure on someone. > > The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four years > respectively. > The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange will not > spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to the > accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that Mr > Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, less > serious category." > > And the great conclusion is: > > "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of women's > rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. > Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest rate in > Europe. > The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but it > seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the crime > are more significant factors." > > See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 > > Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? > > Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet Governance > issues. > - Lawful here, unlawful there. > - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. > > How would you deal with these questions? > Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. Adam > @+, Dominique > > Dominique Lacroix > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > > > > Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks >> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated >> harassment or charge. >> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing >> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >> >> Ginger > > > That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! > > Fahd > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 08:10:10 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:10:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] Welcome to New Members! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Salanieta and Colleagues: I would like to share with welcoming the new members of the IGC and thank you for your wonderful gesture on the occasion of our EID wishing you and all my colleagues in IGC the best. God Bless You All,, Qusai AlShatti On Sunday, August 19, 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Firstly, I would like to take the time to welcome all new subscribers to > the IGC. Since the beginning of the year, there are subscribers added to > the list and it continues to grow. We warmly welcome all new subscribers > this year and invite you to participate in the dialogue and interactions on > the list. For those of you who have yet to get acquainted with what the IGC > is about, please visit the website and have a read of its contents. If you > have specific questions and require clarification, please email the > coordinators at coordinators at igcaucus.org 'coordinators at igcaucus.org');> > > To the global Muslim community, we wish you Eid Mubarak as you end your > month-long Ramadan fast and begin your new year. To the Afghanis on the > list, we wish you well on your 93rd year of Independence and to the > Hungarians, Happy St Stephen's day as you celebrate your National Day soon! > > Warm Regards, > > Izumi and Sala > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 08:46:01 2012 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 07:46:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> Message-ID: Under several national laws including ecuadorian and most latinamerican, There is not a case against Assange as under swedish law Carlos Vera Enviado desde mi iPhone El 19/08/2012, a las 6:19, Chaitanya Dhareshwar escribió: > So if you just look at someone funny you could be legally liable as per Swedish law? Just to clarify. > > -C > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Rape? Charged? > > 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... > 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at a Swedish sense: > > "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of rape. > There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. > But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving violence but not violence of the utmost horror. > And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking generally, and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional pressure on someone. > > The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four years respectively. > The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange will not spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to the accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that Mr Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, less serious category." > > And the great conclusion is: > > "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of women's rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. > Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest rate in Europe. > The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but it seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the crime are more significant factors." > > See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 > > Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? > > Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet Governance issues. > - Lawful here, unlawful there. > - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. > > How would you deal with these questions? > > @+, Dominique > > Dominique Lacroix > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > > > Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated harassment or charge. >> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing charges of rape if the are legitimate. >> >> Ginger >> >> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! >> >> Fahd > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Sun Aug 19 08:57:47 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:57:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <5030E2CB.6070707@panamo.eu> Le 19/08/12 13:42, Adam Peake a écrit : > Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? Depends on what you call "/indecent assault/". Example: Eating an apple is a crime against nature. Crime against nature deserves death penalty. Fictive example? Fictitious example? It did exist. I was told that in the Edo Japon, cutting a tree deserved death. I noticed you live in Japon, Adam. Perhaps have you heard that story. Or perhaps Izumi would confirm if he read this. Such laws could come back with our environmental issues. > As you note the offense > carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. In some countries, drawing funny Mahomet portraits (or kissing a man/woman who's not your husband/wife) carries death penalty. Unless I mistake, the penalty amount cannot bring the crime. I believe it's the contrary. A crime deserves a penalty. Perhaps. But the crime has to exist, and must be proved first. Up to that point, one's is innocent. Right? Even European or American states also may have barbarian laws. I'm sure you know some examples... Eastern or Southern countries don't have monopoly. Kind regards, Dominique PS. I don't intend to shock any muslim buddy. In case, please accept my apologize. We are just in free talks. -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 09:07:31 2012 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:07:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to wikileaks reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for some people here? you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ Carlos Vera Enviado desde mi iPhone El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: > Dominique, hi. > > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> Rape? Charged? >> > > Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the > UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm > not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. > > >> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some >> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... >> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at a >> Swedish sense: >> > > I very much hope not. > > Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense > carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. > > >> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of rape. >> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. >> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving >> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. >> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking generally, >> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional >> pressure on someone. >> >> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four years >> respectively. >> The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange will not >> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to the >> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that Mr >> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, less >> serious category." >> >> And the great conclusion is: >> >> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of women's >> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. >> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest rate in >> Europe. >> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but it >> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the crime >> are more significant factors." >> >> See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 >> >> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? >> >> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet Governance >> issues. >> - Lawful here, unlawful there. >> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. >> >> How would you deal with these questions? >> > > > Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet > governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online > or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those > two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. > > Adam > > >> @+, Dominique >> >> Dominique Lacroix >> Société européenne de l'Internet >> http://www.ies-france.eu >> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks >>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated >>> harassment or charge. >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing >>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>> >>> Ginger >> >> >> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! >> >> Fahd >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Aug 19 09:18:16 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 22:18:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> Message-ID: >You know that the 5 biggest financial >institutions Bank of America, Visa, mastercard, >wester union and paypal decided to block >donations to wikileaks reducing it in 95%? >Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested >for some people here? Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. If you want to change the subject, fine :-) Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their protest on the Internet. Adam >you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ > >Carlos Vera > > >Enviado desde mi iPhone > >El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: > >> Dominique, hi. >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>> Rape? Charged? >>> >> >> Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the >> UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm >> not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. >> >> >>> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some >>> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... >>> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at a >>> Swedish sense: >>> >> >> I very much hope not. >> >> Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense >> carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. >> >> >>> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of rape. >>> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. >>> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving >>> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. >>> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking generally, >>> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional >>> pressure on someone. >>> >>> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four years >>> respectively. >>> The lawyer for the two women who have >>>complained against Mr Assange will not >>> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to the >>> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that Mr >>> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, less >>> serious category." >>> >>> And the great conclusion is: >>> >>> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - >>>informed by a strong sense of women's >>> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. >>> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest rate in >>> Europe. >>> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but it >>> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a >>>broader definition of the crime >>> are more significant factors." >>> >>> See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 >>> >>> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? >>> >>> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet Governance >>> issues. >>> - Lawful here, unlawful there. >>> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. >>> >>> How would you deal with these questions? >>> >> >> >> Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet >> governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online >> or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those >> two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. >> >> Adam >> >> >>> @+, Dominique >>> >>> Dominique Lacroix >>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>>> >>>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks >>>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated >>>> harassment or charge. > >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing >>>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>>> >>>> Ginger >>> >>> >>> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! >>> >>> Fahd >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 09:45:47 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:15:47 -0430 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> Message-ID: This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all of the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in focus. I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines the case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's lawyers would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on video, webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, and force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake wrote: > > > You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, >> mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to wikileaks >> reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for some >> people here? >> > > > Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? > > Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see > the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. > If you want to change the subject, fine :-) > > Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their > protest on the Internet. > > Adam > > > > you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ >> >> Carlos Vera >> >> >> Enviado desde mi iPhone >> >> El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: >> >> Dominique, hi. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
>>> wrote: >>> >>>> Rape? Charged? >>>> >>>> >>> Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the >>> UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm >>> not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. >>> >>> >>> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some >>>> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... >>>> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at >>>> a >>>> Swedish sense: >>>> >>>> >>> I very much hope not. >>> >>> Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense >>> carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. >>> >>> >>> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of >>>> rape. >>>> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. >>>> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving >>>> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. >>>> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking >>>> generally, >>>> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional >>>> pressure on someone. >>>> >>>> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four years >>>> respectively. >>>> The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange >>>> will not >>>> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to >>>> the >>>> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that >>>> Mr >>>> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, >>>> less >>>> serious category." >>>> >>>> And the great conclusion is: >>>> >>>> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of >>>> women's >>>> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. >>>> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest >>>> rate in >>>> Europe. >>>> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but >>>> it >>>> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the >>>> crime >>>> are more significant factors." >>>> >>>> See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/**world-europe-11946652 >>>> >>>> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? >>>> >>>> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet >>>> Governance >>>> issues. >>>> - Lawful here, unlawful there. >>>> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. >>>> >>>> How would you deal with these questions? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet >>> governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online >>> or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those >>> two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> @+, Dominique >>>> >>>> Dominique Lacroix >>>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his >>>>> WikiLeaks >>>>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically >>>>> motivated >>>>> harassment or charge. >>>>> >>>> >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid >> facing >> >>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>>>> >>>>> Ginger >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! >>>> >>>> Fahd >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >>> >> >> >> ______________________________**______________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/**translate_t >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 09:59:05 2012 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 08:59:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> Message-ID: <338C363B-C2CE-4D75-9657-CE2769B74574@gmail.com> > Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. If you want to change the subject, fine :-) Behind the pretended Sweden allegation is the US gov trying to Have Assange in USA for wikileaks. Assange told this is the real issue... So alleged sexual injury is a way to put Assange in Sweden and from there in USA: bingo! Carloa Vera Enviado desde mi iPhone El 19/08/2012, a las 8:18, Adam Peake escribió: > > >> You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to wikileaks reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for some people here? > > > Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? > > Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. If you want to change the subject, fine :-) > > Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their protest on the Internet. > > Adam > > > >> you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ >> >> Carlos Vera >> >> >> Enviado desde mi iPhone >> >> El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: >> >>> Dominique, hi. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>>> Rape? Charged? >>>> >>> >>> Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the >>> UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm >>> not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. >>> >>> >>>> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some >>>> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... >>>> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at a >>>> Swedish sense: >>>> >>> >>> I very much hope not. >>> >>> Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense >>> carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. >>> >>> >>>> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of rape. >>>> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. >>>> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving >>>> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. >>>> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking generally, >>>> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional >>>> pressure on someone. >>>> >>>> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four years >>>> respectively. >>>> The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange will not >>>> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to the >>>> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that Mr >>>> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, less >>>> serious category." >>>> >>>> And the great conclusion is: >>>> >>>> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of women's >>>> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. >>>> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest rate in >>>> Europe. >>>> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but it >>>> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the crime >>>> are more significant factors." >>>> >>>> See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 >>>> >>>> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? >>>> >>>> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet Governance >>>> issues. >>>> - Lawful here, unlawful there. >>>> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. >>>> >>>> How would you deal with these questions? >>>> >>> >>> >>> Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet >>> governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online >>> or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those >>> two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>>> @+, Dominique >>>> >>>> Dominique Lacroix >>>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks >>>>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated >>>>> harassment or charge. >> >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing >>>>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>>>> >>>>> Ginger >>>> >>>> >>>> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! >>>> >>>> Fahd >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 10:01:24 2012 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 09:01:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> Message-ID: "Women and sexual misconduct charges should not be used as legal manipulations and distractions" What about men and sexual misconduct? Carlos Vera Enviado desde mi iPhone El 19/08/2012, a las 8:45, Ginger Paque escribió: > Women and sexual misconduct charges should not be used as legal manipulations and distractions -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 10:11:09 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:11:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> Message-ID: Completely agree with Ginger here... We can't pretend to ignore the elephant in the room: at this point there's no part of this story that can be clearly separated from Wikileaks - if only given all the shady zones in this imbroglio. And yes, it is unfortunate that the rape issue is now and then exploited in ways that can undermine legitimate claims. Again a lot remains unclear, unfortunately, due to the behavior of the Sweden's government. mawaki On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the > sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all of > the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. > > My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual > misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in > focus. > > I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines the > case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's lawyers > would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on video, > webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, and > force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the > sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should > not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. > Ginger > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > > On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> >>> You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, >>> mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to wikileaks >>> reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for some >>> people here? >> >> >> >> Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? >> >> Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see >> the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. >> If you want to change the subject, fine :-) >> >> Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their >> protest on the Internet. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ >>> >>> Carlos Vera >>> >>> >>> Enviado desde mi iPhone >>> >>> El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: >>> >>>> Dominique, hi. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Rape? Charged? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the >>>> UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm >>>> not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. >>>> >>>> >>>>> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some >>>>> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... >>>>> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at >>>>> a >>>>> Swedish sense: >>>>> >>>> >>>> I very much hope not. >>>> >>>> Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense >>>> carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. >>>> >>>> >>>>> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of >>>>> rape. >>>>> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. >>>>> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving >>>>> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. >>>>> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking >>>>> generally, >>>>> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional >>>>> pressure on someone. >>>>> >>>>> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four >>>>> years >>>>> respectively. >>>>> The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange >>>>> will not >>>>> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to >>>>> the >>>>> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that >>>>> Mr >>>>> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, >>>>> less >>>>> serious category." >>>>> >>>>> And the great conclusion is: >>>>> >>>>> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of >>>>> women's >>>>> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. >>>>> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest >>>>> rate in >>>>> Europe. >>>>> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but >>>>> it >>>>> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the >>>>> crime >>>>> are more significant factors." >>>>> >>>>> See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 >>>>> >>>>> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet >>>>> Governance >>>>> issues. >>>>> - Lawful here, unlawful there. >>>>> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. >>>>> >>>>> How would you deal with these questions? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet >>>> governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online >>>> or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those >>>> two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>>> @+, Dominique >>>>> >>>>> Dominique Lacroix >>>>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>>>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>>>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his >>>>>> WikiLeaks >>>>>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically >>>>>> motivated >>>>>> harassment or charge. >>> >>> >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid >>> facing >>>>>> >>>>>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ginger >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! >>>>> >>>>> Fahd >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Aug 19 10:51:02 2012 From: naveedpta at hotmail.com (Naveed haq) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:51:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] Welcome to New Members! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, Thank you so much for Ramadan and Eid wishes. We will be celeberating Eid tomorrow here in Pakistan. A warm wish from my side to all Muslim fellows on the list. Best Regards, Naveed Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 16:52:49 +1200 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Welcome to New Members! Dear All, Firstly, I would like to take the time to welcome all new subscribers to the IGC. Since the beginning of the year, there are subscribers added to the list and it continues to grow. We warmly welcome all new subscribers this year and invite you to participate in the dialogue and interactions on the list. For those of you who have yet to get acquainted with what the IGC is about, please visit the website and have a read of its contents. If you have specific questions and require clarification, please email the coordinators at coordinators at igcaucus.org To the global Muslim community, we wish you Eid Mubarak as you end your month-long Ramadan fast and begin your new year. To the Afghanis on the list, we wish you well on your 93rd year of Independence and to the Hungarians, Happy St Stephen's day as you celebrate your National Day soon! Warm Regards, Izumi and Sala -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 11:29:25 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:29:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: References: <50308889.8060904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > [snip] > How would taking over critical internet resources by force be any good > for the developing world if there are competing DNS roots? > > Sala, I don't remember any such inference from anyone, and you probably wanted to mean something different. Just to clarify realities. Multiple roots have been around for a while, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root .. plus a few more unknown to Wikipedia. And last but not least the chinese root, used by 600 millions people. (Not to be confused with .cn, which is a sort of proxy in the ICANN root.) Whether multiple roots are competing or not is in the eye of the beholder. Users have a choice, and presumably their preferences are based on some characteristics not available in other roots. Are multiple roots a nuisance to stability, security, and resilience of the internet (an ICANN mantra) ? If it were so, there should be some evidence of it. Regards, Louis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 12:31:27 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:31:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act In-Reply-To: <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo at web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, at 02:49:53 on Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Imran Ahmed Shah writes >Does this action of "Information Collection" by Google really breach >the Privacy Act, PIPA What Google did was to wiretap (and keep) small fragments of the traffic on wifi hotpots as they drove past. That's probably an offence under long standing law in most countries (I wouldn't want to start making a list of them off the cuff). For it to have been a real threat to the persons in question, they would have had to refrain from switching on encryption[1] and to have been sending/receiving some emails (or whatever) in exactly the few seconds the Google Streetcar was listening to that particular hotspot. [1] Even the simplest type would have been sufficient, the fragments captured are not enough to start any useful "cracking". -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Sun Aug 19 12:55:38 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:55:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> That story seems to be all about secret at the information age! Assange got 2 love stories. In both cases, the women invited him in her bed. The case is about what happened there. Sex by surprise? That *should stay secret*, as long as the women were not injured. Actually, they never complained for that. At the contrary, Bradley Manning and Wikileaks revealed what *should not be kept secret*: - Civilians (journalists and children) murders by US soldiers in Iraq. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journalists-idUSTRE6344FW20100406 - Orders given to diplomates to spy UN leaders (DNA, passwords, credit card numbers etc.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un - And so on. Nevertheless, of course I agree with Ginger and Mawaki: crime allegations are displaced manipulations AND we cannot just ignore the sexual misconduct allegations. But at this stage of the worldwide imbroglio, it's too late for having a neutral trial in Sweden. Could you imagine a Swedish Court concluding: "/Much ado about nothing/"? So public opinion mobilization is important. We are the witnesses. And at this hour, I would like to hear the two women. I'm not sure that the story is still their story... Some strange points must not be forgotten. Just some clues for new readers of the case: - Feminist fighters should be very happy to see that *nowadays police force all around the world hunt rapers* as it's done for Assange. A famous feminist wrote about the case. Just search for Naomi Wolf. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html - Assange *already talked *with Swedish authorities. Convened because of Swedish demand, he *went spontaneously* to the London police. - Swedish authorities aren't clear on the case,*first closed and then reopened*: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investigation-into-wikileaks-chief-reopens-2068162.html - It's well established that Assange had two love stories with fans in Stockholm and then Enköping. The first with the famous Anna Ardin, a feminist fighter whose blog explained *how to get revenge against men*: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7569087-meet-anna-ardin-photos-anna-ardins-7-steps-to-legal-revenge And so on. It's not the good place for further analyzing that case. But doubt is widely allowed. Best regards, @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 19/08/12 16:11, Mawaki Chango a écrit : > Completely agree with Ginger here... > We can't pretend to ignore the elephant in the room: at this point > there's no part of this story that can be clearly separated from > Wikileaks - if only given all the shady zones in this imbroglio. And > yes, it is unfortunate that the rape issue is now and then exploited > in ways that can undermine legitimate claims. Again a lot remains > unclear, unfortunately, due to the behavior of the Sweden's > government. > > mawaki > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the >> sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all of >> the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. >> >> My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual >> misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in >> focus. >> >> I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines the >> case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's lawyers >> would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on video, >> webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, and >> force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the >> sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should >> not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. >> Ginger >> >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> >> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >> Diplo Foundation >> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> >> >> >> >> On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> >>>> You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, >>>> mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to wikileaks >>>> reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for some >>>> people here? >>> >>> >>> Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? >>> >>> Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see >>> the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. >>> If you want to change the subject, fine :-) >>> >>> Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their >>> protest on the Internet. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>> you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ >>>> >>>> Carlos Vera >>>> >>>> >>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone >>>> >>>> El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: >>>> >>>>> Dominique, hi. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Rape? Charged? >>>>>> >>>>> Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the >>>>> UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm >>>>> not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some >>>>>> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... >>>>>> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at >>>>>> a >>>>>> Swedish sense: >>>>>> >>>>> I very much hope not. >>>>> >>>>> Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense >>>>> carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of >>>>>> rape. >>>>>> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. >>>>>> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving >>>>>> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. >>>>>> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking >>>>>> generally, >>>>>> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional >>>>>> pressure on someone. >>>>>> >>>>>> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four >>>>>> years >>>>>> respectively. >>>>>> The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange >>>>>> will not >>>>>> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to >>>>>> the >>>>>> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that >>>>>> Mr >>>>>> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, >>>>>> less >>>>>> serious category." >>>>>> >>>>>> And the great conclusion is: >>>>>> >>>>>> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of >>>>>> women's >>>>>> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. >>>>>> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest >>>>>> rate in >>>>>> Europe. >>>>>> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but >>>>>> it >>>>>> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the >>>>>> crime >>>>>> are more significant factors." >>>>>> >>>>>> See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 >>>>>> >>>>>> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet >>>>>> Governance >>>>>> issues. >>>>>> - Lawful here, unlawful there. >>>>>> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. >>>>>> >>>>>> How would you deal with these questions? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet >>>>> governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online >>>>> or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those >>>>> two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> @+, Dominique >>>>>> >>>>>> Dominique Lacroix >>>>>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>>>>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>>>>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his >>>>>>> WikiLeaks >>>>>>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically >>>>>>> motivated >>>>>>> harassment or charge. >>>> >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid >>>> facing >>>>>>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ginger >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! >>>>>> >>>>>> Fahd >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 13:29:15 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:59:15 -0430 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> Message-ID: Excellent post, Dominique. Gracias! Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 19 August 2012 12:25, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > That story seems to be all about secret at the information age! > Assange got 2 love stories. In both cases, the women invited him in her > bed. > The case is about what happened there. Sex by surprise? That *should stay > secret*, as long as the women were not injured. Actually, they never > complained for that. > > At the contrary, Bradley Manning and Wikileaks revealed what *should not > be kept secret*: > - Civilians (journalists and children) murders by US soldiers in Iraq. > > http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journalists-idUSTRE6344FW20100406 > - Orders given to diplomates to spy UN leaders (DNA, passwords, credit > card numbers etc.) > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un > - And so on. > > Nevertheless, of course I agree with Ginger and Mawaki: crime allegations > are displaced manipulations AND we cannot just ignore the sexual misconduct > allegations. > > But at this stage of the worldwide imbroglio, it's too late for having a > neutral trial in Sweden. Could you imagine a Swedish Court concluding: "*Much > ado about nothing*"? So public opinion mobilization is important. We are > the witnesses. > And at this hour, I would like to hear the two women. I'm not sure that > the story is still their story... > > > Some strange points must not be forgotten. Just some clues for new readers > of the case: > > - Feminist fighters should be very happy to see that *nowadays police > force all around the world hunt rapers* as it's done for Assange. > A famous feminist wrote about the case. Just search for Naomi Wolf. > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html > > - Assange *already talked *with Swedish authorities. > Convened because of Swedish demand, he *went spontaneously* to the London > police. > > - Swedish authorities aren't clear on the case,* first closed and then > reopened*: > > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investigation-into-wikileaks-chief-reopens-2068162.html > > - It's well established that Assange had two love stories with fans in > Stockholm and then Enköping. > The first with the famous Anna Ardin, a feminist fighter whose blog > explained *how to get revenge against men*: > > http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7569087-meet-anna-ardin-photos-anna-ardins-7-steps-to-legal-revenge > > And so on. It's not the good place for further analyzing that case. But > doubt is widely allowed. > > > Best regards, > > @+, Dominique > > -- > Dominique Lacroix > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > Le 19/08/12 16:11, Mawaki Chango a écrit : > > Completely agree with Ginger here... > We can't pretend to ignore the elephant in the room: at this point > there's no part of this story that can be clearly separated from > Wikileaks - if only given all the shady zones in this imbroglio. And > yes, it is unfortunate that the rape issue is now and then exploited > in ways that can undermine legitimate claims. Again a lot remains > unclear, unfortunately, due to the behavior of the Sweden's > government. > > mawaki > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the > sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all of > the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. > > My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual > misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in > focus. > > I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines the > case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's lawyers > would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on video, > webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, and > force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the > sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should > not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. > Ginger > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programmewww.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > > On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake wrote: > > You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, > mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to wikileaks > reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for some > people here? > > Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? > > Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see > the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. > If you want to change the subject, fine :-) > > Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their > protest on the Internet. > > Adam > > > > > you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ > > Carlos Vera > > > Enviado desde mi iPhone > > El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: > > > Dominique, hi. > > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
> wrote: > > Rape? Charged? > > > Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the > UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm > not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. > > > > 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some > questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... > 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at > a > Swedish sense: > > > I very much hope not. > > Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense > carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. > > > > "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of > rape. > There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. > But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving > violence but not violence of the utmost horror. > And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking > generally, > and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional > pressure on someone. > > The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four > years > respectively. > The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange > will not > spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to > the > accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that > Mr > Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, > less > serious category." > > And the great conclusion is: > > "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of > women's > rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. > Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest > rate in > Europe. > The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but > it > seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the > crime > are more significant factors." > > See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 > > Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? > > Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet > Governance > issues. > - Lawful here, unlawful there. > - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. > > How would you deal with these questions? > > > Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet > governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online > or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those > two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. > > Adam > > > > @+, Dominique > > Dominique Lacroix > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > > > > Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > > I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his > WikiLeaks > work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically > motivated > harassment or charge. > > >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid > facing > > charges of rape if the are legitimate. > > Ginger > > That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! > > Fahd > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 13:31:57 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:31:57 +1200 Subject: [governance] Sector Collaboration Guidelines [Standards] Message-ID: Dear All, What are people's thoughts about increased collaboration between ITU-T and the IETF in terms of Sector Collaboration Guidelines? http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-rfc3356bis-05 Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 13:57:03 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:57:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> Message-ID: Assange is referring to this as a witchhunt, see: http://www.newsday.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-calls-on-obama-to-end-witch-hunt-1.3913652 On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Excellent post, Dominique. Gracias! > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > ** > ** > > > > On 19 August 2012 12:25, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > >> That story seems to be all about secret at the information age! >> Assange got 2 love stories. In both cases, the women invited him in her >> bed. >> The case is about what happened there. Sex by surprise? That *should >> stay secret*, as long as the women were not injured. Actually, they >> never complained for that. >> >> At the contrary, Bradley Manning and Wikileaks revealed what *should not >> be kept secret*: >> - Civilians (journalists and children) murders by US soldiers in Iraq. >> >> http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journalists-idUSTRE6344FW20100406 >> - Orders given to diplomates to spy UN leaders (DNA, passwords, credit >> card numbers etc.) >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un >> - And so on. >> >> Nevertheless, of course I agree with Ginger and Mawaki: crime allegations >> are displaced manipulations AND we cannot just ignore the sexual misconduct >> allegations. >> >> But at this stage of the worldwide imbroglio, it's too late for having a >> neutral trial in Sweden. Could you imagine a Swedish Court concluding: "*Much >> ado about nothing*"? So public opinion mobilization is important. We are >> the witnesses. >> And at this hour, I would like to hear the two women. I'm not sure that >> the story is still their story... >> >> >> Some strange points must not be forgotten. Just some clues for new >> readers of the case: >> >> - Feminist fighters should be very happy to see that *nowadays police >> force all around the world hunt rapers* as it's done for Assange. >> A famous feminist wrote about the case. Just search for Naomi Wolf. >> >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html >> >> - Assange *already talked *with Swedish authorities. >> Convened because of Swedish demand, he *went spontaneously* to the >> London police. >> >> - Swedish authorities aren't clear on the case,* first closed and then >> reopened*: >> >> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investigation-into-wikileaks-chief-reopens-2068162.html >> >> - It's well established that Assange had two love stories with fans in >> Stockholm and then Enköping. >> The first with the famous Anna Ardin, a feminist fighter whose blog >> explained *how to get revenge against men*: >> >> http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7569087-meet-anna-ardin-photos-anna-ardins-7-steps-to-legal-revenge >> >> And so on. It's not the good place for further analyzing that case. But >> doubt is widely allowed. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> @+, Dominique >> >> -- >> Dominique Lacroix >> Société européenne de l'Internet >> http://www.ies-france.eu >> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >> >> Le 19/08/12 16:11, Mawaki Chango a écrit : >> >> Completely agree with Ginger here... >> We can't pretend to ignore the elephant in the room: at this point >> there's no part of this story that can be clearly separated from >> Wikileaks - if only given all the shady zones in this imbroglio. And >> yes, it is unfortunate that the rape issue is now and then exploited >> in ways that can undermine legitimate claims. Again a lot remains >> unclear, unfortunately, due to the behavior of the Sweden's >> government. >> >> mawaki >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the >> sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all of >> the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. >> >> My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual >> misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in >> focus. >> >> I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines the >> case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's lawyers >> would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on video, >> webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, and >> force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the >> sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should >> not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. >> Ginger >> >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >> Diplo Foundation >> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programmewww.diplomacy.edu/ig >> >> >> >> >> On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, >> mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to wikileaks >> reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for some >> people here? >> >> Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? >> >> Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see >> the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. >> If you want to change the subject, fine :-) >> >> Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their >> protest on the Internet. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ >> >> Carlos Vera >> >> >> Enviado desde mi iPhone >> >> El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: >> >> >> Dominique, hi. >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
>> wrote: >> >> Rape? Charged? >> >> >> Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the >> UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm >> not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. >> >> >> >> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some >> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... >> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at >> a >> Swedish sense: >> >> >> I very much hope not. >> >> Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense >> carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. >> >> >> >> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of >> rape. >> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. >> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving >> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. >> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking >> generally, >> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional >> pressure on someone. >> >> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four >> years >> respectively. >> The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange >> will not >> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to >> the >> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that >> Mr >> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, >> less >> serious category." >> >> And the great conclusion is: >> >> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of >> women's >> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. >> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest >> rate in >> Europe. >> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but >> it >> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the >> crime >> are more significant factors." >> >> See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 >> >> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? >> >> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet >> Governance >> issues. >> - Lawful here, unlawful there. >> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. >> >> How would you deal with these questions? >> >> >> Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet >> governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online >> or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those >> two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> @+, Dominique >> >> Dominique Lacroix >> Société européenne de l'Internet >> http://www.ies-france.eu >> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >> >> >> >> >> >> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque >> wrote: >> >> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his >> WikiLeaks >> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically >> motivated >> harassment or charge. >> >> >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid >> facing >> >> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >> >> Ginger >> >> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! >> >> Fahd >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 15:18:34 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 22:18:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <5030E2CB.6070707@panamo.eu> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <5030E2CB.6070707@panamo.eu> Message-ID: Dominique, On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > In some countries, drawing funny Mahomet portraits (or kissing a man/woman > who's not your husband/wife) carries death penalty. > It is not that general, and not as easy as said. - In Islam, it does not go down to just drawings of our prophet Mohammad, but involves other prophets (Jesus, Moses, David...) and close followers of Prophet Mohammad who assisted him in spreading the religion. We consider it prohibitive to draw these characters for many reasons (I do not want to get into this debate as means not to hurt followers of other religions). We all agree that different religions have different teachings and different ways off doing things, but they all share common interests; i.e. teaching people right from wrong. However, no death penalty is involved. What we all read in the news of death requests for those who produced drawings of prophet Mohammad was just as a reaction to the rage of many Muslims who oppose such acts. However, it has become very common in the Muslim world to see TV shows of all mentioned except prophet Mohammad. While it is wrong, some see it as teachings. I read an article a couple of months ago that an Iranian director is working on directing a movie that shows prophet Mohammad. It should cause some rage. - Death penalty in Islam is just for adultery. Of course,4 people must witness the action, or both parties must confirm that they were in an adultery act. In addition, the only country on earth who applies this verdict is KSA. In my country Jordan - for example, slaughtering is strictly prohibited. However, some parents do kill their daughters if they come to know that their daughter has committed adultery not out of religion, but out of shame (core of our social norms). - Partners (not married couple) kissing in public is only prohibited in KSA, and it is punished for. However, in many other countries - such as Jordan, it has become quite common to do so, but it tends to be an on-the-fly kiss. - Islam has 72 different doctrines, and each perceives such acts differently. > -- > Dominique Lacroix > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu+33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > P.S. This is just a discussion with all due respect to every religion this world has. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 15:30:55 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 22:30:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is how I see things. A citizen of this world wanted to change it, so he used the Internet (Access) to do so. He thought that openness and free speech (two IG topics) would support his cause. However, reality proved otherwise. He fled his country, and hopped through many countries until he reached Sweden. At that time, many screwed-up governments were extremely pissed-off at the leaked out documents (their privacy was in the open) and the support Assange had received that far from people and governments around the world. When he was spotted in Sweden, and since Sweden has some STRICT laws regarding sexual harassment and assault, those involved _might_ have seized the opportunity to install a new dimension into his case as means to loose support especially those who opposes sexual harassment against women. Now, since he is at the Ecuadorian embassy, some have suggested to send him on trial using remote-trial Internet tools. And them comes in diplomacy that is also part of the IG debate. That's me thinking lowed :-) Fahd > You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, >> mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to wikileaks >> reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for some >> people here? >> > > > Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? > > Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see > the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. > If you want to change the subject, fine :-) > > Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their > protest on the Internet. > > Adam -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk Sun Aug 19 15:48:37 2012 From: jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk (jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 19:48:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1496777258-1345405720-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-995631018-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> I suggest not getting all Manichean about this. More public information is not necessarily better and Assange's often cynical and highly self-promoting distribution of information unfavourable to *some* governments hardly exempts him from moral responsibility, let alone qualifies him for broader absolution. His curious reluctance to countenance publication of uncontested material embarrassing to himself is icing on the cake. J. Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange -----Original Message----- From: Mawaki Chango Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:11:09 To: ; Ginger Paque Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Mawaki Chango Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally Completely agree with Ginger here... We can't pretend to ignore the elephant in the room: at this point there's no part of this story that can be clearly separated from Wikileaks - if only given all the shady zones in this imbroglio. And yes, it is unfortunate that the rape issue is now and then exploited in ways that can undermine legitimate claims. Again a lot remains unclear, unfortunately, due to the behavior of the Sweden's government. mawaki On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the > sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all of > the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. > > My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual > misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in > focus. > > I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines the > case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's lawyers > would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on video, > webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, and > force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the > sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should > not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. > Ginger > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > > On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> >>> You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, >>> mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to wikileaks >>> reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for some >>> people here? >> >> >> >> Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? >> >> Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see >> the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. >> If you want to change the subject, fine :-) >> >> Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their >> protest on the Internet. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >>> you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ >>> >>> Carlos Vera >>> >>> >>> Enviado desde mi iPhone >>> >>> El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: >>> >>>> Dominique, hi. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Rape? Charged? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the >>>> UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm >>>> not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. >>>> >>>> >>>>> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some >>>>> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... >>>>> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at >>>>> a >>>>> Swedish sense: >>>>> >>>> >>>> I very much hope not. >>>> >>>> Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense >>>> carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. >>>> >>>> >>>>> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of >>>>> rape. >>>>> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. >>>>> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving >>>>> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. >>>>> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking >>>>> generally, >>>>> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional >>>>> pressure on someone. >>>>> >>>>> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four >>>>> years >>>>> respectively. >>>>> The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange >>>>> will not >>>>> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to >>>>> the >>>>> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that >>>>> Mr >>>>> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, >>>>> less >>>>> serious category." >>>>> >>>>> And the great conclusion is: >>>>> >>>>> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of >>>>> women's >>>>> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. >>>>> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest >>>>> rate in >>>>> Europe. >>>>> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but >>>>> it >>>>> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the >>>>> crime >>>>> are more significant factors." >>>>> >>>>> See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 >>>>> >>>>> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet >>>>> Governance >>>>> issues. >>>>> - Lawful here, unlawful there. >>>>> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. >>>>> >>>>> How would you deal with these questions? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet >>>> governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online >>>> or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those >>>> two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>>> @+, Dominique >>>>> >>>>> Dominique Lacroix >>>>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>>>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>>>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his >>>>>> WikiLeaks >>>>>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically >>>>>> motivated >>>>>> harassment or charge. >>> >>> >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid >>> facing >>>>>> >>>>>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ginger >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! >>>>> >>>>> Fahd >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Aug 19 15:54:25 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:54:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <1496777258-1345405720-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-995631018-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <1496777258-1345405720-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-995631018-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: And how does personal indiscretions and alleged crimes compare with wholesale slaughter in an illegal war, etc, etc...? Perhaps it is just a difference of perspective. But methinks it is more like a paralax... On 19 August 2012 21:48, wrote: > I suggest not getting all Manichean about this. More public information is > not necessarily better and Assange's often cynical and highly > self-promoting distribution of information unfavourable to *some* > governments hardly exempts him from moral responsibility, let alone > qualifies him for broader absolution. His curious reluctance to countenance > publication of uncontested material embarrassing to himself is icing on the > cake. J. > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mawaki Chango > Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:11:09 > To: ; Ginger Paque > Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Mawaki Chango > Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) > America's > vassal acts decisively and illegally > > Completely agree with Ginger here... > We can't pretend to ignore the elephant in the room: at this point > there's no part of this story that can be clearly separated from > Wikileaks - if only given all the shady zones in this imbroglio. And > yes, it is unfortunate that the rape issue is now and then exploited > in ways that can undermine legitimate claims. Again a lot remains > unclear, unfortunately, due to the behavior of the Sweden's > government. > > mawaki > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the > > sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all > of > > the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. > > > > My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual > > misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in > > focus. > > > > I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines > the > > case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's > lawyers > > would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on > video, > > webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, > and > > force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the > > sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should > > not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. > > Ginger > > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Diplo Foundation > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > > > > > > > On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, > Visa, > >>> mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to > wikileaks > >>> reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for > some > >>> people here? > >> > >> > >> > >> Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? > >> > >> Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see > >> the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet > governance. > >> If you want to change the subject, fine :-) > >> > >> Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their > >> protest on the Internet. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >>> you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ > >>> > >>> Carlos Vera > >>> > >>> > >>> Enviado desde mi iPhone > >>> > >>> El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: > >>> > >>>> Dominique, hi. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
> >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Rape? Charged? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the > >>>> UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm > >>>> not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him > some > >>>>> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... > >>>>> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers > at > >>>>> a > >>>>> Swedish sense: > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I very much hope not. > >>>> > >>>> Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense > >>>> carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of > >>>>> rape. > >>>>> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. > >>>>> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still > involving > >>>>> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. > >>>>> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking > >>>>> generally, > >>>>> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional > >>>>> pressure on someone. > >>>>> > >>>>> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four > >>>>> years > >>>>> respectively. > >>>>> The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange > >>>>> will not > >>>>> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away > to > >>>>> the > >>>>> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence > that > >>>>> Mr > >>>>> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, > >>>>> less > >>>>> serious category." > >>>>> > >>>>> And the great conclusion is: > >>>>> > >>>>> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of > >>>>> women's > >>>>> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. > >>>>> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest > >>>>> rate in > >>>>> Europe. > >>>>> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed > but > >>>>> it > >>>>> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of > the > >>>>> crime > >>>>> are more significant factors." > >>>>> > >>>>> See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 > >>>>> > >>>>> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet > >>>>> Governance > >>>>> issues. > >>>>> - Lawful here, unlawful there. > >>>>> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. > >>>>> > >>>>> How would you deal with these questions? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet > >>>> governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online > >>>> or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those > >>>> two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. > >>>> > >>>> Adam > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> @+, Dominique > >>>>> > >>>>> Dominique Lacroix > >>>>> Société européenne de l'Internet > >>>>> http://www.ies-france.eu > >>>>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his > >>>>>> WikiLeaks > >>>>>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically > >>>>>> motivated > >>>>>> harassment or charge. > >>> > >>> >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid > >>> facing > >>>>>> > >>>>>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ginger > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! > >>>>> > >>>>> Fahd > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>> > >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk Sun Aug 19 16:39:52 2012 From: jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk (jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:39:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <1496777258-1345405720-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-995631018-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <1866413161-1345408795-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1901603467-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> Dear Riaz, Not an issue of comparability or remission. One party's crimes - or, in this case, unethical acts - do not justify or excuse those done in opposition (otherwise, there would be no 'war crimes', only punishment for losing). They certainly do not justify or excuse other acts done by those who say they oppose e.g. US/UK adventures (in its perjorative sense) when those acts have nothing to do with that opposition. And the opposition itself shows a reckless disregard for adverse consequences. I suppose that's 'acceptable collateral damage?' So, there may be some degree of moral comparison, though it hardly favours Assange. J. Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange -----Original Message----- From: Riaz Tayob Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:54:25 To: ; Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally And how does personal indiscretions and alleged crimes compare with wholesale slaughter in an illegal war, etc, etc...? Perhaps it is just a difference of perspective. But methinks it is more like a paralax... On 19 August 2012 21:48, wrote: > I suggest not getting all Manichean about this. More public information is > not necessarily better and Assange's often cynical and highly > self-promoting distribution of information unfavourable to *some* > governments hardly exempts him from moral responsibility, let alone > qualifies him for broader absolution. His curious reluctance to countenance > publication of uncontested material embarrassing to himself is icing on the > cake. J. > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mawaki Chango > Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:11:09 > To: ; Ginger Paque > Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Mawaki Chango > Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) > America's > vassal acts decisively and illegally > > Completely agree with Ginger here... > We can't pretend to ignore the elephant in the room: at this point > there's no part of this story that can be clearly separated from > Wikileaks - if only given all the shady zones in this imbroglio. And > yes, it is unfortunate that the rape issue is now and then exploited > in ways that can undermine legitimate claims. Again a lot remains > unclear, unfortunately, due to the behavior of the Sweden's > government. > > mawaki > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the > > sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all > of > > the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. > > > > My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual > > misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in > > focus. > > > > I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines > the > > case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's > lawyers > > would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on > video, > > webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, > and > > force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the > > sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should > > not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. > > Ginger > > > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > > Diplo Foundation > > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > > > > > > > > > On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, > Visa, > >>> mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to > wikileaks > >>> reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for > some > >>> people here? > >> > >> > >> > >> Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? > >> > >> Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see > >> the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet > governance. > >> If you want to change the subject, fine :-) > >> > >> Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their > >> protest on the Internet. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >>> you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ > >>> > >>> Carlos Vera > >>> > >>> > >>> Enviado desde mi iPhone > >>> > >>> El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: > >>> > >>>> Dominique, hi. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
> >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Rape? Charged? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the > >>>> UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm > >>>> not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him > some > >>>>> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... > >>>>> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers > at > >>>>> a > >>>>> Swedish sense: > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I very much hope not. > >>>> > >>>> Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense > >>>> carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of > >>>>> rape. > >>>>> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. > >>>>> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still > involving > >>>>> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. > >>>>> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking > >>>>> generally, > >>>>> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional > >>>>> pressure on someone. > >>>>> > >>>>> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four > >>>>> years > >>>>> respectively. > >>>>> The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange > >>>>> will not > >>>>> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away > to > >>>>> the > >>>>> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence > that > >>>>> Mr > >>>>> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, > >>>>> less > >>>>> serious category." > >>>>> > >>>>> And the great conclusion is: > >>>>> > >>>>> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of > >>>>> women's > >>>>> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. > >>>>> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest > >>>>> rate in > >>>>> Europe. > >>>>> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed > but > >>>>> it > >>>>> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of > the > >>>>> crime > >>>>> are more significant factors." > >>>>> > >>>>> See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 > >>>>> > >>>>> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet > >>>>> Governance > >>>>> issues. > >>>>> - Lawful here, unlawful there. > >>>>> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. > >>>>> > >>>>> How would you deal with these questions? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet > >>>> governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online > >>>> or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those > >>>> two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. > >>>> > >>>> Adam > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> @+, Dominique > >>>>> > >>>>> Dominique Lacroix > >>>>> Société européenne de l'Internet > >>>>> http://www.ies-france.eu > >>>>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his > >>>>>> WikiLeaks > >>>>>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically > >>>>>> motivated > >>>>>> harassment or charge. > >>> > >>> >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid > >>> facing > >>>>>> > >>>>>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ginger > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! > >>>>> > >>>>> Fahd > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>>> > >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 17:07:36 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:37:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: References: <50308889.8060904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: When did we ever have a chance to select the root as users? It's only at an admin level that the option exists - so alt roots are mostly either at an organizational level or non-existant (if the defaults are unchanged) -C On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> [snip] >> >> How would taking over critical internet resources by force be any good >> for the developing world if there are competing DNS roots? >> >> Sala, > > I don't remember any such inference from anyone, and you probably wanted > to mean something different. > > Just to clarify realities. Multiple roots have been around for a while, > see: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root > .. plus a few more unknown to Wikipedia. > And last but not least the chinese root, used by 600 millions people. (Not > to be confused with .cn, which is a sort of proxy in the ICANN root.) > > Whether multiple roots are competing or not is in the eye of the beholder. > Users have a choice, and presumably their preferences are based on some > characteristics not available in other roots. > > Are multiple roots a nuisance to stability, security, and resilience of > the internet (an ICANN mantra) ? > If it were so, there should be some evidence of it. > > Regards, Louis. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 17:12:16 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:42:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act In-Reply-To: References: <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Never mind how it was illegal - basically that would basically tell them: 1. Network existance, security level, possibly the encryption type used, frequency used and SSID 2. If unencrypted, the IP range in use, possibly the gateway IP (via a 3-4 point tracert) 3. Also perhaps if they were sniffing maybe a bit of info about who's using it (unlikely given the way wifi works) Which gives us.... what? -C On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <1345283393.42074.**YahooMailNeo at web125102.mail.**ne1.yahoo.com<1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo at web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>>, > at 02:49:53 on Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Imran Ahmed Shah > writes > >> Does this action of "Information Collection" by Google really breach the >> Privacy Act, PIPA >> > > What Google did was to wiretap (and keep) small fragments of the traffic > on wifi hotpots as they drove past. > > That's probably an offence under long standing law in most countries (I > wouldn't want to start making a list of them off the cuff). > > For it to have been a real threat to the persons in question, they would > have had to refrain from switching on encryption[1] and to have been > sending/receiving some emails (or whatever) in exactly the few seconds the > Google Streetcar was listening to that particular hotspot. > > [1] Even the simplest type would have been sufficient, the fragments > captured are not enough to start any useful "cracking". > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 17:45:28 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:45:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act Message-ID: <1345412728.69845.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Thanks Ronald, What about the information recording of all Users of Google Apps' that also includes; Geo location, Client System ID, Location, Network, IP Credit Card Numbers WiFi, SSID, (Hot spot) Search Logs and Communication Full access to PIM Data, Bluetooth Connections, GPS location, Media and Images stored on Mobile Device Communication and Contact Links etc. Regards Imran ------------------------------ On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 9:31 PM PKT Roland Perry wrote: >In message <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo at web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, at 02:49:53 on Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Imran Ahmed Shah writes >> Does this action of "Information Collection" by Google really breach the Privacy Act, PIPA > >What Google did was to wiretap (and keep) small fragments of the traffic on wifi hotpots as they drove past. > >That's probably an offence under long standing law in most countries (I wouldn't want to start making a list of them off the cuff). > >For it to have been a real threat to the persons in question, they would have had to refrain from switching on encryption[1] and to have been sending/receiving some emails (or whatever) in exactly the few seconds the Google Streetcar was listening to that particular hotspot. > >[1] Even the simplest type would have been sufficient, the fragments captured are not enough to start any useful "cracking". >-- Roland Perry > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 17:55:12 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:55:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act Message-ID: <1345413312.2285.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> [IAS] Not all the network equipments like WiFi access points/ router are configured with Password protection or encrypted mode communication. So, sniffing is easy if you have access remotely when knowing minimum information. ------------------------------ On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:12 AM PKT Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: >Never mind how it was illegal - basically that would basically tell them: > >1. Network existance, security level, possibly the encryption type used, >frequency used and SSID >2. If unencrypted, the IP range in use, possibly the gateway IP (via a 3-4 >point tracert) >3. Also perhaps if they were sniffing maybe a bit of info about who's using >it (unlikely given the way wifi works) > >Which gives us.... what? > >-C > >On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Roland Perry < >roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > >> In message <1345283393.42074.**YahooMailNeo at web125102.mail.**ne1.yahoo.com<1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo at web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, >> at 02:49:53 on Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Imran Ahmed Shah >> writes >> >> Does this action of "Information Collection" by Google really breach the >> Privacy Act, PIPA >> >> >> What Google did was to wiretap (and keep) small fragments of the traffic >> on wifi hotpots as they drove past. >> >> That's probably an offence under long standing law in most countries (I >> wouldn't want to start making a list of them off the cuff). >> >> For it to have been a real threat to the persons in question, they would >> have had to refrain from switching on encryption[1] and to have been >> sending/receiving some emails (or whatever) in exactly the few seconds the >> Google Streetcar was listening to that particular hotspot. >> >> [1] Even the simplest type would have been sufficient, the fragments >> captured are not enough to start any useful "cracking". >> -- >> Roland Perry >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Aug 19 17:57:54 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:57:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> Dear All -- Dear All -- I've been very reluctant to get into this discussion about Assange, which really does have little or nothing to do with Internet governance (as others on the list have noted), but the standard conspiracy theories that seem to be favored by many on the list -- and which Assange also encourages -- really don't seem to hold up to close scrutiny Swedish sources who know what they are talking about say that the Swedish government is deeply embarassed by the whole mess, created by an uncontrollable, overzealous prosecutor who really sees this as an important feminist issue. Ironically, Assange is now being defended by a former Spanish investigating magistrate whose zeal was equally embarassing to the Spanish government. Quite aside from that, from my perspective and that of many of my most thoughtful American journalistic colleagues, it is clear that Assange is motivated by a very strong streak of political anti-Americanism -- that he means to embarass the US government as much as possible. That may be a perfectly legitimate for a political activist. But it undercuts any claim to be a journalist, Professional journalists aren't supposed to follow political agendas. Best regards, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro To: governance ; Ginger Paque Cc: Dominique Lacroix
Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally Assange is referring to this as a witchhunt, see: http://www.newsday.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-calls-on-obama-to-end-witch-hunt-1.3913652 On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: Excellent post, Dominique. Gracias! Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig On 19 August 2012 12:25, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: That story seems to be all about secret at the information age! Assange got 2 love stories. In both cases, the women invited him in her bed. The case is about what happened there. Sex by surprise? That should stay secret, as long as the women were not injured. Actually, they never complained for that. At the contrary, Bradley Manning and Wikileaks revealed what should not be kept secret: - Civilians (journalists and children) murders by US soldiers in Iraq. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journalists-idUSTRE6344FW20100406 - Orders given to diplomates to spy UN leaders (DNA, passwords, credit card numbers etc.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un - And so on. Nevertheless, of course I agree with Ginger and Mawaki: crime allegations are displaced manipulations AND we cannot just ignore the sexual misconduct allegations. But at this stage of the worldwide imbroglio, it's too late for having a neutral trial in Sweden. Could you imagine a Swedish Court concluding: "Much ado about nothing"? So public opinion mobilization is important. We are the witnesses. And at this hour, I would like to hear the two women. I'm not sure that the story is still their story... Some strange points must not be forgotten. Just some clues for new readers of the case: - Feminist fighters should be very happy to see that nowadays police force all around the world hunt rapers as it's done for Assange. A famous feminist wrote about the case. Just search for Naomi Wolf. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html - Assange already talked with Swedish authorities. Convened because of Swedish demand, he went spontaneously to the London police. - Swedish authorities aren't clear on the case, first closed and then reopened: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investigation-into-wikileaks-chief-reopens-2068162.html - It's well established that Assange had two love stories with fans in Stockholm and then Enköping. The first with the famous Anna Ardin, a feminist fighter whose blog explained how to get revenge against men: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7569087-meet-anna-ardin-photos-anna-ardins-7-steps-to-legal-revenge And so on. It's not the good place for further analyzing that case. But doubt is widely allowed. Best regards, @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 19/08/12 16:11, Mawaki Chango a écrit : Completely agree with Ginger here... We can't pretend to ignore the elephant in the room: at this point there's no part of this story that can be clearly separated from Wikileaks - if only given all the shady zones in this imbroglio. And yes, it is unfortunate that the rape issue is now and then exploited in ways that can undermine legitimate claims. Again a lot remains unclear, unfortunately, due to the behavior of the Sweden's government. mawaki On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all of the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in focus. I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines the case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's lawyers would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on video, webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, and force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake wrote: You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to wikileaks reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for some people here? Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. If you want to change the subject, fine :-) Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their protest on the Internet. Adam you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ Carlos Vera Enviado desde mi iPhone El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: Dominique, hi. On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: Rape? Charged? Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at a Swedish sense: I very much hope not. Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of rape. There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving violence but not violence of the utmost horror. And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking generally, and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional pressure on someone. The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four years respectively. The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange will not spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to the accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that Mr Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, less serious category." And the great conclusion is: "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of women's rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest rate in Europe. The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but it seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the crime are more significant factors." See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet Governance issues. - Lawful here, unlawful there. - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. How would you deal with these questions? Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. Adam @+, Dominique Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated harassment or charge. >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing charges of rape if the are legitimate. Ginger That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! Fahd ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sun Aug 19 17:59:13 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 14:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act Message-ID: <1345413553.97359.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> According to its new Privacy Policy, Information of the Users and about the Users and the environment will be recorded, who is connected through which device, OS, network, what is his flavor, choices and selection through browsing history, his connections and contacts to which he speak/ talk or meet, what is the location of his contacts Some of the information is necessary to authenticate the user/client but keep recording as much information about everyone (outside of his country by foreign company) is a global cyber security issue. Users has no control/option to keep its Privacy. ------------------------------ On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:45 AM PKT Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >Thanks Ronald, >What about the information recording of all Users of Google Apps' that also includes; >Geo location, >Client System ID, >Location, >Network, IP >Credit Card Numbers >WiFi, SSID, (Hot spot) >Search Logs and Communication >Full access to PIM Data, >Bluetooth Connections, >GPS location, >Media and Images stored on Mobile Device >Communication and Contact Links >etc. > >Regards > >Imran >------------------------------ > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 9:31 PM PKT Roland Perry wrote: > > >In message <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo at web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, at 02:49:53 on Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Imran Ahmed Shah writes > > Does this action of "Information Collection" by Google really breach the Privacy Act, PIPA > > > >What Google did was to wiretap (and keep) small fragments of the traffic on wifi hotpots as they drove past. > > > >That's probably an offence under long standing law in most countries (I wouldn't want to start making a list of them off the cuff). > > > >For it to have been a real threat to the persons in question, they would have had to refrain from switching on encryption[1] and to have been sending/receiving some emails (or whatever) in exactly the few seconds the Google Streetcar was listening to that particular hotspot. > > > >[1] Even the simplest type would have been sufficient, the fragments captured are not enough to start any useful "cracking". > >-- Roland Perry > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 17:59:29 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:59:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <503161C1.9070603@cafonso.ca> Leaving aside Adam's worry about which issues should be discussed here (and I think this is theme is directly related to Internet governance, as the network made viable the massive spread of info of which Wikileaks was the prime messenger, and this is part of freedom of expression and access to information over the net which is central to our rights-based debate), and as an asylum seeker in 1973 in Chile when I had, with my family, to seek refuge in the Panamanian embassy to escape Pinochet's US driven coup: I have to say that the blood-thirsty general adhered to the UN principles and let us out of Chile with full protection of its military from the Panamanian embassy to the airport. The Uk nowadays is not even capable of doing this in the Assange case, who has not been charged, whose supposed "sex violations" in Sweden include a girl who provided services for the CIA (strange coincidence, right?), and whose real "guilt" is in being a messenger -- as I said somewhere these days, Daniel Ellsberg during the Nixon era with Tony Russo were high-level employees of Rand and NASA, not simple privates like Manning, and were responsible for gathering and distributing the Pentagon papers to the NYT. Far "worse", if you wear the US establishment glasses, than Assange. I am really amazed at how low the UK has gone in this, not to speak of Australia, which in this situation unconditionally bows to the USA forgetting that Assange is a citizen of Australia. Whatever his personal style and private doings, Assange cannot be condemned for being a messenger, and ought to be granted the obvious international right to asylum. Or the UK would become like one more of those little governments which are even worse than the Pinochet regime. Well, the Cameron regime (can I say this?) had already proposed full censorship of networks during recent popular mobilizations in the country, what else to expect? frt rgds --c.a. On 08/19/2012 07:43 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > "Who, What, Why: Is it > legal to hide in an embassy?" From May, so not influenced by the most > recent Assange events. Looks to me like the UK's screwed up. > > About his alleged crimes > > Seems "no means no" hasn't quite got through. Assange's lawyer's > attempts to brand the two women as CIA plants, etc., pretty > disgusting. > > And I am not sure what this has to do with Internet governance. > > Adam > > > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh > wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks >>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated >>> harassment or charge. >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing >>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>> >>> Ginger >> >> >> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! >> >> Fahd >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 19:27:11 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 01:27:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] Should Internet based two-sided markers be regulated by countries or govts In-Reply-To: References: <50308889.8060904@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar < chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote: > When did we ever have a chance to select the root as users? It's only at > an admin level that the option exists - so alt roots are mostly either at > an organizational level or non-existant (if the defaults are unchanged) > > -C > - - - > Hi Chaitanya, Changing root is just a matter of changing DNS addresses in network parameters. On a personal computer you can set the admin mode. In a corporate context the admin may or not restrict this capacity. Some rare ISP's may also inhibit DNS change. Then a contact with the admin would be appropriate. I can send you info for a trial. Just tell me off list what region you are located in, so as to select optimal name servers. Regards, Louis. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sun Aug 19 19:55:59 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 19:55:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: If I may respond directly to this... On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: > Dear All -- > > Dear All -- > > I've been very reluctant to get into this discussion about Assange, which > really does have little or nothing to do with Internet governance (as others > on the list have noted), but the standard conspiracy theories that seem to > be favored by many on the list -- and which Assange also encourages -- > really don't seem to hold up to close scrutiny Sometimes it's fine to be accused of conspiracy theory, for the fear of such accusation may have the effect of getting people to be complacent with the "mainstream's" version of things. > > Swedish sources who know what they are talking about say that the Swedish > government is deeply embarassed by the whole mess, created by an > uncontrollable, overzealous prosecutor who really sees this as an important > feminist issue. Ironically, Assange is now being defended by a former > Spanish investigating magistrate whose zeal was equally embarassing to the > Spanish government. Thanks for pointing out the Swedish government attitude in this, and some of us needed to hear this part. So it wasn't a superfluous caution when I referred more to Swedish judiciary than to Swedish government in my first post in this thread. > > Quite aside from that, from my perspective and that of many of my most > thoughtful American journalistic colleagues, it is clear that Assange is > motivated by a very strong streak of political anti-Americanism -- that he > means to embarass the US government as much as possible. That may be a > perfectly legitimate for a political activist. But it undercuts any claim to > be a journalist, Professional journalists aren't supposed to follow > political agendas. I'm not sure anyone has claimed that Assange is professional journalist. At the maximum, you may call that citizen journalism, and as such he is exposed to the same criticism as any other flavor of citizen journalism. One last thing, which is a personal reflection: this debate reminds me of another one on freedom of speech while we were developing policy for new gTLDs at ICANN's GNSO. On one side there were those who would not accept any qualification whatsoever to freedom of speech for the sake of preventing offensive speech of any sort in the internet namespace. And on the other side, there were those who were calling for such qualification. In this particular case of Wikileaks, it seems the tables have turned, at least for some: the extreme defense of free speech no longer applies, or maybe has never applied, to freedom of information? Does anyone on this list still believe that policy - including policy for technical infrastructure - does not involve worldviews and values, which are diverse around the world, without necessary the possibility to classified in a compelling manner which ones are the best for everybody? And how do we negotiate the values that will prevail for a global infrastructure? It seems to me those are relevant questions we have been wrestling with in this space and other IG-related forums for quite a while now. Mawaki Disclaimer: I think Assange is not a saint; he has the duty to answer for his actions that fall under existing laws like any other citizens, no more no less. My understanding is that most people who seem to keep a critical eye on UK, Sweden (and maybe ultimately the US) in this are not doing so necessarily for the individual Assange, but because they are worry about the possibility of politically motivated charges. You may call that conspiracy theory, but I suspect, from the arguments they are making, that they have some good reasons not to rule out that possibility as yet. > Best regards, Rony Koven > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > To: governance ; Ginger Paque > > Cc: Dominique Lacroix
> Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 7:57 pm > Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's > vassal acts decisively and illegally > > Assange is referring to this as a witchhunt, see: > http://www.newsday.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-calls-on-obama-to-end-witch-hunt-1.3913652 > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Excellent post, Dominique. Gracias! >> >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> >> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >> Diplo Foundation >> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> >> >> >> >> On 19 August 2012 12:25, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>> >>> That story seems to be all about secret at the information age! >>> Assange got 2 love stories. In both cases, the women invited him in her >>> bed. >>> The case is about what happened there. Sex by surprise? That should stay >>> secret, as long as the women were not injured. Actually, they never >>> complained for that. >>> >>> At the contrary, Bradley Manning and Wikileaks revealed what should not >>> be kept secret: >>> - Civilians (journalists and children) murders by US soldiers in Iraq. >>> >>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journalists-idUSTRE6344FW20100406 >>> - Orders given to diplomates to spy UN leaders (DNA, passwords, credit >>> card numbers etc.) >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un >>> - And so on. >>> >>> Nevertheless, of course I agree with Ginger and Mawaki: crime allegations >>> are displaced manipulations AND we cannot just ignore the sexual misconduct >>> allegations. >>> >>> But at this stage of the worldwide imbroglio, it's too late for having a >>> neutral trial in Sweden. Could you imagine a Swedish Court concluding: "Much >>> ado about nothing"? So public opinion mobilization is important. We are the >>> witnesses. >>> And at this hour, I would like to hear the two women. I'm not sure that >>> the story is still their story... >>> >>> >>> Some strange points must not be forgotten. Just some clues for new >>> readers of the case: >>> >>> - Feminist fighters should be very happy to see that nowadays police >>> force all around the world hunt rapers as it's done for Assange. >>> A famous feminist wrote about the case. Just search for Naomi Wolf. >>> >>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html >>> >>> - Assange already talked with Swedish authorities. >>> Convened because of Swedish demand, he went spontaneously to the London >>> police. >>> >>> - Swedish authorities aren't clear on the case, first closed and then >>> reopened: >>> >>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investigation-into-wikileaks-chief-reopens-2068162.html >>> >>> - It's well established that Assange had two love stories with fans in >>> Stockholm and then Enköping. >>> The first with the famous Anna Ardin, a feminist fighter whose blog >>> explained how to get revenge against men: >>> >>> http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7569087-meet-anna-ardin-photos-anna-ardins-7-steps-to-legal-revenge >>> >>> And so on. It's not the good place for further analyzing that case. But >>> doubt is widely allowed. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> @+, Dominique >>> >>> -- >>> Dominique Lacroix >>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>> >>> Le 19/08/12 16:11, Mawaki Chango a écrit : >>> >>> Completely agree with Ginger here... >>> We can't pretend to ignore the elephant in the room: at this point >>> there's no part of this story that can be clearly separated from >>> Wikileaks - if only given all the shady zones in this imbroglio. And >>> yes, it is unfortunate that the rape issue is now and then exploited >>> in ways that can undermine legitimate claims. Again a lot remains >>> unclear, unfortunately, due to the behavior of the Sweden's >>> government. >>> >>> mawaki >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>> This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the >>> sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all >>> of >>> the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. >>> >>> My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual >>> misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in >>> focus. >>> >>> I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines >>> the >>> case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's >>> lawyers >>> would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on >>> video, >>> webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, >>> and >>> force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the >>> sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should >>> not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. >>> Ginger >>> >>> >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>> >>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >>> Diplo Foundation >>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, >>> mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to >>> wikileaks >>> reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for >>> some >>> people here? >>> >>> Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? >>> >>> Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see >>> the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. >>> If you want to change the subject, fine :-) >>> >>> Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their >>> protest on the Internet. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ >>> >>> Carlos Vera >>> >>> >>> Enviado desde mi iPhone >>> >>> El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: >>> >>> Dominique, hi. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
>>> wrote: >>> >>> Rape? Charged? >>> >>> Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the >>> UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm >>> not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. >>> >>> >>> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some >>> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... >>> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at >>> a >>> Swedish sense: >>> >>> I very much hope not. >>> >>> Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense >>> carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. >>> >>> >>> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of >>> rape. >>> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. >>> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving >>> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. >>> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking >>> generally, >>> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional >>> pressure on someone. >>> >>> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four >>> years >>> respectively. >>> The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange >>> will not >>> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to >>> the >>> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that >>> Mr >>> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, >>> less >>> serious category." >>> >>> And the great conclusion is: >>> >>> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of >>> women's >>> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. >>> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest >>> rate in >>> Europe. >>> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but >>> it >>> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the >>> crime >>> are more significant factors." >>> >>> See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 >>> >>> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? >>> >>> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet >>> Governance >>> issues. >>> - Lawful here, unlawful there. >>> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. >>> >>> How would you deal with these questions? >>> >>> Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet >>> governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online >>> or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those >>> two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> @+, Dominique >>> >>> Dominique Lacroix >>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque >>> wrote: >>> >>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his >>> WikiLeaks >>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically >>> motivated >>> harassment or charge. >>> >>> >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid >>> facing >>> >>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>> >>> Ginger >>> >>> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! >>> >>> Fahd >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Sun Aug 19 21:33:14 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 03:33:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <503193DA.5060500@panamo.eu> Le 19/08/12 23:57, Koven Ronald a écrit : > Quite aside from that, from my perspective and that of many of my most > thoughtful American journalistic colleagues, it is clear that Assange > is motivated by a very strong streak of political anti-Americanism -- Disclaimer : I do admire great US companies such as Verisign, Google, Amazon, etc. I like Apple, Coca Cola and Mickey Mouse. I'm still an Obama supporter, as I was four years ago (I can prove it. It's on the Internet ;-)) I like so called "America". A great nation. My mother married an US marine. And half of my family are American people. I'm not either an anti-American nor a spy. Can we begin free talks now? > that he means to embarass the US government as much as possible. That was the result, for sure. Not necessarily the main intentions. "Procès d'intention" (Google translate bugged, sorry...) are not fair, do you know? > That may be a perfectly legitimate for a political activist. But it > undercuts any claim to be a journalist, Professional journalists > aren't supposed to follow political agendas. A journalist may have political opinions and may express them. The journalist's duty is to prove what she/he says with documents or arguments. He/she has to provide readers means for thinking. But she/he cannot be deprived of freedom of thinking or speeching, isn't it? As you are not a journalist, I guess, dear Koven, you may freely write your opinion on this list... @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 22:38:02 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:38:02 +1200 Subject: [governance] Negotiating Values in a Global Infrastructure Message-ID: Dear All, Today is International Humanitarian day and we applaud the work that humanitarians are doing all over the world to try and make it a better place for our fellow human citizens. Some have lost their lives whilst living their lives for others. There are some humanitarians on this list, I am sure who are doing excellent work in touching people's lives. We salute you! I also wanted to highlight something brought out in another thread that deserves a thread of it's own. Mawaki raised some really excellent points which is something that we should ask ourselves. I have underlined and emphasised what I consider to be a critical question. I hope that we can also discuss how these values should or could be negotiated or otherwise. As always please feel free to express your views... [Mawaki Chango:] Does anyone on this list still believe that policy - including policy for technical infrastructure - does not involve worldviews and values, which are diverse around the world, without necessary the possibility to classified in a compelling manner which ones are the best for everybody? And *how do we negotiate the values* that will prevail for a global infrastructure? It seems to me those are relevant questions we have been wrestling with in this space and other IG-related forums for quite a while now. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk Sun Aug 19 22:43:37 2012 From: jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk (jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 02:43:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <503193DA.5060500@panamo.eu> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <503193DA.5060500@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <876794086-1345430621-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-633155880-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> (Re)producing selected masses of anonymously contributed documents does not, I think, constitute either 'speech' or journalism. This does raise an IG issue, since (as you note) only an extreme free-information (as distinct from free speech) position would argue against any filtration. That argument is already conceded in respect of e.g. hate speech, fraud and IP to whose publication the creator has not consented. It may be that IG needs an intent-based or results-based approach, but IMHO the wikileaks case is too weak to support the general argument. And intention does matter. It matters to the interpretation of what is chosen for publication, it shapes the selection and timing of publication, and it runs straight through criminal and civil law. Ignoring it is neither just nor fair. J. Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange -----Original Message----- From: Dominique Lacroix
Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 03:33:14 To: Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Dominique Lacroix
Cc: Koven Ronald; ; Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally Le 19/08/12 23:57, Koven Ronald a écrit : > Quite aside from that, from my perspective and that of many of my most > thoughtful American journalistic colleagues, it is clear that Assange > is motivated by a very strong streak of political anti-Americanism -- Disclaimer : I do admire great US companies such as Verisign, Google, Amazon, etc. I like Apple, Coca Cola and Mickey Mouse. I'm still an Obama supporter, as I was four years ago (I can prove it. It's on the Internet ;-)) I like so called "America". A great nation. My mother married an US marine. And half of my family are American people. I'm not either an anti-American nor a spy. Can we begin free talks now? > that he means to embarass the US government as much as possible. That was the result, for sure. Not necessarily the main intentions. "Procès d'intention" (Google translate bugged, sorry...) are not fair, do you know? > That may be a perfectly legitimate for a political activist. But it > undercuts any claim to be a journalist, Professional journalists > aren't supposed to follow political agendas. A journalist may have political opinions and may express them. The journalist's duty is to prove what she/he says with documents or arguments. He/she has to provide readers means for thinking. But she/he cannot be deprived of freedom of thinking or speeching, isn't it? As you are not a journalist, I guess, dear Koven, you may freely write your opinion on this list... @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 22:56:08 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:56:08 +1200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <876794086-1345430621-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-633155880-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <503193DA.5060500@panamo.eu> <876794086-1345430621-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-633155880-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: Snip On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:43 PM, wrote: > (Re)producing selected masses of anonymously contributed documents does > not, I think, constitute either 'speech' or journalism. > Traditionally the media has always been touted as the fourth estate. These days when even traditional media have gradually been challenged whether through litigation or threat of litigation about "content". It follows that even mainstream media have the power of being bullied into either "silence" or threat of "reprisal". This is not new and is common place all over the world. This of course has created a market for "uncensored content" aka "reproduction of documents" . Whistleblowing through the Internet has and continues to gain momentum. Whilst Wikileaks is but a medium, the fact that it continues to thrive shows the market, there can be no supply if there is no demand. Snip > This does raise an IG issue, since (as you note) only an extreme > free-information (as distinct from free speech) position would argue > against any filtration. > Yes, there is an inherent need to discuss the implications of these acts but more importantly, the philosophy driving the series of actions. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 22:58:04 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:58:04 +0700 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <503161C1.9070603@cafonso.ca> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <503161C1.9070603@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5031A7BC.3020703@gmx.net> Thanks, Carlos. Norbert Klein Cambodia On 8/20/2012 4:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Leaving aside Adam's worry about which issues should be discussed here > (and I think this is theme is directly related to Internet governance, > as the network made viable the massive spread of info of which Wikileaks > was the prime messenger, and this is part of freedom of expression and > access to information over the net which is central to our rights-based > debate), and as an asylum seeker in 1973 in Chile when I had, with my > family, to seek refuge in the Panamanian embassy to escape Pinochet's US > driven coup: I have to say that the blood-thirsty general adhered to the > UN principles and let us out of Chile with full protection of its > military from the Panamanian embassy to the airport. > > The Uk nowadays is not even capable of doing this in the Assange case, > who has not been charged, whose supposed "sex violations" in Sweden > include a girl who provided services for the CIA (strange coincidence, > right?), and whose real "guilt" is in being a messenger -- as I said > somewhere these days, Daniel Ellsberg during the Nixon era with Tony > Russo were high-level employees of Rand and NASA, not simple privates > like Manning, and were responsible for gathering and distributing the > Pentagon papers to the NYT. Far "worse", if you wear the US > establishment glasses, than Assange. > > I am really amazed at how low the UK has gone in this, not to speak of > Australia, which in this situation unconditionally bows to the USA > forgetting that Assange is a citizen of Australia. > > Whatever his personal style and private doings, Assange cannot be > condemned for being a messenger, and ought to be granted the obvious > international right to asylum. Or the UK would become like one more of > those little governments which are even worse than the Pinochet regime. > Well, the Cameron regime (can I say this?) had already proposed full > censorship of networks during recent popular mobilizations in the > country, what else to expect? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 19 23:01:00 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:01:00 +1200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <5031A7BC.3020703@gmx.net> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <503161C1.9070603@cafonso.ca> <5031A7BC.3020703@gmx.net> Message-ID: +1 On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > Thanks, Carlos. > > Norbert Klein > Cambodia > > > > On 8/20/2012 4:59 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Leaving aside Adam's worry about which issues should be discussed here >> (and I think this is theme is directly related to Internet governance, >> as the network made viable the massive spread of info of which Wikileaks >> was the prime messenger, and this is part of freedom of expression and >> access to information over the net which is central to our rights-based >> debate), and as an asylum seeker in 1973 in Chile when I had, with my >> family, to seek refuge in the Panamanian embassy to escape Pinochet's US >> driven coup: I have to say that the blood-thirsty general adhered to the >> UN principles and let us out of Chile with full protection of its >> military from the Panamanian embassy to the airport. >> >> The Uk nowadays is not even capable of doing this in the Assange case, >> who has not been charged, whose supposed "sex violations" in Sweden >> include a girl who provided services for the CIA (strange coincidence, >> right?), and whose real "guilt" is in being a messenger -- as I said >> somewhere these days, Daniel Ellsberg during the Nixon era with Tony >> Russo were high-level employees of Rand and NASA, not simple privates >> like Manning, and were responsible for gathering and distributing the >> Pentagon papers to the NYT. Far "worse", if you wear the US >> establishment glasses, than Assange. >> >> I am really amazed at how low the UK has gone in this, not to speak of >> Australia, which in this situation unconditionally bows to the USA >> forgetting that Assange is a citizen of Australia. >> >> Whatever his personal style and private doings, Assange cannot be >> condemned for being a messenger, and ought to be granted the obvious >> international right to asylum. Or the UK would become like one more of >> those little governments which are even worse than the Pinochet regime. >> Well, the Cameron regime (can I say this?) had already proposed full >> censorship of networks during recent popular mobilizations in the >> country, what else to expect? >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 01:36:19 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:36:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act In-Reply-To: References: <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message , at 02:42:16 on Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Chaitanya Dhareshwar writes >Never mind how it was illegal - basically that would basically tell them: > >1. Network existance, security level, possibly the encryption type used, >frequency used and SSID That the network existed, and its SSID (or I suspect its MAC address as SSIDs can be cloaked), were the things they [and others with similar projects] were seeking to determine. It's used for geolocation. Indeed, anyone with a wifi laptop or phone is potentially doing the same thing. The frequencies are not important, because there's only around a dozen, and the hotspots can change frequency easily (and sometimes automatically). It's pretty much transparent to the user. The security level/encryption type might be interesting for statistical purposes, but of little extra assistance to an attacker, who is going to have to drive his own car to outside the premises if he wants to "sniff" that wifi, at which point he can just as easily determine those parameters himself. And all of this was just a snapshot taken on one day perhaps three years ago (for the UK, anyway), and many things may have changed. I've moved my hotspot since then - first to a different premises two miles away, and now to a third premises a hundred miles away. >2. If unencrypted, the IP range in use, possibly the gateway IP (via a 3-4 >point tracert) Which is once again information anyone in the vicinity could determine, if the wifi was unsecured (another way to secure it is to only accept connections from specific MAC address equipment, but I wonder how often consumers turn that feature on). >3. Also perhaps if they were sniffing maybe a bit of info about who's using >it (unlikely given the way wifi works) Not who, but what was being sent for a very short period of time. But amass enough such short periods of time from enough consumers, and you are bound to have collected *something*. >Which gives us.... what? If the collection of the snippets of data was intentional, it might[1] have infringed the US's Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) when done in the US. Similar laws in other jurisdictions. [1] It appears to depend on whether the communications from a wifi point are protected under the Act, or whether they are public information on account of being broadcast by wireless. This is actually a *very important* and interesting bit of Internet Governance!! The US Department of Justice is apparently not going to prosecute (similar decisions were once made in the UK's "mobile phone [SMS] hacking" scandal until recently) but there may be a number of civil suits in the pipeline. >On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Roland Perry < >roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > >> In message <1345283393.42074.**YahooMailNeo at web125102.mail.**ne1.yahoo.com<1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo at web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>>, >> at 02:49:53 on Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Imran Ahmed Shah >> writes >> >>> Does this action of "Information Collection" by Google really breach the >>> Privacy Act, PIPA >>> >> >> What Google did was to wiretap (and keep) small fragments of the traffic >> on wifi hotpots as they drove past. >> >> That's probably an offence under long standing law in most countries (I >> wouldn't want to start making a list of them off the cuff). >> >> For it to have been a real threat to the persons in question, they would >> have had to refrain from switching on encryption[1] and to have been >> sending/receiving some emails (or whatever) in exactly the few seconds the >> Google Streetcar was listening to that particular hotspot. >> >> [1] Even the simplest type would have been sufficient, the fragments >> captured are not enough to start any useful "cracking". -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 01:42:03 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:42:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act In-Reply-To: <1345412728.69845.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1345412728.69845.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message <1345412728.69845.BPMail_low_noncarrier at web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, at 14:45:28 on Sun, 19 Aug 2012, Imran Ahmed Shah writes >What about the information recording of all Users of Google Apps' that also includes; >Geo location, >Client System ID, >Location, >Network, IP >Credit Card Numbers >WiFi, SSID, (Hot spot) >Search Logs and Communication >Full access to PIM Data, >Bluetooth Connections, >GPS location, >Media and Images stored on Mobile Device >Communication and Contact Links >etc. Most of those have probably been acquired after asking the consumer's permission. I know, for example, that Google sends me regular reminders that I have geolocation enabled on a smart phone (that I use to research these kinds of issue). Credit card numbers are public information (although many USA-ians behave as if they are a secret shared only by them and everyone they ever bought something from) and the US Department of Justice currently seems to consider anything transmitted from a wifi point is public information as well (so if you don't want anyone in earshot to listen, use encryption or a wired connection instead). Search logs are a rather wider subject that deserves a thread all of its own. Although once again, the informed user will know that searches are being saved because it's one of the ways that future searches are made more relevant and accurate. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 01:48:19 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:48:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act In-Reply-To: <1345413553.97359.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1345413553.97359.BPMail_low_noncarrier@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message <1345413553.97359.BPMail_low_noncarrier at web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, at 14:59:13 on Sun, 19 Aug 2012, Imran Ahmed Shah writes >According to its new Privacy Policy, Information of the Users and about the Users and the environment will be recorded, who is connected >through which device, OS, network, what is his flavor, choices and selection through browsing history, his connections and contacts to which he >speak/ talk or meet, what is the location of his contacts > >Some of the information is necessary to authenticate the user/client but keep recording as much information about everyone (outside of his >country by foreign company) is a global cyber security issue. >Users has no control/option to keep its Privacy. There are various privacy enhancing techniques which could anonymise much of your traffic to search engines, but ultimately if you use such services, the proprietors will know what you've looked at, just as Blockbuster has a list of the movies you've rented, Air France knows about every flight you took with them, and Vodafone knows about every call you made or received [company names chosen for global recognition purposes only]. Most privacy concerns in the past have been about the extent to which such information has been made available to law enforcement authorities, rather than what they might do with it themselves outside of the strict necessity of providing the service. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 01:53:49 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 06:53:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <502F5826.4000506 at gmail.com>, at 10:53:58 on Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >The police presence, it added, had risen from two or three to around >50, with officers on the embassy's fire escape and at every window. I haven't been following the main thread so apologies if this is a repeat: Irrespective of any threat to extradite him, let alone the Wikileaks episode, Assange is a plain and simple fugitive from a UK court (he's skipped bail). The British Police would be roundly criticised if they let him escape through a back window in the middle of the night and make off across Hyde Park. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 03:45:31 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 03:45:31 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally Message-ID: <8CF4CBEE8B131E7-109C-B452A@Webmail-m104.sysops.aol.com> As you are not a journalist, I guess, dear Koven, you may freely write your opinion on this list... I'm afraid that's unfactual, virtual mind-reading. I represent a journalistic NGO, the World Press Freedom Committee, and have been a reporter and editor at the Herald Tribune, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe. My concern in following the list is the furtherance and preservation of freedom of expression and press freedom, on- and offline, Assange's actions have raised press freedom issues, In February, I organized a major conference for my group at UNESCO HQ on the fallout for journalism of the WikiLeaks document-dumping approach. Two British lawyers who have represented Assange were amongst the speakers. It was rather like an IGF. We exchanged observations and ideas but issued no general conclusions. -----Original Message----- From: Dominique Lacroix
To: governance Cc: Koven Ronald ; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro ; gpaque Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 3:33 am Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally Le 19/08/12 23:57, Koven Ronald a écrit : Quite aside from that, from my perspective and that of many of my most thoughtful American journalistic colleagues, it is clear that Assange is motivated by a very strong streak of political anti-Americanism -- Disclaimer : I do admire great US companies such as Verisign, Google, Amazon, etc. I like Apple, Coca Cola and Mickey Mouse. I'm still an Obama supporter, as I was four years ago (I can prove it. It's on the Internet ;-)) I like so called "America". A great nation. My mother married an US marine. And half of my family are American people. I'm not either an anti-American nor a spy. Can we begin free talks now? that he means to embarass the US government as much as possible. That was the result, for sure. Not necessarily the main intentions. "Procès d'intention" (Google translate bugged, sorry...) are not fair, do you know? That may be a perfectly legitimate for a political activist. But it undercuts any claim to be a journalist, Professional journalists aren't supposed to follow political agendas. A journalist may have political opinions and may express them. The journalist's duty is to prove what she/he says with documents or arguments. He/she has to provide readers means for thinking. But she/he cannot be deprived of freedom of thinking or speeching, isn't it? As you are not a journalist, I guess, dear Koven, you may freely write your opinion on this list... @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 03:53:09 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:53:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> Perhaps if there was some "balance" then ANYONE arguing for "American Exceptionalism" on this list should also be chastised - otherwise it is a double standard. Those who cannot at once criticise the Assange discussion and arguments for American Exceptionalism is taking a POLITICAL position imho. And for me ONLY a negative inference can be made from this regarding their values/ethical position as far as issues that concern governance is concerned, since appeal must be made to reason not emotions. American Exceptionalism, which is implicit in the CHOICE of supporting the Status Quo of current Internet Governance arrangements ON THIS LIST, was raised and needs to be interrogated. Actually it was Abe Lincoln who said that something to the effect that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. So this discussion is not anti-Americanism, and such name calling (as progressive as it might be in some circles must be called out for what it is) but about a call to the highest virtues of the founding fathers of America and drafters of the American constitution (who were inspired (if I recall correctly!) by Kantian ideas that information (access to information in modern parlance) was essential to meaningful participation of citizens). And a word on feminist claims for action. The issue has moved on, and few are contesting the seriousness of the claims against him. So if the issue has moved on, is a reasonable feminist position (putting the interests of the complainants first) not one that should insist that he be questioned (as he has agreed to do) at the embassy and take the matter head on? And if this is not argued and motivated for then a reasonable feminism is being held hostage in the name of saving feminism. But then double standards are not new in defence of this farce that is playing out. In any event, Mark Weisbrot reported (UK Guardian 21 Jul 2012) that Sweden sought extradition which the former Stockholm Chief District prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem testified was “unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate.” He could simply be questioned in the UK. One can only wonder at the intentions behind such serious allegations not being expeditiously dealt with. And btw, no one will jump in arguing for "balance" on this list when American Exceptionalism is touted about - but name-calling is back in vogue. This is a bald attempt at censorship of the discussion on this list, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves. On 2012/08/19 11:57 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: > Dear All -- > > Dear All -- > > I've been very reluctant to get into this discussion about Assange, > which really does have little or nothing to do with Internet > governance (as others on the list have noted), but the standard > conspiracy theories that seem to be favored by many on the list -- and > which Assange also encourages -- really don't seem to hold up to close > scrutiny > > Swedish sources who know what they are talking about say that the > Swedish government is deeply embarassed by the whole mess, created by > an uncontrollable, overzealous prosecutor who really sees this as an > important feminist issue. Ironically, Assange is now being defended by > a former Spanish investigating magistrate whose zeal was equally > embarassing to the Spanish government. > > Quite aside from that, from my perspective and that of many of my most > thoughtful American journalistic colleagues, it is clear that Assange > is motivated by a very strong streak of political anti-Americanism -- > that he means to embarass the US government as much as possible. That > may be a perfectly legitimate for a political activist. But it > undercuts any claim to be a journalist, Professional journalists > aren't supposed to follow political agendas. > > Best regards, Rony Koven > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > To: governance ; Ginger Paque > > Cc: Dominique Lacroix
> Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 7:57 pm > Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally > > Assange is referring to this as a witchhunt, see: > http://www.newsday.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-calls-on-obama-to-end-witch-hunt-1.3913652 > > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > > Excellent post, Dominique. Gracias! > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > > *//* > > > > On 19 August 2012 12:25, Dominique Lacroix
> wrote: > > That story seems to be all about secret at the information age! > Assange got 2 love stories. In both cases, the women invited > him in her bed. > The case is about what happened there. Sex by surprise? That > *should stay secret*, as long as the women were not injured. > Actually, they never complained for that. > > At the contrary, Bradley Manning and Wikileaks revealed what > *should not be kept secret*: > - Civilians (journalists and children) murders by US soldiers > in Iraq. > http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journalists-idUSTRE6344FW20100406 > - Orders given to diplomates to spy UN leaders (DNA, > passwords, credit card numbers etc.) > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un > - And so on. > > Nevertheless, of course I agree with Ginger and Mawaki: crime > allegations are displaced manipulations AND we cannot just > ignore the sexual misconduct allegations. > > But at this stage of the worldwide imbroglio, it's too late > for having a neutral trial in Sweden. Could you imagine a > Swedish Court concluding: "/Much ado about nothing/"? So > public opinion mobilization is important. We are the witnesses. > And at this hour, I would like to hear the two women. I'm not > sure that the story is still their story... > > > Some strange points must not be forgotten. Just some clues for > new readers of the case: > > - Feminist fighters should be very happy to see that *nowadays > police force all around the world hunt rapers* as it's done > for Assange. > A famous feminist wrote about the case. Just search for Naomi > Wolf. > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html > > - Assange *already talked *with Swedish authorities. > Convened because of Swedish demand, he *went spontaneously* to > the London police. > > - Swedish authorities aren't clear on the case,*first closed > and then reopened*: > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investigation-into-wikileaks-chief-reopens-2068162.html > > - It's well established that Assange had two love stories with > fans in Stockholm and then Enköping. > The first with the famous Anna Ardin, a feminist fighter whose > blog explained *how to get revenge against men*: > http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7569087-meet-anna-ardin-photos-anna-ardins-7-steps-to-legal-revenge > > And so on. It's not the good place for further analyzing that > case. But doubt is widely allowed. > > > Best regards, > > @+, Dominique > > -- > Dominique Lacroix > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > Le 19/08/12 16:11, Mawaki Chango a écrit : >> Completely agree with Ginger here... >> We can't pretend to ignore the elephant in the room: at this point >> there's no part of this story that can be clearly separated from >> Wikileaks - if only given all the shady zones in this imbroglio. And >> yes, it is unfortunate that the rape issue is now and then exploited >> in ways that can undermine legitimate claims. Again a lot remains >> unclear, unfortunately, due to the behavior of the Sweden's >> government. >> >> mawaki >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the >>> sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all of >>> the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. >>> >>> My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual >>> misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in >>> focus. >>> >>> I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines the >>> case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's lawyers >>> would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on video, >>> webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, and >>> force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the >>> sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should >>> not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. >>> Ginger >>> >>> >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>> >>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >>> Diplo Foundation >>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, >>>>> mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to wikileaks >>>>> reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for some >>>>> people here? >>>> Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? >>>> >>>> Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see >>>> the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. >>>> If you want to change the subject, fine :-) >>>> >>>> Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their >>>> protest on the Internet. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> you can still send donations usinghttps://flattr.com/ >>>>> >>>>> Carlos Vera >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone >>>>> >>>>> El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: >>>>> >>>>>> Dominique, hi. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Rape? Charged? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the >>>>>> UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm >>>>>> not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some >>>>>>> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... >>>>>>> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> Swedish sense: >>>>>>> >>>>>> I very much hope not. >>>>>> >>>>>> Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense >>>>>> carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of >>>>>>> rape. >>>>>>> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. >>>>>>> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving >>>>>>> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. >>>>>>> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking >>>>>>> generally, >>>>>>> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional >>>>>>> pressure on someone. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four >>>>>>> years >>>>>>> respectively. >>>>>>> The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange >>>>>>> will not >>>>>>> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that >>>>>>> Mr >>>>>>> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, >>>>>>> less >>>>>>> serious category." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And the great conclusion is: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of >>>>>>> women's >>>>>>> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. >>>>>>> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest >>>>>>> rate in >>>>>>> Europe. >>>>>>> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the >>>>>>> crime >>>>>>> are more significant factors." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> See:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet >>>>>>> Governance >>>>>>> issues. >>>>>>> - Lawful here, unlawful there. >>>>>>> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How would you deal with these questions? >>>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet >>>>>> governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online >>>>>> or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those >>>>>> two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> @+, Dominique >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dominique Lacroix >>>>>>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>>>>>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>>>>>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his >>>>>>>> WikiLeaks >>>>>>>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically >>>>>>>> motivated >>>>>>>> harassment or charge. >>>>> >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid >>>>> facing >>>>>>>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ginger >>>>>>> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fahd >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 04:05:10 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:05:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.co m> Message-ID: <8CF4CC1A776CBA3-109C-B4579@Webmail-m104.sysops.aol.com> I have a problem understanding how my expressing my thoughts can be seen as censorship, As I feared would be the case, I regret having entered this discussion. ... This is a bald attempt at censorship of the discussion on this list, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves. -----Original Message----- From: Riaz K Tayob To: governance Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 9:53 am Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally Perhaps if there was some "balance" then ANYONE arguing for "American Exceptionalism" on this list should also be chastised - otherwise it is a double standard. Those who cannot at once criticise the Assange discussion and arguments for American Exceptionalism is taking a POLITICAL position imho. And for me ONLY a negative inference can be made from this regarding their values/ethical position as far as issues that concern governance is concerned, since appeal must be made to reason not emotions. American Exceptionalism, which is implicit in the CHOICE of supporting the Status Quo of current Internet Governance arrangements ON THIS LIST, was raised and needs to be interrogated. Actually it was Abe Lincoln who said that something to the effect that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. So this discussion is not anti-Americanism, and such name calling (as progressive as it might be in some circles must be called out for what it is) but about a call to the highest virtues of the founding fathers of America and drafters of the American constitution (who were inspired (if I recall correctly!) by Kantian ideas that information (access to information in modern parlance) was essential to meaningful participation of citizens). And a word on feminist claims for action. The issue has moved on, and few are contesting the seriousness of the claims against him. So if the issue has moved on, is a reasonable feminist position (putting the interests of the complainants first) not one that should insist that he be questioned (as he has agreed to do) at the embassy and take the matter head on? And if this is not argued and motivated for then a reasonable feminism is being held hostage in the name of saving feminism. But then double standards are not new in defence of this farce that is playing out. In any event, Mark Weisbrot reported (UK Guardian 21 Jul 2012) that Sweden sought extradition which the former Stockholm Chief District prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem testified was “unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate.” He could simply be questioned in the UK. One can only wonder at the intentions behind such serious allegations not being expeditiously dealt with. And btw, no one will jump in arguing for "balance" on this list when American Exceptionalism is touted about - but name-calling is back in vogue. This is a bald attempt at censorship of the discussion on this list, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves. On 2012/08/19 11:57 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: Dear All -- Dear All -- I've been very reluctant to get into this discussion about Assange, which really does have little or nothing to do with Internet governance (as others on the list have noted), but the standard conspiracy theories that seem to be favored by many on the list -- and which Assange also encourages -- really don't seem to hold up to close scrutiny Swedish sources who know what they are talking about say that the Swedish government is deeply embarassed by the whole mess, created by an uncontrollable, overzealous prosecutor who really sees this as an important feminist issue. Ironically, Assange is now being defended by a former Spanish investigating magistrate whose zeal was equally embarassing to the Spanish government. Quite aside from that, from my perspective and that of many of my most thoughtful American journalistic colleagues, it is clear that Assange is motivated by a very strong streak of political anti-Americanism -- that he means to embarass the US government as much as possible. That may be a perfectly legitimate for a political activist. But it undercuts any claim to be a journalist, Professional journalists aren't supposed to follow political agendas. Best regards, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro To: governance ; Ginger Paque Cc: Dominique Lacroix
Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally Assange is referring to this as a witchhunt, see: http://www.newsday.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-calls-on-obama-to-end-witch-hunt-1.3913652 On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: Excellent post, Dominique. Gracias! Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig On 19 August 2012 12:25, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: That story seems to be all about secret at the information age! Assange got 2 love stories. In both cases, the women invited him in her bed. The case is about what happened there. Sex by surprise? That should stay secret, as long as the women were not injured. Actually, they never complained for that. At the contrary, Bradley Manning and Wikileaks revealed what should not be kept secret: - Civilians (journalists and children) murders by US soldiers in Iraq. http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journalists-idUSTRE6344FW20100406 - Orders given to diplomates to spy UN leaders (DNA, passwords, credit card numbers etc.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un - And so on. Nevertheless, of course I agree with Ginger and Mawaki: crime allegations are displaced manipulations AND we cannot just ignore the sexual misconduct allegations. But at this stage of the worldwide imbroglio, it's too late for having a neutral trial in Sweden. Could you imagine a Swedish Court concluding: "Much ado about nothing"? So public opinion mobilization is important. We are the witnesses. And at this hour, I would like to hear the two women. I'm not sure that the story is still their story... Some strange points must not be forgotten. Just some clues for new readers of the case: - Feminist fighters should be very happy to see that nowadays police force all around the world hunt rapers as it's done for Assange. A famous feminist wrote about the case. Just search for Naomi Wolf. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html - Assange already talked with Swedish authorities. Convened because of Swedish demand, he went spontaneously to the London police. - Swedish authorities aren't clear on the case, first closed and then reopened: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investigation-into-wikileaks-chief-reopens-2068162.html - It's well established that Assange had two love stories with fans in Stockholm and then Enköping. The first with the famous Anna Ardin, a feminist fighter whose blog explained how to get revenge against men: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7569087-meet-anna-ardin-photos-anna-ardins-7-steps-to-legal-revenge And so on. It's not the good place for further analyzing that case. But doubt is widely allowed. Best regards, @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 19/08/12 16:11, Mawaki Chango a écrit : Completely agree with Ginger here... We can't pretend to ignore the elephant in the room: at this point there's no part of this story that can be clearly separated from Wikileaks - if only given all the shady zones in this imbroglio. And yes, it is unfortunate that the rape issue is now and then exploited in ways that can undermine legitimate claims. Again a lot remains unclear, unfortunately, due to the behavior of the Sweden's government. mawaki On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all of the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in focus. I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines the case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's lawyers would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on video, webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, and force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake wrote: You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to wikileaks reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for some people here? Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. If you want to change the subject, fine :-) Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their protest on the Internet. Adam you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ Carlos Vera Enviado desde mi iPhone El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: Dominique, hi. On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: Rape? Charged? Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at a Swedish sense: I very much hope not. Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of rape. There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving violence but not violence of the utmost horror. And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking generally, and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional pressure on someone. The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four years respectively. The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange will not spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to the accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that Mr Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, less serious category." And the great conclusion is: "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of women's rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest rate in Europe. The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but it seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the crime are more significant factors." See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet Governance issues. - Lawful here, unlawful there. - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. How would you deal with these questions? Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. Adam @+, Dominique Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his WikiLeaks work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically motivated harassment or charge. >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing charges of rape if the are legitimate. Ginger That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! Fahd ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 04:10:14 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:10:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] India Temporarily Restricts Use of SMS, Blocks Certain Websites Message-ID: "India has asked Internet service providers to block certain websites and restricted users from sending bulk SMSes for two weeks after threatening content caused panic across the country, official sources said." ... snip "India's Ministry of IT and Communications has notified all "intermediaries," which would include social networking and video-sharing sites such as YouTube and Facebook, to take the necessary action to disable any "inflammatory and hateful content" hosted on their websites." (more at URL above.) Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 04:23:48 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:23:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5031F414.4060006@gmail.com> And the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunity be damned (they UK threated to storm foreign territory, which is what an embassy is)? Which certainly has implications for faith in American Exceptionalism as a basis for CIR control. So I guess the taking of American hostages in Iran at the time of the overthrow of the American approved despot (the Shah) in the 1970s would be ok, retrospectively? Funny, he skipped bail but is willing to fulfil the claims for questioning on terms that do not expose him to the threat of extradition. Extradition to the US may involve treatment like Bradley Manning has received in US prison - long periods of solitary confinement. This kind of treatment is against the EU Bill of Rights, the findings of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and regarded as unlawful (i.e. cruel and degrading punishment) even by the New York Bar Association. You see, if I don't like your principles on this matter, I have others... so for me it is completely specious to start of irrespective of extradition threat... its kinda like saying: irrespective of the REAL threat of torture and/or cruel and degrading punishment... which as you can surmise from my position is a non starter . . . ... and I will as always simply remain amazed at the robustness of discussion on this list . . . which is refreshing for its candour, of which we can all freely take part... On 2012/08/20 07:53 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <502F5826.4000506 at gmail.com>, at 10:53:58 on Sat, 18 Aug > 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes > >> The police presence, it added, had risen from two or three to around >> 50, with officers on the embassy's fire escape and at every window. > > I haven't been following the main thread so apologies if this is a > repeat: Irrespective of any threat to extradite him, let alone the > Wikileaks episode, Assange is a plain and simple fugitive from a UK > court (he's skipped bail). > > The British Police would be roundly criticised if they let him escape > through a back window in the middle of the night and make off across > Hyde Park. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 06:00:43 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:00:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] Google Ordered to Censor 'torrent', 'megaupload' and More Words Message-ID: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/19/french_court_google_copyright/ Dated back to July 19, 2012, but is interesting. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 06:11:42 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:11:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] Germans Reopen Investigation on Facebook Privacy Message-ID: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/technology/germans-reopen-facebook-privacy-inquiry.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1345039530-1OBsyEa5XbE2OcAs6aMlgQ Data protection officials in Germany reopened an investigation into Facebook’s facial recognition technology Wednesday, saying that the social networking giant was illegally compiling a huge database of members’ photos without their consent. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 06:41:49 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:41:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] UK 'too heavy-handed' with Twitter and online trolls Message-ID: <5032146D.6070000@gmail.com> UK 'too heavy-handed' with Twitter and online trolls Page last updated at 06:00 GMT, Monday, 20 August 2012 07:00 UK Declan Harvey By Declan Harvey Newsbeat reporter Police and prosecutors in the UK are accused of being "incredibly heavy-handed" when dealing with online trolls and abusive messages. It follows several cases where young people have been arrested, fined or jailed after posting insulting comments on their Twitter and Facebook accounts. Campaign groups and experts from Oxford University say the punishments are heavier than in other countries. But police insist if a law is broken they will take action. Freedom of speech Three weeks ago Olympic bronze medallist Tom Daley received a message about his dad, who died last year. Following that a 17-year-old was arrested in Weymouth. Heavy-handed policing? Continue reading the main story * Liam Stacey, 21, (above) was sentenced to 56 days for "racist" tweets about footballer Fabrice Muamba * Paul Chambers, 28, was fined £1,000 for tweeting "joke" about blowing up airport in Sheffield. The verdict was overturned in June 2012 * Joshua Cryer, 21, was sentenced to a two-year community order and 240 hours unpaid work for racist tweets to Stan Collymore His computer and phone were seized and he was given a harassment warning, which will stay on his record. The UK is one of the world's top tweeting countries along with Japan, Spain and the US. Lucia lives in Valladolid in Spain and says: "I don't think these comments are good but I don't think people should go to jail. In Spain it's not happened." Miyu, from Japan, called the UK's approach "surprising" and says: "It's difficult, but I think being arrested is too serious because it's [only] Twitter." Laura from Washington DC believes it would never happen in the US because they "emphasis freedom of speech, which I think is important. It's translated over to Twitter as well". Official figures showing how many arrests have been made over online comments don't exist. Instead police record arrests under different categories depending on what is posted. For example, it could be incitement to racial hatred or harassment. *H**eavy**-**handed* Bernie Hogan from the Oxford Internet Institute monitors what happens in other countries. Lucia from Spain does not think internet trolls should be sent to jail He said that although the UK was "leading the way" in cracking down on this type of online abuse, by comparison "we are incredibly heavy-handed". The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) disagrees. In a statement is says: "People have a right to publish their views but when these views become indecent, threatening or offensive then the individuals they affect also have the right to report them. "The police will assist with any prosecution." The Campaign Against Censorship says often a joke or sarcasm is misread, especially when people only have 140 characters. Index, which campaigns for freedom of expression, say the cases are "silly" and the police only pursues them because they are "easy prosecutions". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: _61644960_declan.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2936 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 07:03:19 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:33:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Question on Ways of making Internet easier and richer for the End User in India Message-ID: Hello, The following article appeared in Economic Times. Posting it here for discussion. http://www.techgig.com/tech-news/editors-pick/What-stops-internet-access-from-being-cheaper-14403 The more fortunate among India's Internet Users have a 2 Mbps connection with actual speeds averaging 512 Mbps with an average bandwidth cap (in gross, un-researched estimates) of about 5 Gb by wire or about 500 Mb mobile. As an end user, If I have to ask our phone companies to catch up with Google fiber's 1 GIGAbps bandwidth with no caps at $ 70 per month, how would I, as an end user, argue that such bandwidth plans would be viable and more profitable? https://fiber.google.com/plans/residential/ Sivasubramanian M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 07:29:36 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:29:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] Question on Ways of making Internet easier and richer for the End User in India In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Interesting point raised Sivasubramanian. I think one of the main reasons Internet prices are high in developing and least-developed nations is due to the enforcement - by lobbyists - of dealing with certain higher Tier-X ISPs while in fact they can get bandwidth at much cheaper prices from other market players. I know that India has several IXPs that are managed by NIXI, so I guess there is not much cost-savings there. In Jordan for example, Internet prices are going down continuously. While Jordan does not have an IXP, ISPs are enforced to deal with certain upper Tier providers since the big players in the Jordanian market are Western investments. And then comes the part where many Jordanians feel at unrest if they know that some of Jordan's Internet cables go through Israel (this is a hidden fact). All sorts of crazy debates erupt such as "The Israel's are monitoring our traffic" and all sorts of conspiracy theories. Fahd On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > Hello, > > The following article appeared in Economic Times. Posting it here for > discussion. > > > http://www.techgig.com/tech-news/editors-pick/What-stops-internet-access-from-being-cheaper-14403 > > The more fortunate among India's Internet Users have a 2 Mbps connection > with actual speeds averaging 512 Mbps with an average bandwidth cap (in > gross, un-researched estimates) of about 5 Gb by wire or about 500 Mb > mobile. > > As an end user, If I have to ask our phone companies to catch up with > Google fiber's 1 GIGAbps bandwidth with no caps at $ 70 per month, how > would I, as an end user, argue that such bandwidth plans would be viable > and more profitable? > > https://fiber.google.com/plans/residential/ > > Sivasubramanian M > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 07:54:02 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 04:54:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Welcome to New Members! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1345463642.5820.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Thanks Sala and Naveed for Best Wishes on the This event of Eid.     Wishing everymuslim a very happy and prosperous Eid Al-Adha. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah From: Naveed haq >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >Sent: Sunday, 19 August 2012, 19:51 >Subject: RE: [governance] Welcome to New Members! > > >Dear Sala, >  >Thank you so much for Ramadan and Eid wishes. We will be celeberating Eid tomorrow here in Pakistan. A warm wish from my side to all Muslim fellows on the list. >  >  >Best Regards, >Naveed >  > >Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 16:52:49 +1200 >From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Subject: [governance] Welcome to New Members! > >Dear All, > > >Firstly, I would like to take the time to welcome all new subscribers to the IGC. Since the beginning of the year, there are subscribers added to the list and it continues to grow. We warmly welcome all new subscribers this year and invite you to participate in the dialogue and interactions on the list. For those of you who have yet to get acquainted with what the IGC is about, please visit the website and have a read of its contents. If you have specific questions and require clarification, please email the coordinators at coordinators at igcaucus.org > > >To the global Muslim community, we wish you Eid Mubarak as you end your month-long Ramadan fast and begin your new year. To the Afghanis on the list, we wish you well on your 93rd year of Independence and to the Hungarians, Happy St Stephen's day as you celebrate your National Day soon! > > >Warm Regards, > > >Izumi and Sala > > >-- > >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 08:20:20 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:50:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E7506@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E6AFA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <502F37E2.2020609@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E7506@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50322B84.3050808@itforchange.net> On Sunday 19 August 2012 10:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > *From:*parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Neither, the rhetoric of attacking positions that make you feel good, > which positions you know I never hold; like, your claim that I am on > the side of 'people who want to control and regulate the use of common > word in order to ensure that they are used "properly" or "fairly"" > > When, if I am saying anything at all, I am saying that common words > should be allowed to be freely used by all, and not inappropriately > pushed into private domains, which is a form of 'control' over the > use of those 'common words'. > > *//* > > */[Milton L Mueller] Nice rhetoric, but you are really ducking the > argument. I honestly think you don’t understand the issue here, /* > :) Typical 'Milton start' of an argument, which I will ignore. But you obviously think, I, US Congress's judicial committees, etc, no one really understand it, other than you .... > */so let me try to explain more carefully. A TLD string must be > unique. Therefore it can only be assigned to one entity./* > Of course. This fact says nothing about the issue being discussed here - to whom is it assigned and why, and what all needs to be assigned at all, etc, of course in public interest, a term I think you have strongly contested in terms of ICANN's working/ decision making processes. > */That entity, the registrant of, let’s say, .WORD, decides what > policies and practices determine what domains are registered under > .WORD./* > We have jumped the issue of how someone comes to be the registry and the registrant. While we will need to come back to that, isnt it true that there are existing constraints on registries and registrants regarding policies and practices under which domains are registered..... It is common to place such required restrictions in all sectors where licenses are issued for exclusive commercial use of public resources, and gltd names are such public resources allowed to be commercially exploited under licence, in a manner that serves public interest. > *//* > > *//* > > */Tell me how you translate the idea that “common words (as domain > names) should be allowed to be freely used by all” into a specific > policy without violating the uniqueness and exclusivity constraint? /* > I have said this before. The main thing to do is; ensure that all gtlds are openly available in the market for anyone to register second level domains names under them. Secondarily, in some cases, it must also be watched what names are allocated to who..... Now, arent community names already a valid exclusion/ objection, and thus excluded from being awarded to just anyone, as you seem to want to be the universal rule..... One cant take .germany on a first come first served basis. Isnt it... are you against such exclusions too... Further there may be terms that are not specifically community names but has certain association with certain, shall i say, groups.... like, I do think gtld names like .cricket, .football etc may need to have certain offline organisational correspondences. Now,, .book, .beauty, etc may not be have specific communities around them, but there are strong cultural associations associated with them, that may, just may, need some consideration, even for them to be 'public gtlds'.. I am not wholly against they being allowed as open public gltds (as against private gtlds which the buyer can keep for exclusive private use) but some of these cases may need some thinking. But certainly they should not be allowed as private gtlds, as being allowed under the current process.... > *//* > > */“Internet governance” is a generic term, and yet, we at > IGP have registered it under .org. And no, it cannot be freely used by > all. It’s ours. It is a domain administered by IGP, just as ‘IT’ and > ‘change’ are common words that your organization administers as its > private domain. Our registration of that generic term Internet > governance has not stopped dozens of other organizations having a > significant profile in the area – Diplo, IGC, etc. /* > Milton, you are speaking like a techie, for whom it is either this, or 'only' that..... Socio-political thinking and practices do not come in such binaries... And you as a socio-political theorist know it, but dont mind employing such technical binaries when they serve your 'minimalist governance' agenda.... Your entire argument here rests on the assumption that there is *no* practical difference between gltd names and second level domain names, when everyone knows that there is a world of difference between them. Yes, as being tied to a unitary technical architecture (although Louis Pouzin disagrees with even that), we are forced to make some choices, and allow some exclusivities, even when they are not fair... like someone setting a new IT start up may like the name IT for Change, and also the particular gtld .net but cant get it... However, isnt a multiplicity of gtlds (and more are proposed) precisely there to solve such a problem, or at least meliorate it. But, and you must answer this question, how does the issue of exclusivity implied for instance in a private gtld of .book get addressed, their being no higher level of domain name to provide competing field? Unlike in mathematics, in politics, one small 'inconsistency' cannot be projected to the whole system level, with the claim if we have 'that' we as well may accept a fully screwed up system.... Politics is the art of the possible, carefully putting together imperfect parts into the best possible overall lot, or somewhere close about. > *//* > > *//* > > */The only way to implement what you seem to be calling for is to set > up a “word authority” that a) defines which words will be generic or > common enough to be denied registration by any private actor; b) > imposes on these generic terms a specific set of policies regarding > how registrations are made./* > Well, in the other similar situation where exclusive uses of words is implicated, dont we have such authorities, the rhetoric of 'word authority' apart... and no one has objected, including yourself, as far as i know. Try registering a trade mark and you will know what all gets, to quote your word, 'denied registration by any private actor'. So you think such denials are wrong. I think they are mostly in public interest. Now, if you can show that such 'denials' by trademark (TM) authorities are wrong, and unwarranted, which situation I consider as very close parallel of allocating gtld names, I will withdraw my case against private gtlds with generic names. Making the parallel in the reverse direction, do you really think that TM authorities should be allocating all kinds of trademarks to anyone who applies 'on first come first served' basis (your proposition for allocating all kinds of gtlds), and allow hoarders to develop a secondary market in TM names (your preferred choice for all kinds of scarce public resources like IPv4 addresses).... Looks like a whole new paradigm of trademark regime... why not propose it to the world.... > */And that is what I mean when I say – with complete sincerity – that > you will end up advocating the control and regulation of these common > words. /* > You tell me, do the policies whereby TM authorities 'deny' indiscriminate registration of all kinds of words as TMs, cause control over use of common words, or prevent control over use of common words... Same is true with denying gtld names that must be denied in public interest. Do you think such denials by TM authorities constitute violation of FoE (an argument which I know would jump up any moment) > *//* > > *//* > > */Suppose your Word Authority dictates that .BOOK must follow the same > open registration policy as now exists in .COM. Would that be “freely > used by all?”/* > As in socio-political situations there are no absolute binaries, so, yes, it will greatly increase such freedom.... we can pursue such matters only in degrees. Anyone can register a second level domain under .book, and it doesnt remain the exclusive preserve of Amazon, which is what is going to be if the present process goes forward. > */No, even then, “open to all” will simply mean that second level > domains will be registered on a first-come, first-served basis..COM > and .ORG are open to any registrant, but that simply means that if I > register BOOK.COM or BOOK.ORG, I get to have this common word all to > myself at the second level. So to get what you seem to want, you would > have to impose an even more stringent collective governance regime on > how names are allocated and assigned within .BOOK. /* > Same binary logic.... It is the right thing that when second level domains are registered, which is what ordinary people and businesses do, and do in millions, anyone can more or less take any name, on first come first served basis..... Gltds are a very different ball game, although you want to keep equating logic across these levels. 'Private gtlds' are sought by a few, extremely big business, in fact near monopolies, whose rights to various kinds of second level domain names are already protected (also, additionally protected by ICANN IP related policies). What is the case for some of them to have whole gtlds to themselves... Whose freedom of expression are we really talking about here? For each private gtld taken by them, and its use kept from others, they substantially effect the rights of others to have domain names that they will like to have.... Is this not a simple and obvious logic... On what basis, Milton, are you promoting the cause of some big businesses sitting over exclusive use of complete gtlds, using words that are common heritage, even without any trademark claim to such words? > *//* > > *//* > > */If that is not correct please explain, in specific, implementable > terms, how you would do it differently./* > I have explained it above, in full implementable terms. But the first thing is, ICANN has to come out of its schizophrenia whether it does policy or not, it is a regulator or not.... It is just too confused about it, which, I think, is a major problem with it... It should admit that it makes political choices (policy) and enforces them (regulation). This denial and schizophrenia is a serious problem for a governance institutions, who is not able to decide what kind of governance work it does.... If such a thing were with an individual, he would be undergoing serious psychiatric treatment. BTW, Milton, what have you to say about whether ICANN does policy and regulation or not? parminder > *//* > > *//* > > Even more ludicrous is your claim that "It is only a matter of time > before you join the trademark lobby in their never ending questto > ensure that politically approved true rights holders are allowed to > use specific words in specific ways " > > *//* > > */[Milton L Mueller] OK, I admit it, you will never “join the > trademark lobby”, but only because you would never be caught dead with > those corporate, commercial types. My point however, is that your > argument takes the exact same form and leads to the same kinds of > policies: some central authority has to control who registers every > name./* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 08:22:58 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:22:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.co m> Message-ID: On Aug 20, 2012, at 3:53 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Perhaps if there was some "balance" then ANYONE arguing for "American Exceptionalism" on this list should also be chastised - otherwise it is a double standard. Those who cannot at once criticise the Assange discussion and arguments for American Exceptionalism is taking a POLITICAL position imho. And for me ONLY a negative inference can be made from this regarding their values/ethical position as far as issues that concern governance is concerned, since appeal must be made to reason not emotions. > > American Exceptionalism, which is implicit in the CHOICE of supporting the Status Quo of current Internet Governance arrangements ON THIS LIST, was raised and needs to be interrogated. I suspect I shall regret entering this discussion, but I must disagree with the assertion contained in above sentence, specifically: "American Exceptionalism, which is implicit in the CHOICE of supporting the Status Quo of current Internet Governance arrangements ON THIS LIST," For some of us, the choice of supporting the current status quo in Internet Governance arrangements is predicated on lack of a clear alternative which may be assessed on its benefits and merits, and a need to keep the Internet operational in the meantime. I likely would support the status quo in Internet Governance of critical Internet resources even if it were anchored in a contract with Cthulhu, or at least until such time as a proposal for change came along which provided clear benefits and had a reasonable chance of transition. (Personally, the concept of any government exceptionalism seems to ignore the inherent nature of governments.) FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. I disclaim that they add any value, so please do not try to tax them. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 08:26:01 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:56:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <50322CD9.3090706@itforchange.net> On Monday 20 August 2012 05:25 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > snip > In this particular case of Wikileaks, it seems the tables have turned, > at least for some: the extreme defense of free speech no longer > applies, or maybe has never applied, to freedom of information? Does > anyone on this list still believe that policy - including policy for > technical infrastructure - does not involve worldviews and values, > which are diverse around the world, Yes, apparently your institution-mate, Milton :) .... > without necessary the possibility to classified in a compelling manner > which ones are the best for everybody? And how do we negotiate the > values that will prevail for a global infrastructure? It seems to me > those are relevant questions we have been wrestling with in this space > and other IG-related forums for quite a while now. Mawaki Disclaimer: > I think Assange is not a saint; he has the duty to answer for his > actions that fall under existing laws like any other citizens, no more > no less. My understanding is that most people who seem to keep a > critical eye on UK, Sweden (and maybe ultimately the US) in this are > not doing so necessarily for the individual Assange, but because they > are worry about the possibility of politically motivated charges. You > may call that conspiracy theory, but I suspect, from the arguments > they are making, that they have some good reasons not to rule out that > possibility as yet. >> Best regards, Rony Koven >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> To: governance ; Ginger Paque >> >> Cc: Dominique Lacroix
>> Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 7:57 pm >> Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's >> vassal acts decisively and illegally >> >> Assange is referring to this as a witchhunt, see: >> http://www.newsday.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-calls-on-obama-to-end-witch-hunt-1.3913652 >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> Excellent post, Dominique. Gracias! >>> >>> >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>> >>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >>> Diplo Foundation >>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19 August 2012 12:25, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>>> That story seems to be all about secret at the information age! >>>> Assange got 2 love stories. In both cases, the women invited him in her >>>> bed. >>>> The case is about what happened there. Sex by surprise? That should stay >>>> secret, as long as the women were not injured. Actually, they never >>>> complained for that. >>>> >>>> At the contrary, Bradley Manning and Wikileaks revealed what should not >>>> be kept secret: >>>> - Civilians (journalists and children) murders by US soldiers in Iraq. >>>> >>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journalists-idUSTRE6344FW20100406 >>>> - Orders given to diplomates to spy UN leaders (DNA, passwords, credit >>>> card numbers etc.) >>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un >>>> - And so on. >>>> >>>> Nevertheless, of course I agree with Ginger and Mawaki: crime allegations >>>> are displaced manipulations AND we cannot just ignore the sexual misconduct >>>> allegations. >>>> >>>> But at this stage of the worldwide imbroglio, it's too late for having a >>>> neutral trial in Sweden. Could you imagine a Swedish Court concluding: "Much >>>> ado about nothing"? So public opinion mobilization is important. We are the >>>> witnesses. >>>> And at this hour, I would like to hear the two women. I'm not sure that >>>> the story is still their story... >>>> >>>> >>>> Some strange points must not be forgotten. Just some clues for new >>>> readers of the case: >>>> >>>> - Feminist fighters should be very happy to see that nowadays police >>>> force all around the world hunt rapers as it's done for Assange. >>>> A famous feminist wrote about the case. Just search for Naomi Wolf. >>>> >>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html >>>> >>>> - Assange already talked with Swedish authorities. >>>> Convened because of Swedish demand, he went spontaneously to the London >>>> police. >>>> >>>> - Swedish authorities aren't clear on the case, first closed and then >>>> reopened: >>>> >>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investigation-into-wikileaks-chief-reopens-2068162.html >>>> >>>> - It's well established that Assange had two love stories with fans in >>>> Stockholm and then Enköping. >>>> The first with the famous Anna Ardin, a feminist fighter whose blog >>>> explained how to get revenge against men: >>>> >>>> http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7569087-meet-anna-ardin-photos-anna-ardins-7-steps-to-legal-revenge >>>> >>>> And so on. It's not the good place for further analyzing that case. But >>>> doubt is widely allowed. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> @+, Dominique >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dominique Lacroix >>>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>>> >>>> Le 19/08/12 16:11, Mawaki Chango a écrit : >>>> >>>> Completely agree with Ginger here... >>>> We can't pretend to ignore the elephant in the room: at this point >>>> there's no part of this story that can be clearly separated from >>>> Wikileaks - if only given all the shady zones in this imbroglio. And >>>> yes, it is unfortunate that the rape issue is now and then exploited >>>> in ways that can undermine legitimate claims. Again a lot remains >>>> unclear, unfortunately, due to the behavior of the Sweden's >>>> government. >>>> >>>> mawaki >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>>> >>>> This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the >>>> sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all >>>> of >>>> the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. >>>> >>>> My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual >>>> misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in >>>> focus. >>>> >>>> I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines >>>> the >>>> case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's >>>> lawyers >>>> would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on >>>> video, >>>> webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, >>>> and >>>> force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the >>>> sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should >>>> not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. >>>> Ginger >>>> >>>> >>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>>> >>>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >>>> Diplo Foundation >>>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >>>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, >>>> mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to >>>> wikileaks >>>> reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for >>>> some >>>> people here? >>>> >>>> Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? >>>> >>>> Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see >>>> the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. >>>> If you want to change the subject, fine :-) >>>> >>>> Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their >>>> protest on the Internet. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ >>>> >>>> Carlos Vera >>>> >>>> >>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone >>>> >>>> El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: >>>> >>>> Dominique, hi. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Rape? Charged? >>>> >>>> Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the >>>> UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm >>>> not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some >>>> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... >>>> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at >>>> a >>>> Swedish sense: >>>> >>>> I very much hope not. >>>> >>>> Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense >>>> carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. >>>> >>>> >>>> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of >>>> rape. >>>> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. >>>> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving >>>> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. >>>> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking >>>> generally, >>>> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional >>>> pressure on someone. >>>> >>>> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four >>>> years >>>> respectively. >>>> The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange >>>> will not >>>> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to >>>> the >>>> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that >>>> Mr >>>> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, >>>> less >>>> serious category." >>>> >>>> And the great conclusion is: >>>> >>>> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of >>>> women's >>>> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. >>>> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest >>>> rate in >>>> Europe. >>>> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but >>>> it >>>> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the >>>> crime >>>> are more significant factors." >>>> >>>> See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 >>>> >>>> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? >>>> >>>> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet >>>> Governance >>>> issues. >>>> - Lawful here, unlawful there. >>>> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. >>>> >>>> How would you deal with these questions? >>>> >>>> Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet >>>> governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online >>>> or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those >>>> two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> @+, Dominique >>>> >>>> Dominique Lacroix >>>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his >>>> WikiLeaks >>>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically >>>> motivated >>>> harassment or charge. >>>> >>>> >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid >>>> facing >>>> >>>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>>> >>>> Ginger >>>> >>>> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! >>>> >>>> Fahd >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 08:32:47 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:02:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> Message-ID: "American Exceptionalism, which is implicit in the CHOICE of supporting the Status Quo of current Internet Governance arrangements ON THIS LIST, was raised and *needs to be interrogated.*" Actually that's what we're doing here; I dont think anyone is blindly supporting the status quo - we're talking pros and cons and discussing it out.... Naturally all of us being in differant locations, environments have a slightly different view on things; let's put our head together on this - we'll be able to come out with a truly unique solution. :) -C On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Perhaps if there was some "balance" then ANYONE arguing for "American > Exceptionalism" on this list should also be chastised - otherwise it is a > double standard. Those who cannot at once criticise the Assange discussion > and arguments for American Exceptionalism is taking a POLITICAL position > imho. And for me ONLY a negative inference can be made from this regarding > their values/ethical position as far as issues that concern governance is > concerned, since appeal must be made to reason not emotions. > > American Exceptionalism, which is implicit in the CHOICE of supporting the > Status Quo of current Internet Governance arrangements ON THIS LIST, was > raised and needs to be interrogated. > > Actually it was Abe Lincoln who said that something to the effect that > dissent is the highest form of patriotism. So this discussion is not > anti-Americanism, and such name calling (as progressive as it might be in > some circles must be called out for what it is) but about a call to the > highest virtues of the founding fathers of America and drafters of the > American constitution (who were inspired (if I recall correctly!) by > Kantian ideas that information (access to information in modern parlance) > was essential to meaningful participation of citizens). > > And a word on feminist claims for action. The issue has moved on, and few > are contesting the seriousness of the claims against him. So if the issue > has moved on, is a reasonable feminist position (putting the interests of > the complainants first) not one that should insist that he be questioned > (as he has agreed to do) at the embassy and take the matter head on? And if > this is not argued and motivated for then a reasonable feminism is being > held hostage in the name of saving feminism. But then double standards are > not new in defence of this farce that is playing out. In any event, Mark > Weisbrot reported (UK Guardian 21 Jul 2012) that Sweden sought extradition > which the former Stockholm Chief District prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem > testifiedwas “unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and > disproportionate.” He could simply be questioned in the UK. One can only > wonder at the intentions behind such serious allegations not being > expeditiously dealt with. > > And btw, no one will jump in arguing for "balance" on this list when > American Exceptionalism is touted about - but name-calling is back in > vogue. > > This is a bald attempt at censorship of the discussion on this list, and > should be treated with the contempt it deserves. > > > On 2012/08/19 11:57 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: > > Dear All -- > > Dear All -- > > I've been very reluctant to get into this discussion about Assange, > which really does have little or nothing to do with Internet governance (as > others on the list have noted), but the standard conspiracy theories that > seem to be favored by many on the list -- and which Assange also encourages > -- really don't seem to hold up to close scrutiny > > Swedish sources who know what they are talking about say that the > Swedish government is deeply embarassed by the whole mess, created by an > uncontrollable, overzealous prosecutor who really sees this as an important > feminist issue. Ironically, Assange is now being defended by a former > Spanish investigating magistrate whose zeal was equally embarassing to the > Spanish government. > > Quite aside from that, from my perspective and that of many of my most > thoughtful American journalistic colleagues, it is clear that Assange is > motivated by a very strong streak of political anti-Americanism -- that he > means to embarass the US government as much as possible. That may be a > perfectly legitimate for a political activist. But it undercuts any claim > to be a journalist, Professional journalists aren't supposed to follow > political agendas. > > Best regards, Rony Koven > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > To: governance ; > Ginger Paque > Cc: Dominique Lacroix
> Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 7:57 pm > Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally > > Assange is referring to this as a witchhunt, see: > http://www.newsday.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-calls-on-obama-to-end-witch-hunt-1.3913652 > > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Excellent post, Dominique. Gracias! >> >> >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> >> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >> Diplo Foundation >> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> >> ** >> >> >> >> On 19 August 2012 12:25, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> >>> That story seems to be all about secret at the information age! >>> Assange got 2 love stories. In both cases, the women invited him in her >>> bed. >>> The case is about what happened there. Sex by surprise? That *should >>> stay secret*, as long as the women were not injured. Actually, they >>> never complained for that. >>> >>> At the contrary, Bradley Manning and Wikileaks revealed what *should >>> not be kept secret*: >>> - Civilians (journalists and children) murders by US soldiers in Iraq. >>> >>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journalists-idUSTRE6344FW20100406 >>> - Orders given to diplomates to spy UN leaders (DNA, passwords, credit >>> card numbers etc.) >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un >>> - And so on. >>> >>> Nevertheless, of course I agree with Ginger and Mawaki: crime >>> allegations are displaced manipulations AND we cannot just ignore the >>> sexual misconduct allegations. >>> >>> But at this stage of the worldwide imbroglio, it's too late for having a >>> neutral trial in Sweden. Could you imagine a Swedish Court concluding: " >>> *Much ado about nothing*"? So public opinion mobilization is important. >>> We are the witnesses. >>> And at this hour, I would like to hear the two women. I'm not sure that >>> the story is still their story... >>> >>> >>> Some strange points must not be forgotten. Just some clues for new >>> readers of the case: >>> >>> - Feminist fighters should be very happy to see that *nowadays police >>> force all around the world hunt rapers* as it's done for Assange. >>> A famous feminist wrote about the case. Just search for Naomi Wolf. >>> >>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html >>> >>> - Assange *already talked *with Swedish authorities. >>> Convened because of Swedish demand, he *went spontaneously* to the >>> London police. >>> >>> - Swedish authorities aren't clear on the case,* first closed and then >>> reopened*: >>> >>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investigation-into-wikileaks-chief-reopens-2068162.html >>> >>> - It's well established that Assange had two love stories with fans in >>> Stockholm and then Enköping. >>> The first with the famous Anna Ardin, a feminist fighter whose blog >>> explained *how to get revenge against men*: >>> >>> http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7569087-meet-anna-ardin-photos-anna-ardins-7-steps-to-legal-revenge >>> >>> And so on. It's not the good place for further analyzing that case. But >>> doubt is widely allowed. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> @+, Dominique >>> >>> -- >>> Dominique Lacroix >>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>> >>> Le 19/08/12 16:11, Mawaki Chango a écrit : >>> >>> Completely agree with Ginger here... >>> We can't pretend to ignore the elephant in the room: at this point >>> there's no part of this story that can be clearly separated from >>> Wikileaks - if only given all the shady zones in this imbroglio. And >>> yes, it is unfortunate that the rape issue is now and then exploited >>> in ways that can undermine legitimate claims. Again a lot remains >>> unclear, unfortunately, due to the behavior of the Sweden's >>> government. >>> >>> mawaki >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>> This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the >>> sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all of >>> the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. >>> >>> My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual >>> misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in >>> focus. >>> >>> I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines the >>> case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's lawyers >>> would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on video, >>> webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, and >>> force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the >>> sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should >>> not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. >>> Ginger >>> >>> >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >>> Diplo Foundation >>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programmewww.diplomacy.edu/ig >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, >>> mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to wikileaks >>> reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for some >>> people here? >>> >>> Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? >>> >>> Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see >>> the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. >>> If you want to change the subject, fine :-) >>> >>> Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their >>> protest on the Internet. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ >>> >>> Carlos Vera >>> >>> >>> Enviado desde mi iPhone >>> >>> El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: >>> >>> >>> Dominique, hi. >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
>>> wrote: >>> >>> Rape? Charged? >>> >>> >>> Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the >>> UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm >>> not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some >>> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... >>> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at >>> a >>> Swedish sense: >>> >>> >>> I very much hope not. >>> >>> Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense >>> carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. >>> >>> >>> >>> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of >>> rape. >>> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. >>> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving >>> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. >>> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking >>> generally, >>> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional >>> pressure on someone. >>> >>> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four >>> years >>> respectively. >>> The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange >>> will not >>> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to >>> the >>> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that >>> Mr >>> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, >>> less >>> serious category." >>> >>> And the great conclusion is: >>> >>> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of >>> women's >>> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. >>> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest >>> rate in >>> Europe. >>> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but >>> it >>> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the >>> crime >>> are more significant factors." >>> >>> See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 >>> >>> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? >>> >>> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet >>> Governance >>> issues. >>> - Lawful here, unlawful there. >>> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. >>> >>> How would you deal with these questions? >>> >>> >>> Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet >>> governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online >>> or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those >>> two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> @+, Dominique >>> >>> Dominique Lacroix >>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque >>> wrote: >>> >>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his >>> WikiLeaks >>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically >>> motivated >>> harassment or charge. >>> >>> >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid >>> facing >>> >>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>> >>> Ginger >>> >>> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! >>> >>> Fahd >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 08:39:32 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:09:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> Message-ID: Much of the internet and modern information technology seems to be based around continous transition. There's always something changing - it's a very, very flexible thing that's never *the same*. Thus Status Quo is only a state of mind - given things around are changing anyways. Whether they change by choice of society, politics, agencies, fora (like this forum), or otherwise - the change is the only thing that will remain constant. That said - sometimes certain situations may not have a fix - however in moving towards a solution (and thus moving away from a pre-set thinking pattern) - can itself result in some pretty amazing options, some of which may be the solution. I feel (IMHO only - please feel free to disagree) that the focus should be what we can do as the *_next_* step. After all - guys, it's people like *us *that will create that proposal for change, and ultimately the change itself!!! -C On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:52 PM, John Curran wrote: > > I suspect I shall regret entering this discussion, but I must disagree > with the > assertion contained in above sentence, specifically: > > "American Exceptionalism, which is implicit in the CHOICE of supporting > the > Status Quo of current Internet Governance arrangements ON THIS LIST," > > For some of us, the choice of supporting the current status quo in > Internet Governance > arrangements is predicated on lack of a clear alternative which may be > assessed on its > benefits and merits, and a need to keep the Internet operational in the > meantime. I likely > would support the status quo in Internet Governance of critical Internet > resources even > if it were anchored in a contract with Cthulhu, or at least until such > time as a proposal for > change came along which provided clear benefits and had a reasonable > chance of transition. > > (Personally, the concept of any government exceptionalism seems to ignore > the inherent > nature of governments.) > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. I disclaim that they add any value, so > please do not try > to tax them. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 08:40:08 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:40:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to storm the Embassy. Incredible, not even under Pinochet in Chile this was ever suggested... BTW, the Swedish gov during the Chile coup in 1973 excelled in its support of refugees, and Harald Edelstam, the Swedish ambassador at the time, risked his own life to guarantee safety of hundreds of asylum seekers. Me and my family probably own our lives to him. The current Swedish government is a joke in comparison. --c.a. On 08/20/2012 02:53 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <502F5826.4000506 at gmail.com>, at 10:53:58 on Sat, 18 Aug > 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes > >> The police presence, it added, had risen from two or three to around >> 50, with officers on the embassy's fire escape and at every window. > > I haven't been following the main thread so apologies if this is a > repeat: Irrespective of any threat to extradite him, let alone the > Wikileaks episode, Assange is a plain and simple fugitive from a UK > court (he's skipped bail). > > The British Police would be roundly criticised if they let him escape > through a back window in the middle of the night and make off across > Hyde Park. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 08:43:54 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:13:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <5031F414.4060006@gmail.com> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <5031F414.4060006@gmail.com> Message-ID: Diplomatic "indignity" is what we're left with just now. Sad situation indeed. What would open their eyes? (not suggesting anything here) A petition? Signature campaign? Protest march? "Satyagraha" movement? riots? -C On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > And the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunity be damned (they UK > threated to storm foreign territory, which is what an embassy is)? Which > certainly has implications for faith in American Exceptionalism as a basis > for CIR control. > > So I guess the taking of American hostages in Iran at the time of the > overthrow of the American approved despot (the Shah) in the 1970s would be > ok, retrospectively? > > Funny, he skipped bail but is willing to fulfil the claims for questioning > on terms that do not expose him to the threat of extradition. Extradition > to the US may involve treatment like Bradley Manning has received in US > prison - long periods of solitary confinement. This kind of treatment is > against the EU Bill of Rights, the findings of the UN Special Rapporteur on > Torture and regarded as unlawful (i.e. cruel and degrading punishment) even > by the New York Bar Association. > > You see, if I don't like your principles on this matter, I have others... > so for me it is completely specious to start of irrespective of extradition > threat... its kinda like saying: irrespective of the REAL threat of torture > and/or cruel and degrading punishment... which as you can surmise from my > position is a non starter . . . > > ... and I will as always simply remain amazed at the robustness of > discussion on this list . . . which is refreshing for its candour, of which > we can all freely take part... > > > > On 2012/08/20 07:53 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message <502F5826.4000506 at gmail.com>, at 10:53:58 on Sat, 18 Aug >> 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >> >> The police presence, it added, had risen from two or three to around 50, >>> with officers on the embassy's fire escape and at every window. >>> >> >> I haven't been following the main thread so apologies if this is a >> repeat: Irrespective of any threat to extradite him, let alone the >> Wikileaks episode, Assange is a plain and simple fugitive from a UK court >> (he's skipped bail). >> >> The British Police would be roundly criticised if they let him escape >> through a back window in the middle of the night and make off across Hyde >> Park. >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 08:35:54 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:35:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50322F2A.7000409@gmail.com> Correction: a posse was leading a charge to claim that this "tangential" issue has nothing to do with Internet Governance. Unfortunately, a defence was necessary. On 2012/08/20 02:32 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > */needs to be interrogated./*" > Actually that's what we're doing here; -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 08:44:27 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:44:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <8CF4CBEE8B131E7-109C-B452A@Webmail-m104.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CF4CBEE8B131E7-109C-B452A@Webmail-m104.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <5032312B.5060405@cafonso.ca> Hmmm... I understand the WPFC is basically an organization of corporate media associations, not journalists. --c.a. On 08/20/2012 04:45 AM, Koven Ronald wrote: > > > > As you are not a journalist, I guess, dear Koven, you may freely write your opinion on this list... > > I'm afraid that's unfactual, virtual mind-reading. I represent a journalistic NGO, the World Press Freedom Committee, and have been a reporter and editor at the Herald Tribune, the Washington Post and the Boston Globe. > > > My concern in following the list is the furtherance and preservation of freedom of expression and press freedom, on- and offline, > > > Assange's actions have raised press freedom issues, In February, I organized a major conference for my group at UNESCO HQ on the fallout for journalism of the WikiLeaks document-dumping approach. Two British lawyers who have represented Assange were amongst the speakers. It was rather like an IGF. We exchanged observations and ideas but issued no general conclusions. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dominique Lacroix
> To: governance > Cc: Koven Ronald ; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro ; gpaque > Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 3:33 am > Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally > > > > Le 19/08/12 23:57, Koven Ronald a écrit : > > > Quite aside from that, from my perspective and that of many of my most thoughtful American journalistic colleagues, it is clear that Assange is motivated by a very strong streak of political anti-Americanism -- > Disclaimer : I do admire great US companies such as Verisign, Google, Amazon, etc. > I like Apple, Coca Cola and Mickey Mouse. > I'm still an Obama supporter, as I was four years ago (I can prove it. It's on the Internet ;-)) > I like so called "America". A great nation. My mother married an US marine. And half of my family are American people. > > I'm not either an anti-American nor a spy. Can we begin free talks now? > > that he means to embarass the US government as much as possible. > That was the result, for sure. > > Not necessarily the main intentions. "Procès d'intention" (Google translate bugged, sorry...) are not fair, do you know? > > That may be a perfectly legitimate for a political activist. But it undercuts any claim to be a journalist, Professional journalists aren't supposed to follow political agendas. > A journalist may have political opinions and may express them. The journalist's duty is to prove what she/he says with documents or arguments. He/she has to provide readers means for thinking. But she/he cannot be deprived of freedom of thinking or speeching, isn't it? > > As you are not a journalist, I guess, dear Koven, you may freely write your opinion on this list... > > @+, Dominique > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 08:47:10 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 08:47:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Negotiating Values in a Global Infrastructure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Salanieta, Thanks for this highlight. I just wanted to acknowledge the typos that you and everyone else have certainly noticed. * without necessarily the possibility to classify in a compelling manner... In hindsight, I must say it is an immense and intimidating question even to its author... But discussion is always possible, of course. In fact, it has occurred in various forms on this list at least since WGIG proceedings. I'm not sure whether there has ever been a stable outcome or consensus on this. Best, Mawaki On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Today is International Humanitarian day and we applaud the work that > humanitarians are doing all over the world to try and make it a better place > for our fellow human citizens. Some have lost their lives whilst living > their lives for others. There are some humanitarians on this list, I am sure > who are doing excellent work in touching people's lives. We salute you! > > I also wanted to highlight something brought out in another thread that > deserves a thread of it's own. Mawaki raised some really excellent points > which is something that we should ask ourselves. I have underlined and > emphasised what I consider to be a critical question. I hope that we can > also discuss how these values should or could be negotiated or otherwise. As > always please feel free to express your views... > > [Mawaki Chango:] > Does anyone on this list still believe that policy - > including policy for technical infrastructure - does not involve > worldviews and values, which are diverse around the world, without > necessary the possibility to classified in a compelling manner which > ones are the best for everybody? > > And how do we negotiate the values that will prevail for a global > infrastructure? > > It seems to me those are relevant questions we have been wrestling with in > this space and > other IG-related forums for quite a while now. > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 08:48:42 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:18:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <50322F2A.7000409@gmail.com> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <50322F2A.7000409@gmail.com> Message-ID: And yet it will be difficult to discuss the issue itself if the issue needs a classification. If the point has been raised here - let's discuss it and bring it to a conclusion - we can find out where it needs to be categorized another time. If the possum in question has no problems with this "truce" shall we continue :) -C On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Correction: a posse was leading a charge to claim that this "tangential" > issue has nothing to do with Internet Governance. Unfortunately, a defence > was necessary. > > > > On 2012/08/20 02:32 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > > *needs to be interrogated.*" > > Actually that's what we're doing here; > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 09:11:44 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:11:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <5031F414.4060006@gmail.com> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <5031F414.4060006@gmail.com> Message-ID: >And the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunity be damned And that would be the convention that says "The official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable. Official correspondence means all correspondence relating to the mission and its functions." Hello wikileaks. Adam >(they UK threated to storm foreign territory, which is what an >embassy is)? Which certainly has implications for faith in American >Exceptionalism as a basis for CIR control. > >So I guess the taking of American hostages in Iran at the time of >the overthrow of the American approved despot (the Shah) in the >1970s would be ok, retrospectively? > >Funny, he skipped bail but is willing to fulfil the claims for >questioning on terms that do not expose him to the threat of >extradition. Extradition to the US may involve treatment like >Bradley Manning has received in US prison - long periods of solitary >confinement. This kind of treatment is against the EU Bill of >Rights, the findings of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and >regarded as unlawful (i.e. cruel and degrading punishment) even by >the New York Bar Association. > >You see, if I don't like your principles on this matter, I have >others... so for me it is completely specious to start of >irrespective of extradition threat... its kinda like saying: >irrespective of the REAL threat of torture and/or cruel and >degrading punishment... which as you can surmise from my position is >a non starter . . . > >... and I will as always simply remain amazed at the robustness of >discussion on this list . . . which is refreshing for its candour, >of which we can all freely take part... > > >On 2012/08/20 07:53 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>In message <502F5826.4000506 at gmail.com>, at 10:53:58 on Sat, 18 Aug >>2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >> >>>The police presence, it added, had risen from two or three to >>>around 50, with officers on the embassy's fire escape and at every >>>window. >> >>I haven't been following the main thread so apologies if this is a >>repeat: Irrespective of any threat to extradite him, let alone the >>Wikileaks episode, Assange is a plain and simple fugitive from a UK >>court (he's skipped bail). >> >>The British Police would be roundly criticised if they let him >>escape through a back window in the middle of the night and make >>off across Hyde Park. > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 09:14:06 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:44:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> John, Since you came in on a matter of principle, I am propelled to respond for the same reason, on 'matter of principle'. On Monday 20 August 2012 05:52 PM, John Curran wrote: > > I suspect I shall regret entering this discussion, but I must disagree with the > assertion contained in above sentence, specifically: > > "American Exceptionalism, which is implicit in the CHOICE of supporting the > Status Quo of current Internet Governance arrangements ON THIS LIST," > > For some of us, the choice of supporting the current status quo in Internet Governance > arrangements is predicated on lack of a clear alternative which may be assessed on its > benefits and merits, and a need to keep the Internet operational in the meantime. I likely > would support the status quo in Internet Governance of critical Internet resources even > if it were anchored in a contract with Cthulhu, or at least until such time as a proposal for > change came along which provided clear benefits and had a reasonable chance of transition. The alternative is clear; a group representing all countries does the CIR oversight which is at presently done by the US. And the process ensures that no one country or even a group of countries can capture decision making involved in the role...... There is *no* doubt that oversight by such a multi-country group, with the involved principles and processes clearly defined, and the nature of oversight powers narrowly restricted, is a much much better system that US unilaterally exercising oversight, with no laid down law or principles other than its own interests (which can *temporarily* be to not meddle with the root to build a good reputation and a 'weak form of legitimacy' which seems to hold a lot of attraction for some). Apart from much better insurance against meddling with the CIRs based on one country's interest, governance systems are also judged on their inherent democratic-ness, a point you seem to give little importance to. Beyond these points, I am unable to perform some kind of experiment to show how the alternative is better than the status quo. You will realise that such things are not possible in political realms. Since, the original subject is 'US exceptionalism', I am unable to agree with your claim that you would have been as comfortable it the arrangement was with Cthulhu instead of the US..... Cthulhus of the world are precisely the problem that status quoists have.... But if indeed you are happy to have the 'same contract with' Cthulhu why would you not agree to have the 'same contract' with a group of 'Cthulhus', which further guarantees that no single Cthulhu can do some rogue stuff ?? This is a serious and direct proposal which you may want to respond to. regards, parminder > > (Personally, the concept of any government exceptionalism seems to ignore the inherent > nature of governments.) > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. I disclaim that they add any value, so please do not try > to tax them. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 09:19:54 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:19:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <50322CD9.3090706@itforchange.net> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <50322CD9.3090706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <8CF4CED9EDBBFB2-109C-B5C89@Webmail-m104.sysops.aol.com> Parminder -- This is a total falsification. I did not write the message to which you have apparently attached my signature. Maybe you''re not responsible for this, but someone on this list is. I'm entitled to an explanation and an apology from the person who has done this. deliberately or not. Rony Koven > without necessary the possibility to classified in a compelling manner > which ones are the best for everybody? And how do we negotiate the > values that will prevail for a global infrastructure? It seems to me > those are relevant questions we have been wrestling with in this space > and other IG-related forums for quite a while now. Mawaki Disclaimer: > I think Assange is not a saint; he has the duty to answer for his > actions that fall under existing laws like any other citizens, no more > no less. My understanding is that most people who seem to keep a > critical eye on UK, Sweden (and maybe ultimately the US) in this are > not doing so necessarily for the individual Assange, but because they > are worry about the possibility of politically motivated charges. You > may call that conspiracy theory, but I suspect, from the arguments > they are making, that they have some good reasons not to rule out that > possibility as yet. >> Best regards, Rony Koven >> -----Original Message----- From: parminder To: governance Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:26 pm Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally On Monday 20 August 2012 05:25 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > snip > In this particular case of Wikileaks, it seems the tables have turned, > at least for some: the extreme defense of free speech no longer > applies, or maybe has never applied, to freedom of information? Does > anyone on this list still believe that policy - including policy for > technical infrastructure - does not involve worldviews and values, > which are diverse around the world, Yes, apparently your institution-mate, Milton :) .... > without necessary the possibility to classified in a compelling manner > which ones are the best for everybody? And how do we negotiate the > values that will prevail for a global infrastructure? It seems to me > those are relevant questions we have been wrestling with in this space > and other IG-related forums for quite a while now. Mawaki Disclaimer: > I think Assange is not a saint; he has the duty to answer for his > actions that fall under existing laws like any other citizens, no more > no less. My understanding is that most people who seem to keep a > critical eye on UK, Sweden (and maybe ultimately the US) in this are > not doing so necessarily for the individual Assange, but because they > are worry about the possibility of politically motivated charges. You > may call that conspiracy theory, but I suspect, from the arguments > they are making, that they have some good reasons not to rule out that > possibility as yet. >> Best regards, Rony Koven >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> To: governance ; Ginger Paque >> >> Cc: Dominique Lacroix
>> Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 7:57 pm >> Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's >> vassal acts decisively and illegally >> >> Assange is referring to this as a witchhunt, see: >> http://www.newsday.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-calls-on-obama-to-end-witch-hunt-1.3913652 >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> Excellent post, Dominique. Gracias! >>> >>> >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>> >>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >>> Diplo Foundation >>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 19 August 2012 12:25, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>>> That story seems to be all about secret at the information age! >>>> Assange got 2 love stories. In both cases, the women invited him in her >>>> bed. >>>> The case is about what happened there. Sex by surprise? That should stay >>>> secret, as long as the women were not injured. Actually, they never >>>> complained for that. >>>> >>>> At the contrary, Bradley Manning and Wikileaks revealed what should not >>>> be kept secret: >>>> - Civilians (journalists and children) murders by US soldiers in Iraq. >>>> >>>> http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journalists-idUSTRE6344FW20100406 >>>> - Orders given to diplomates to spy UN leaders (DNA, passwords, credit >>>> card numbers etc.) >>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un >>>> - And so on. >>>> >>>> Nevertheless, of course I agree with Ginger and Mawaki: crime allegations >>>> are displaced manipulations AND we cannot just ignore the sexual misconduct >>>> allegations. >>>> >>>> But at this stage of the worldwide imbroglio, it's too late for having a >>>> neutral trial in Sweden. Could you imagine a Swedish Court concluding: "Much >>>> ado about nothing"? So public opinion mobilization is important. We are the >>>> witnesses. >>>> And at this hour, I would like to hear the two women. I'm not sure that >>>> the story is still their story... >>>> >>>> >>>> Some strange points must not be forgotten. Just some clues for new >>>> readers of the case: >>>> >>>> - Feminist fighters should be very happy to see that nowadays police >>>> force all around the world hunt rapers as it's done for Assange. >>>> A famous feminist wrote about the case. Just search for Naomi Wolf. >>>> >>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html >>>> >>>> - Assange already talked with Swedish authorities. >>>> Convened because of Swedish demand, he went spontaneously to the London >>>> police. >>>> >>>> - Swedish authorities aren't clear on the case, first closed and then >>>> reopened: >>>> >>>> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investigation-into-wikileaks-chief-reopens-2068162.html >>>> >>>> - It's well established that Assange had two love stories with fans in >>>> Stockholm and then Enköping. >>>> The first with the famous Anna Ardin, a feminist fighter whose blog >>>> explained how to get revenge against men: >>>> >>>> http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7569087-meet-anna-ardin-photos-anna-ardins-7-steps-to-legal-revenge >>>> >>>> And so on. It's not the good place for further analyzing that case. But >>>> doubt is widely allowed. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> @+, Dominique >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dominique Lacroix >>>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>>> >>>> Le 19/08/12 16:11, Mawaki Chango a écrit : >>>> >>>> Completely agree with Ginger here... >>>> We can't pretend to ignore the elephant in the room: at this point >>>> there's no part of this story that can be clearly separated from >>>> Wikileaks - if only given all the shady zones in this imbroglio. And >>>> yes, it is unfortunate that the rape issue is now and then exploited >>>> in ways that can undermine legitimate claims. Again a lot remains >>>> unclear, unfortunately, due to the behavior of the Sweden's >>>> government. >>>> >>>> mawaki >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>>> >>>> This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the >>>> sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all >>>> of >>>> the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. >>>> >>>> My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual >>>> misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in >>>> focus. >>>> >>>> I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines >>>> the >>>> case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's >>>> lawyers >>>> would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on >>>> video, >>>> webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, >>>> and >>>> force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the >>>> sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should >>>> not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. >>>> Ginger >>>> >>>> >>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >>>> >>>> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >>>> Diplo Foundation >>>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >>>> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, >>>> mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to >>>> wikileaks >>>> reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for >>>> some >>>> people here? >>>> >>>> Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? >>>> >>>> Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see >>>> the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. >>>> If you want to change the subject, fine :-) >>>> >>>> Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their >>>> protest on the Internet. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> you can still send donations using https://flattr.com/ >>>> >>>> Carlos Vera >>>> >>>> >>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone >>>> >>>> El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake escribió: >>>> >>>> Dominique, hi. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Rape? Charged? >>>> >>>> Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the >>>> UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm >>>> not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some >>>> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... >>>> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at >>>> a >>>> Swedish sense: >>>> >>>> I very much hope not. >>>> >>>> Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense >>>> carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. >>>> >>>> >>>> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of >>>> rape. >>>> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. >>>> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving >>>> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. >>>> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking >>>> generally, >>>> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional >>>> pressure on someone. >>>> >>>> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four >>>> years >>>> respectively. >>>> The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange >>>> will not >>>> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to >>>> the >>>> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that >>>> Mr >>>> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, >>>> less >>>> serious category." >>>> >>>> And the great conclusion is: >>>> >>>> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of >>>> women's >>>> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. >>>> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest >>>> rate in >>>> Europe. >>>> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but >>>> it >>>> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the >>>> crime >>>> are more significant factors." >>>> >>>> See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 >>>> >>>> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? >>>> >>>> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet >>>> Governance >>>> issues. >>>> - Lawful here, unlawful there. >>>> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. >>>> >>>> How would you deal with these questions? >>>> >>>> Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet >>>> governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online >>>> or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those >>>> two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> @+, Dominique >>>> >>>> Dominique Lacroix >>>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his >>>> WikiLeaks >>>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically >>>> motivated >>>> harassment or charge. >>>> >>>> >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid >>>> facing >>>> >>>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>>> >>>> Ginger >>>> >>>> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! >>>> >>>> Fahd >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 09:26:09 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:26:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <5031F414.4060006@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50323AF1.6070103@gmail.com> First (not on your post, but provoked by it) of all we could embrace some of the complexity of the situation and have people state their views without calling for the silencing of others' views (othering iow) - that not all those who support Assange's asylum request are against the complainants, are conspiracy theorists nor trying to introduce unrelated issues into this sphere (we merely respond to the invitation of Exceptionalism)... iow some decorum instead of pushing people with different (and credible - i.e. capable of being entertained without being accepted) world views into a defensive corner. Second, some clarity on facts (like reality, which has some consistency) would be ok. When Assange claims political asylum of course he is skipping bail. But asylum is granted to those with a well founded fear of persecution. In UK he is a criminal, in Ecuador he is not. To simply insist that the rich North countries are better does not take the argument further. Then to stoop to namecalling (conspiracy theorist, callous about rape - or alleged rape, etc) as a tactic is just nonsense. There are many people who see the need for dealing with issues of legitimacy. But civil society on this list seems to arrogate to certain groups/individuals/world views that authority to tell others not only what to think and how to think. If (and not speaking for others, but with some identification - with which they can disagree) Parminder et al were to adopt the tone of our critics then on issues like the Great Fire Wall of China we could namecall too and say racists (invitation - review China discussions with what was said about the North and see for yourself), what would happen to discussion and debate? We could even call out about coconuts (no one makes claims about the South or Third World being homogenous). But, with restraint, we largely refrain and simply point to double standards, which with reason can be worked through (of course no point engaging when you are not open to even entertain others ideas, or that newbies on this list seem to get scared about sharing info or their openness is read as siding with a particular view). When American Exceptionalism is introduced as a rational, we discuss it - and this list is remarkable for it robustness - and is free from constrained political correctness. If Assange is irrelevant then analogously so is AExcep as a rationale for DOC/ICANN/IANA domination of CIR. But no one seems to make this link which follows logically (as the argument goes)... And imho there seems to be a "majority" (perhaps of posters to this list) that seemingly support (albeit critically) ICANN (failing to see that non-participation with it but participation with UN structures is a democractic choice) win out as if majority is the only determinant of legitimacy. That is why there are Bills of Rights - which ALSO operate as countermajoritarian devices - some things, like racism are just not on despite what the majority may want or think, or that in international relations legitimacy is as important as effectiveness. It is tragic that we have to deal with idiocy (in the classical sense - those who do not engage in democracy) and have to repeatedly assert that we have the right to define the debate in 'our' own terms (eg legitimacy vs/AND effectiveness). More specifically, on what would "open eyes" I am not sure. As it is difficult. We do need to handle complexity which means handling contradictions - as some who do engage claim to do when they engage in ICANN etc. But simply because one group finds a particular set of contradictions acceptable does not mean that they are universally applicable. Those who insisted on only a single root then go on to complain about technical "incompetence" of others. I mean, how does one go about engaging on let alone resolving these kinds of first principle double standards? Some of these issues can be managed in at least the form and manner of debate , but I think it is high time that those who call for balance in support of their world view take a principled/ethical stance to engagement on this list without seeking to question the right of others to shape debates as they see fit (barring of course completely banal contributions). The link between bona fides of American Exceptionalism and IG have been made apposite on this list. To merely insist that it is not is not debate, and moves to impose silence should be dealt with with balance and even handedness. And with what passes for acceptable discourse on this list, it is a hard core rebuttal unfortunately... and if people don't like it, they can bump me off this list or perhaps then give only as good as they are prepared to get... eye for an eye and all that... On 2012/08/20 02:43 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Diplomatic "indignity" is what we're left with just now. Sad situation > indeed. > What would open their eyes? (not suggesting anything here) A > petition? Signature campaign? Protest march? "Satyagraha" > movement? riots? > -C > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > > And the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunity be damned (they > UK threated to storm foreign territory, which is what an embassy > is)? Which certainly has implications for faith in American > Exceptionalism as a basis for CIR control. > > So I guess the taking of American hostages in Iran at the time of > the overthrow of the American approved despot (the Shah) in the > 1970s would be ok, retrospectively? > > Funny, he skipped bail but is willing to fulfil the claims for > questioning on terms that do not expose him to the threat of > extradition. Extradition to the US may involve treatment like > Bradley Manning has received in US prison - long periods of > solitary confinement. This kind of treatment is against the EU > Bill of Rights, the findings of the UN Special Rapporteur on > Torture and regarded as unlawful (i.e. cruel and degrading > punishment) even by the New York Bar Association. > > You see, if I don't like your principles on this matter, I have > others... so for me it is completely specious to start of > irrespective of extradition threat... its kinda like saying: > irrespective of the REAL threat of torture and/or cruel and > degrading punishment... which as you can surmise from my position > is a non starter . . . > > ... and I will as always simply remain amazed at the robustness of > discussion on this list . . . which is refreshing for its candour, > of which we can all freely take part... > > > > On 2012/08/20 07:53 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message <502F5826.4000506 at gmail.com > >, at 10:53:58 on Sat, 18 > Aug 2012, Riaz K Tayob > writes > > The police presence, it added, had risen from two or three > to around 50, with officers on the embassy's fire escape > and at every window. > > > I haven't been following the main thread so apologies if this > is a repeat: Irrespective of any threat to extradite him, let > alone the Wikileaks episode, Assange is a plain and simple > fugitive from a UK court (he's skipped bail). > > The British Police would be roundly criticised if they let him > escape through a back window in the middle of the night and > make off across Hyde Park. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 09:28:45 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 09:28:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Aug 20, 2012, at 9:14 AM, parminder wrote: > > The alternative is clear; a group representing all countries does the CIR oversight which is at presently done by the US. And the process ensures that no one country or even a group of countries can capture decision making involved in the role...... Excellent; please point me to the proposal which details this alternative. > There is *no* doubt that oversight by such a multi-country group, with the involved principles and processes clearly defined, and the nature of oversight powers narrowly restricted, is a much much better system Still TBD (to be determined...) - the assertion relies on information not in evidence. Thanks! /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Reading this message while driving may cause nausea or dizziness, as may reading this message while motionless. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 09:28:45 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:28:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <5031F414.4060006@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50323B8D.6030803@gmail.com> Your point being that two "wrongs" make a right, or that the Assange case is about Wikileaks or alleged rape charges? On 2012/08/20 03:11 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> And the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunity be damned > > And that would be the convention that says "The official > correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable. Official > correspondence means all correspondence relating to the mission and > its functions." > > Hello wikileaks. > > Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 09:30:39 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:00:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <8CF4CED9EDBBFB2-109C-B5C89@Webmail-m104.sysops.aol.com> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <50322CD9.3090706@itforchange.net> <8CF4CED9EDBBFB2-109C-B5C89@Webmail-m104.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <50323BFF.70902@itforchange.net> Relax Koven, I too got my message to the IGC list, and it is clear that I am responding to Mawaki's text. Your sign is caught somewhere down there because it is a series of exchanges. Of course i did not change anything about the message. Why would I attach your signatures to messages ???? parminder On Monday 20 August 2012 06:49 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: > Parminder -- > > This is a total falsification. I did not write the message to which > you have apparently attached my signature. Maybe you''re not > responsible for this, but someone on this list is. I'm entitled to an > explanation and an apology from the person who has done this. > deliberately or not. > > Rony Koven > > > without necessary the possibility to classified in a compelling manner > > which ones are the best for everybody? And how do we negotiate the > > values that will prevail for a global infrastructure? It seems to me > > those are relevant questions we have been wrestling with in this space > > and other IG-related forums for quite a while now. Mawaki Disclaimer: > > I think Assange is not a saint; he has the duty to answer for his > > actions that fall under existing laws like any other citizens, no more > > no less. My understanding is that most people who seem to keep a > > critical eye on UK, Sweden (and maybe ultimately the US) in this are > > not doing so necessarily for the individual Assange, but because they > > are worry about the possibility of politically motivated charges. You > > may call that conspiracy theory, but I suspect, from the arguments > > they are making, that they have some good reasons not to rule out that > > possibility as yet. > >> Best regards, Rony Koven > >> > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: parminder > To: governance > Sent: Mon, Aug 20, 2012 2:26 pm > Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally > > > On Monday 20 August 2012 05:25 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > snip > > > In this particular case of Wikileaks, it seems the tables have turned, > > at least for some: the extreme defense of free speech no longer > > applies, or maybe has never applied, to freedom of information? Does > > anyone on this list still believe that policy - including policy for > > technical infrastructure - does not involve worldviews and values, > > which are diverse around the world, > > Yes, apparently your institution-mate, Milton :) .... > > > without necessary the possibility to classified in a compelling manner > > which ones are the best for everybody? And how do we negotiate the > > values that will prevail for a global infrastructure? It seems to me > > those are relevant questions we have been wrestling with in this space > > and other IG-related forums for quite a while now. Mawaki Disclaimer: > > I think Assange is not a saint; he has the duty to answer for his > > actions that fall under existing laws like any other citizens, no more > > no less. My understanding is that most people who seem to keep a > > critical eye on UK, Sweden (and maybe ultimately the US) in this are > > not doing so necessarily for the individual Assange, but because they > > are worry about the possibility of politically motivated charges. You > > may call that conspiracy theory, but I suspect, from the arguments > > they are making, that they have some good reasons not to rule out that > > possibility as yet. > >> Best regards, Rony Koven > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >> To: governance >; Ginger Paque > >> > > >> Cc: Dominique Lacroix
> > >> Sent: Sun, Aug 19, 2012 7:57 pm > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's > >> vassal acts decisively and illegally > >> > >> Assange is referring to this as a witchhunt, see: > >>http://www.newsday.com/news/world/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-calls-on-obama-to-end-witch-hunt-1.3913652 > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > >>> Excellent post, Dominique. Gracias! > >>> > >>> > >>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque > >>> > >>>VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > >>> Diplo Foundation > >>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > >>>www.diplomacy.edu/ig > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 19 August 2012 12:25, Dominique Lacroix
> wrote: > >>>> That story seems to be all about secret at the information age! > >>>> Assange got 2 love stories. In both cases, the women invited him in her > >>>> bed. > >>>> The case is about what happened there. Sex by surprise? That should stay > >>>> secret, as long as the women were not injured. Actually, they never > >>>> complained for that. > >>>> > >>>> At the contrary, Bradley Manning and Wikileaks revealed what should not > >>>> be kept secret: > >>>> - Civilians (journalists and children) murders by US soldiers in Iraq. > >>>> > >>>>http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/06/us-iraq-usa-journalists-idUSTRE6344FW20100406 > >>>> - Orders given to diplomates to spy UN leaders (DNA, passwords, credit > >>>> card numbers etc.) > >>>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un > >>>> - And so on. > >>>> > >>>> Nevertheless, of course I agree with Ginger and Mawaki: crime allegations > >>>> are displaced manipulations AND we cannot just ignore the sexual misconduct > >>>> allegations. > >>>> > >>>> But at this stage of the worldwide imbroglio, it's too late for having a > >>>> neutral trial in Sweden. Could you imagine a Swedish Court concluding: > "Much > >>>> ado about nothing"? So public opinion mobilization is important. We are the > >>>> witnesses. > >>>> And at this hour, I would like to hear the two women. I'm not sure that > >>>> the story is still their story... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Some strange points must not be forgotten. Just some clues for new > >>>> readers of the case: > >>>> > >>>> - Feminist fighters should be very happy to see that nowadays police > >>>> force all around the world hunt rapers as it's done for Assange. > >>>> A famous feminist wrote about the case. Just search for Naomi Wolf. > >>>> > >>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html > >>>> > >>>> - Assange already talked with Swedish authorities. > >>>> Convened because of Swedish demand, he went spontaneously to the London > >>>> police. > >>>> > >>>> - Swedish authorities aren't clear on the case, first closed and then > >>>> reopened: > >>>> > >>>>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/rape-investigation-into-wikileaks-chief-reopens-2068162.html > >>>> > >>>> - It's well established that Assange had two love stories with fans in > >>>> Stockholm and then Enköping. > >>>> The first with the famous Anna Ardin, a feminist fighter whose blog > >>>> explained how to get revenge against men: > >>>> > >>>>http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7569087-meet-anna-ardin-photos-anna-ardins-7-steps-to-legal-revenge > >>>> > >>>> And so on. It's not the good place for further analyzing that case. But > >>>> doubt is widely allowed. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> @+, Dominique > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Dominique Lacroix > >>>> Société européenne de l'Internet > >>>>http://www.ies-france.eu > >>>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > >>>> > >>>> Le 19/08/12 16:11, Mawaki Chango a écrit : > >>>> > >>>> Completely agree with Ginger here... > >>>> We can't pretend to ignore the elephant in the room: at this point > >>>> there's no part of this story that can be clearly separated from > >>>> Wikileaks - if only given all the shady zones in this imbroglio. And > >>>> yes, it is unfortunate that the rape issue is now and then exploited > >>>> in ways that can undermine legitimate claims. Again a lot remains > >>>> unclear, unfortunately, due to the behavior of the Sweden's > >>>> government. > >>>> > >>>> mawaki > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> This may be IG related in the sense that WikiLeaks involves IG, and the > >>>> sexual misconduct case may (I say 'may' because I simply do not have all > >>>> of > >>>> the facts) be a manipulation of the WikiLeaks case. > >>>> > >>>> My firmest point is that the two issues should be separated, the sexual > >>>> misconduct case addressed, and the central case, WikiLeaks, get back in > >>>> focus. > >>>> > >>>> I dislike/resent the use of women/gender/sex as a tool that undermines > >>>> the > >>>> case for legitimate cases of sexual misconduct. If Assange/Assange's > >>>> lawyers > >>>> would force the sexual misconduct issue (without going to Sweden--on > >>>> video, > >>>> webinar, whatever), it would remove this distraction from the picture, > >>>> and > >>>> force the UK to show its hand. In the meantime, we cannot just ignore the > >>>> sexual misconduct allegations. Women and sexual misconduct charges should > >>>> not be used as legal manipulations and distractions. > >>>> Ginger > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Ginger (Virginia) Paque > >>>> > >>>>VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > >>>> Diplo Foundation > >>>> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > >>>>www.diplomacy.edu/ig > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 19 August 2012 08:48, Adam Peake > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> You know that the 5 biggest financial institutions Bank of America, Visa, > >>>> mastercard, wester union and paypal decided to block donations to > >>>> wikileaks > >>>> reducing it in 95%? Censorship? Have here an IG issue as requested for > >>>> some > >>>> people here? > >>>> > >>>> Yes, but what have the 5 banks to do with Assange's alleged assaults? > >>>> > >>>> Don't get me wrong, wikileaks is incredibly important, but I do not see > >>>> the connection between the issues in this thread and Internet governance. > >>>> If you want to change the subject, fine :-) > >>>> > >>>> Pussy Riot more relevant, part of their "crime" being posting their > >>>> protest on the Internet. > >>>> > >>>> Adam > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> you can still send donations usinghttps://flattr.com/ > >>>> > >>>> Carlos Vera > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone > >>>> > >>>> El 19/08/2012, a las 6:42, Adam Peake > escribió: > >>>> > >>>> Dominique, hi. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Dominique Lacroix
> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Rape? Charged? > >>>> > >>>> Assange's lawyer's say accused. But the european arrest warrant the > >>>> UK believes it must enforce says he is wanted for prosecution. I'm > >>>> not a lawyer, not clue about the difference. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 1. Assange is not (yet) charged. The judge only wants to ask him some > >>>> questions. Telecom provide some means, indeed... > >>>> 2. Rape? Perhaps some of us on this list, men AND women, are rapers at > >>>> a > >>>> Swedish sense: > >>>> > >>>> I very much hope not. > >>>> > >>>> Indecent assault isn't that common, is it? As you note the offense > >>>> carries a maximum 4 year sentence. Not trivial. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> "Under Swedish law, there are legal gradations of the definition of > >>>> rape. > >>>> There is the most serious kind, involving major violence. > >>>> But below that there is the concept of 'regular rape', still involving > >>>> violence but not violence of the utmost horror. > >>>> And below that there is the idea of 'unlawful coercion'. Talking > >>>> generally, > >>>> and not about the Assange case, this might involve putting emotional > >>>> pressure on someone. > >>>> > >>>> The three categories involve prison sentences of 10, six and four > >>>> years > >>>> respectively. > >>>> The lawyer for the two women who have complained against Mr Assange > >>>> will not > >>>> spell out the details because he says that would give too much away to > >>>> the > >>>> accused man. But he does indicate that it is a four-year sentence that > >>>> Mr > >>>> Assange could expect, indicating that he is suspected of this third, > >>>> less > >>>> serious category." > >>>> > >>>> And the great conclusion is: > >>>> > >>>> "The attitude towards rape in Sweden - informed by a strong sense of > >>>> women's > >>>> rights - means that it is more likely to be reported to police. > >>>> Some 53 rape offences are reported per 100,000 people, the highest > >>>> rate in > >>>> Europe. > >>>> The figures may reflect a higher number of actual rapes committed but > >>>> it > >>>> seems more likely that tough attitudes and a broader definition of the > >>>> crime > >>>> are more significant factors." > >>>> > >>>> See:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11946652 > >>>> > >>>> Isn't it a bit unbalanced, facing whistleblowers issue? > >>>> > >>>> Yes, Adam, CIA or not CIA, this case seems to me two Internet > >>>> Governance > >>>> issues. > >>>> - Lawful here, unlawful there. > >>>> - Whistleblowers right at the Digital age. > >>>> > >>>> How would you deal with these questions? > >>>> > >>>> Sorry, don't get it, what has Assange's situation to do with Internet > >>>> governance, even in its broadest sense? He didn't do anything online > >>>> or on the Internet, he is accused of assaulting two women. And those > >>>> two people seem to be being very much overlooked at the moment. > >>>> > >>>> Adam > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> @+, Dominique > >>>> > >>>> Dominique Lacroix > >>>> Société européenne de l'Internet > >>>>http://www.ies-france.eu > >>>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Le 19/08/12 12:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : > >>>> > >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Ginger Paque > > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his > >>>> WikiLeaks > >>>> work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically > >>>> motivated > >>>> harassment or charge. > >>>> > >>>> >>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid > >>>> facing > >>>> > >>>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. > >>>> > >>>> Ginger > >>>> > >>>> That makes us 2 Ginger. ROCK ON! > >>>> > >>>> Fahd > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>>http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To 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 > >> P.O. Box 17862 > >> Suva > >> Fiji > >> > >> Twitter: @SalanietaT > >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 09:37:21 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:07:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50323D91.8020007@itforchange.net> On Monday 20 August 2012 06:58 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Aug 20, 2012, at 9:14 AM, parminder wrote: >> The alternative is clear; a group representing all countries does the CIR oversight which is at presently done by the US. And the process ensures that no one country or even a group of countries can capture decision making involved in the role...... > Excellent; please point me to the proposal which details > this alternative. I have made the proposal several times on this list for a multi country oversight board, that takes up the role of oversight exercised by the US at present..... India's CIRP proposal present this alternative at a higher level of articulation without the details... These things go in steps, over discussions. >> There is *no* doubt that oversight by such a multi-country group, with the involved principles and processes clearly defined, and the nature of oversight powers narrowly restricted, is a much much better system > Still TBD (to be determined...) - the assertion relies on information > not in evidence. What kind of 'evidence' a proposal for a new/ improved political institution/ system can possibly produce? parminder > > Thanks! > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. Reading this message while driving > may cause nausea or dizziness, as may reading this message while > motionless. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 09:43:58 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:43:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message <50323028.7010006 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:40:08 on Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to >storm the Embassy. Except they didn't announce any intentions, just recounted some circumstances (which don't apply to this case) where they might be able to. As the reaction is, however, predictable, we must assume that reaction was what they intended - although what small part this step plays in the overall scheme of things we probably won't be able to tell for some time. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 09:46:20 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:46:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <50323D91.8020007@itforchange.net> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> <50323D91.8020007@itforchange .net> Message-ID: <50323FAC.7050700@gmail.com> Parminder It is always difficult for those who engage in institutions to change it to be completely open about their trajectory. If we give the benefit of the doubt to some change makers then time will tell... The World Intellectual Property Organisation was independent of the UN. When it became part of the UN family there was kinda like a chopping off of the head (legally) and replacement with that of the UN without much change in operations etc. WIPO only recently adopted a development agenda - something that almost ALL UN agencies were committed to after establishment... So it matters what kind of evolutionary trajectory is in the mind of change makers. If the argument is that unless there is a(/n concrete, real, what-have-you) alternative before moving away from 'effectiveness' to legitimacy & effectiveness it may be subterfuge of two orders... one of change makers where ICANN etc is the dupe, or where the likes of you are... this is so hard to judge... but in the long run (short of us all being dead) time will tell.... On 2012/08/20 03:37 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 20 August 2012 06:58 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Aug 20, 2012, at 9:14 AM, parminder >> wrote: >>> The alternative is clear; a group representing all countries does >>> the CIR oversight which is at presently done by the US. And the >>> process ensures that no one country or even a group of countries can >>> capture decision making involved in the role...... >> Excellent; please point me to the proposal which details >> this alternative. > > I have made the proposal several times on this list for a multi > country oversight board, that takes up the role of oversight exercised > by the US at present..... India's CIRP proposal present this > alternative at a higher level of articulation without the details... > These things go in steps, over discussions. > >>> There is *no* doubt that oversight by such a multi-country group, >>> with the involved principles and processes clearly defined, and the >>> nature of oversight powers narrowly restricted, is a much much >>> better system >> Still TBD (to be determined...) - the assertion relies on information >> not in evidence. > What kind of 'evidence' a proposal for a new/ improved political > institution/ system can possibly produce? > > parminder > > >> >> Thanks! >> /John >> >> Disclaimer: My views alone. Reading this message while driving >> may cause nausea or dizziness, as may reading this message while >> motionless. >> >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 09:52:23 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:52:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <50324117.4040101@gmail.com> Precision please. They sent a letter to the Ecuadorian embassy BEFORE the asylum decision was made and recanted after. And why should we accept your view that the reaction was what they intended. From my world view rather , as a country that waged an illegal war based on lies they thought they could coerce a small vulnerable third world country into not granting asylum and continue to reap the dividends of the soiling of the UN Charter as their oil companies are doing... I am not saying this so that we agree, we can simply agree to disagree... >> Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to >> storm the Embassy. > > Except they didn't announce any intentions, just recounted some > circumstances (which don't apply to this case) where they might be > able to. As the reaction is, however, predictable, we must assume that > reaction was what they intended - although what small part this step > plays in the overall scheme of things we probably won't be able to > tell for some time. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 10:04:28 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:04:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <5031F414.4060006@gmail.com> Message-ID: <503243EC.2080408@gmail.com> Precision please: what does Ecuador have to do with violating the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunities? They are dealing with an asylum application whose scope of inquiry is based on discretion to grant someone protection who has a well founded fear of persecution, in this case cruel and degrading punishment and torture. Legally Assange's application has little to do with Ecuador and Assange's /Wikileaks violation of US secrecy laws or what have you. The risk of torture or like treatment is sufficient in of itself to be granted asylum... something that would be LEGALLY available even to those rightly (and let us be clear, also wrongly accused - as some innocents are now known to be held) accused of the abominable (and condemnable) attacks on the second Sept 11th held at Guantanamo Bay. Now to give your input further consideration, your claims of complicity (violation of American law is not violation of international law - at least not yet ; ) would indict not only Ecuador but every other country that accessed this information (since states are the ones with international legal personality)... and this is very interesting I had not even thought of these ramifications until raised by you... but I am not sure that this is the trajectory you will be exploring further - but I am happy to surprised on this... On 2012/08/20 03:11 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> And the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunity be damned > > And that would be the convention that says "The official > correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable. Official > correspondence means all correspondence relating to the mission and > its functions." > > Hello wikileaks. > > Adam > > > > >> (they UK threated to storm foreign territory, which is what an >> embassy is)? Which certainly has implications for faith in American >> Exceptionalism as a basis for CIR control. >> >> So I guess the taking of American hostages in Iran at the time of the >> overthrow of the American approved despot (the Shah) in the 1970s >> would be ok, retrospectively? >> >> Funny, he skipped bail but is willing to fulfil the claims for >> questioning on terms that do not expose him to the threat of >> extradition. Extradition to the US may involve treatment like Bradley >> Manning has received in US prison - long periods of solitary >> confinement. This kind of treatment is against the EU Bill of Rights, >> the findings of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and regarded as >> unlawful (i.e. cruel and degrading punishment) even by the New York >> Bar Association. >> >> You see, if I don't like your principles on this matter, I have >> others... so for me it is completely specious to start of >> irrespective of extradition threat... its kinda like saying: >> irrespective of the REAL threat of torture and/or cruel and degrading >> punishment... which as you can surmise from my position is a non >> starter . . . >> >> ... and I will as always simply remain amazed at the robustness of >> discussion on this list . . . which is refreshing for its candour, of >> which we can all freely take part... >> >> >> On 2012/08/20 07:53 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>> In message <502F5826.4000506 at gmail.com>, at 10:53:58 on Sat, 18 Aug >>> 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >>> >>>> The police presence, it added, had risen from two or three to >>>> around 50, with officers on the embassy's fire escape and at every >>>> window. >>> >>> I haven't been following the main thread so apologies if this is a >>> repeat: Irrespective of any threat to extradite him, let alone the >>> Wikileaks episode, Assange is a plain and simple fugitive from a UK >>> court (he's skipped bail). >>> >>> The British Police would be roundly criticised if they let him >>> escape through a back window in the middle of the night and make off >>> across Hyde Park. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Mon Aug 20 10:13:11 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:13:11 +0700 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> On 8/20/2012 8:43 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <50323028.7010006 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:40:08 on Mon, 20 Aug > 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >> Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to >> storm the Embassy. > * > Except they didn't announce any intentions, just recounted some > circumstances (which don't apply to this case) * So if there were no intentions, and it does not relate to the present circumstances, why did they recount and publish it now? And for a third time on this list I quote: " For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused to explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." Why not calm the storm by responding to this 19 month old question? Norbert Klein Cambodia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 10:17:16 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 23:17:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <503243EC.2080408@gmail.com> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <5031F414.4060006@gmail.com> <503243EC.2080408@gmail.com> Message-ID: >Precision please: what does Ecuador have to do with violating the >Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunities? Do you meant the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations? Adam >They are dealing with an asylum application whose scope of inquiry >is based on discretion to grant someone protection who has a well >founded fear of persecution, in this case cruel and degrading >punishment and torture. > >Legally Assange's application has little to do with Ecuador and >Assange's /Wikileaks violation of US secrecy laws or what have you. >The risk of torture or like treatment is sufficient in of itself to >be granted asylum... something that would be LEGALLY available even >to those rightly (and let us be clear, also wrongly accused - as >some innocents are now known to be held) accused of the abominable >(and condemnable) attacks on the second Sept 11th held at Guantanamo >Bay. > >Now to give your input further consideration, your claims of >complicity (violation of American law is not violation of >international law - at least not yet ; ) would indict not only >Ecuador but every other country that accessed this information >(since states are the ones with international legal personality)... >and this is very interesting I had not even thought of these >ramifications until raised by you... but I am not sure that this is >the trajectory you will be exploring further - but I am happy to >surprised on this... > > > >On 2012/08/20 03:11 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>And the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunity be damned >> >>And that would be the convention that says "The official >>correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable. Official >>correspondence means all correspondence relating to the mission and >>its functions." >> >>Hello wikileaks. >> >>Adam >> >> >> >>>(they UK threated to storm foreign territory, which is what an >>>embassy is)? Which certainly has implications for faith in >>>American Exceptionalism as a basis for CIR control. >>> >>>So I guess the taking of American hostages in Iran at the time of >>>the overthrow of the American approved despot (the Shah) in the >>>1970s would be ok, retrospectively? >>> >>>Funny, he skipped bail but is willing to fulfil the claims for >>>questioning on terms that do not expose him to the threat of >>>extradition. Extradition to the US may involve treatment like >>>Bradley Manning has received in US prison - long periods of >>>solitary confinement. This kind of treatment is against the EU >>>Bill of Rights, the findings of the UN Special Rapporteur on >>>Torture and regarded as unlawful (i.e. cruel and degrading >>>punishment) even by the New York Bar Association. >>> >>>You see, if I don't like your principles on this matter, I have >>>others... so for me it is completely specious to start of >>>irrespective of extradition threat... its kinda like saying: >>>irrespective of the REAL threat of torture and/or cruel and >>>degrading punishment... which as you can surmise from my position >>>is a non starter . . . >>> >>>... and I will as always simply remain amazed at the robustness of >>>discussion on this list . . . which is refreshing for its candour, >>>of which we can all freely take part... >>> >>> >>>On 2012/08/20 07:53 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>>>In message <502F5826.4000506 at gmail.com>, at 10:53:58 on Sat, 18 >>>>Aug 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >>>> >>>>>The police presence, it added, had risen from two or three to >>>>>around 50, with officers on the embassy's fire escape and at >>>>>every window. >>>> >>>>I haven't been following the main thread so apologies if this is >>>>a repeat: Irrespective of any threat to extradite him, let alone >>>>the Wikileaks episode, Assange is a plain and simple fugitive >>>>from a UK court (he's skipped bail). >>>> >>>>The British Police would be roundly criticised if they let him >>>>escape through a back window in the middle of the night and make >>>>off across Hyde Park. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>>For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Mon Aug 20 10:22:04 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:22:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <50323D91.8020007@itforchange.net> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> <50323D91.8020007@itforchange .net> Message-ID: <5032480C.3020607@panamo.eu> I recall the proposal of Viviane Reding in 2009, when she was commissioner for Information Society and Media at the European Commission: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/696&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en Now she is vice-president and commissioner responsible for Justice, Fundamental rights and Citizenship. Parminder, please, do you envision things in a similar way? John, please, what do you think about Mrs Reding's proposal? Psss! A new thread? I leave you take the initiative as you put the subject on the table. Best, @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 20/08/12 15:37, parminder a écrit : > > On Monday 20 August 2012 06:58 PM, John Curran wrote: >> On Aug 20, 2012, at 9:14 AM, parminder >> wrote: >>> The alternative is clear; a group representing all countries does >>> the CIR oversight which is at presently done by the US. And the >>> process ensures that no one country or even a group of countries can >>> capture decision making involved in the role...... >> Excellent; please point me to the proposal which details >> this alternative. > > I have made the proposal several times on this list for a multi > country oversight board, that takes up the role of oversight exercised > by the US at present..... India's CIRP proposal present this > alternative at a higher level of articulation without the details... > These things go in steps, over discussions. > >>> There is *no* doubt that oversight by such a multi-country group, >>> with the involved principles and processes clearly defined, and the >>> nature of oversight powers narrowly restricted, is a much much >>> better system >> Still TBD (to be determined...) - the assertion relies on information >> not in evidence. > What kind of 'evidence' a proposal for a new/ improved political > institution/ system can possibly produce? > > parminder > > >> >> Thanks! >> /John >> >> Disclaimer: My views alone. Reading this message while driving >> may cause nausea or dizziness, as may reading this message while >> motionless. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 10:34:22 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:34:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <5031F414.4060006@gmail.com> <503243EC.2080408@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50324AEE.6050008@gmail.com> Adequately chastised, yes On 2012/08/20 04:17 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Precision please: what does Ecuador have to do with violating the >> Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunities? > > > Do you meant the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations? > > Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jovank at diplomacy.edu Mon Aug 20 10:57:21 2012 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 16:57:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <0819D322-2A7F-45DE-9974-2A038A38AB1E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50325051.4080800@diplomacy.edu> Hi Mawaki, Here is an attempt to answer your question on the international legality of the 1987 Act in three ways: Twitter, e-mail and blog post. The short answer – Twitter – is /that the 1987 UK Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act is in accordance with international law/ (the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations - VCDR and international customary law). A bit longer answer for this e-mail should rely on the sequence in establishing diplomatic relations between states with three important moments: - First, states have to recognise each other. - Second, after recognition, states establish diplomatic relations. - Third, after two states establish diplomatic relations, they can open diplomatic missions. Here is how this sequence can apply to the Assange asylum case: The UK can sever diplomatic relations unilaterally. Diplomatic relations are concluded by mutual consent (Article 2 of VCDR). If consent is withdrawn, diplomatic relations cease to exist. After severing diplomatic relations, the UK would require Ecuador to close its embassy in London, and Ecuadorian diplomats to leave the territory of the United Kingdom within a reasonable time. ‘Reasonable time’ is not specified, but it usually takes between 7 days (in the case of the closure of the Libyan mission in London in 1984) and one month. On this point Assange would remain alone in the Ecuadorian embassy. The VDRC does not specify how long the premises of the mission mission should preserve diplomatic status (remain inviolable). Most of the practice in diplomatic law provides the ‘reasonable time’ needed to protect and move the mission’s archives and property. The 1987 Act codifies this practice and specifies how to deal with this lacuna in the VCDR (time for closing the mission). Once the premises are no longer inviolable, the UK can enter the premises of the Embassy and arrest Assange if he is still there. It is very difficult to envisage a scenario in which the UK police could enter the Ecuadorian embassy without following the above described sequence – starting with the severing of diplomatic relations with Ecuador. Any other action would be a serious blow to the modern diplomatic system exposing – among others – the UK diplomatic missions worldwide, to high risks. While the UK has a legal basis for an action against the Ecuadorian embassy, its initiative could turn into a real diplomatic fiasco. It is surprising that UK diplomacy did not take into account the strong attachment of Latin American countries to the right of diplomatic asylum.Even in the case of political conflicts among themselves, Latin American countries have supported diplomatic asylum. It is a well-established regional customary law, codified in a few conventions, including1928 – Havana , 1933 – Montevideo , 1954 – Caracas . The right of asylum is also granted by Article 27 of the 1948 American Declaration on Human Rights . By accelerating the Assange asylum case, the UK – to use a football metaphor – put the ball into penalty and asked President Correa to strike without a goal-keeper. He could not miss such a chance. In a few days, President Correa will gather all LA ministers of foreign affairs as a symbol of unity against the UK action. Given his political situation, it is an unexpected and welcome gift. The Assange asylum case, like other similar cases, is likely to be solved through negotiations that will provide the UK with a face-saving exit strategy. Might the Swedish authorities be persuaded to conduct the hearing ‘remotely’? If negotiations fail, Assange is likely to be long-term tenant of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. You can also see two texts with more detailed legal elaboration of this e-mail and FAQs about diplomatic asylum . I hope it will help in clarifying, at least, legal aspect of this complex case. As ever, Jovan On 8/19/12 4:26 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Two things: > > 1. Has anyone looked into or analyzed what the ground is in that > Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 on which the UK > authorities are basing their argument and decision? and how is that > act supposed to relate to the Vienna Convention of 1961? Maybe there > is some defect in the conditions/circumstance that surrounded the > attribution of those premises or building to the Ecuador? I mean, what > could possibly be the legally defensible basis from a domestic law > that came about more than a quarter century after an international > convention to which the concerned country was signatory - while nobody > seems to have known that that law meant for the said country an > amendment or a notable qualification to some significant provisions of > the convention? > > 2. It might be a little too late for anyone to be able to disentangle > possible political motivations from these legal procedures (in UK and > Sweden). The party that appears the most obscure to me in terms of > their true motivation and intent is the Swedish judiciary, > surprisingly. To my recollection, the charges of sexual misconduct > were dropped at some point and a while thereafter they were taken up > again by another (higher?) level of the judiciary in Sweden. I have > never come across any credible account as to why that was so, and I > was surprised at the time I couldn't hear much about (at least not any > substantial investigation of) that question in the US-based cable news > as I tried to find an explanation. Adding to that the questions raised > above by Norbert and also emphasized by Ginger... Furthermore, I too > (as Carlos Vera) remember that it was mentioned in the news reports > that the substance of the sexual charges - or at least the allegations > - revolved around Assange not using a protection during those > encounters, etc. I am not sure whether - indeed, I did not hear that - > the presumed victims have alleged any physical coercion to that effect > or whether those news reports were accurate as to the exact or > official content of the charges, if any. The fact is, it is already > difficult enough to get to the bottom of allegations of rape without > third party witness and without evidence of violence, but now you have > some hot political concoction surrounding it... > > Troubling. > > Mawaki > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: >> Ecuadorian gov. Express to Mr Assange he is welcome to Ecuador from the >> begining of rhis affair. If he only would listen from that time this >> political advise... >> >> Carlos Vera >> >> Enviado desde mi iPhone >> >> El 18/08/2012, a las 18:26, Ginger Paque escribió: >> >> A very important point is stated at >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 >> This would appear to make the extradition unnecessary. >> >> This doesn't mean that the sexual misconduct charges should not be >> investigated (whatever they actually are: I don't know). >> >> 18 November 2010 >> >> Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for >> questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. >> Sweden's Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says he has not been available >> for questioning. >> >> Mr Assange's British lawyer Mark Stephens says his client offered to be >> interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or Scotland Yard or via video >> link. He accuses Ms Ny of "abusing her powers" in insisting that Mr Assange >> return to Sweden. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 18 August 2012 18:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> meant to say *from various extradition treaties >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>>> A fundamental principle in criminal law is that only if Sweden had >>>> already laid charges and served this on him physically, then they can begin >>>> to make demands. As for extradition requests of this nature or obligations >>>> stemming from various extraditions can only kick in after the charge has >>>> been served on the person and the usual summons to attend trial. >>>> >>>> Question is were charges laid against Assange? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Carlos Vera Quintana >>>> wrote: >>>>> facing his responsibilities re: the sexual misconduct charges >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Do you know that: the misconduct is about not inform both girls he was >>>>> no using protection in the sexual relation? It's not about other actions >>>>> from Assange >>>>> >>>>> I wonder how this girls does not were aware of this by themself >>>>> >>>>> This is a very particular case in Sweden legislation I guess... >>>>> >>>>> Carlos Vera >>>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone >>>>> >>>>> El 18/08/2012, a las 17:24, Ginger Paque escribió: >>>>> >>>>> Aldo, >>>>> I think it is very important that facing his responsibilities re: the >>>>> sexual misconduct charges, should not put Assange in danger of real or >>>>> imagined charges in the WikiLeaks matter. >>>>> >>>>> But three, not two worst-case scenarios are possible: >>>>> 1. Assange is turned over to a third country to face unrelated charges, >>>>> when he is sent to Sweden to face charges of sexual misconduct. >>>>> 2. Assange does not get a fair trial on the sexual misconduct charges, >>>>> because of prejudice about the WikiLeaks case. >>>>> **3. Assange does not face charges of sexual misconduct, because he is >>>>> using the WikiLeaks situation as a shield. Victimless crimes might easily be >>>>> settled by plea bargaining, or through justice at a discount. I don't think >>>>> rape should be included in this possibility. Assange should have a chance to >>>>> face his accusers, and defend himself, or pay the price, if he is guilty. >>>>> >>>>> As you (Aldo) point out, there are other options than sending Assange to >>>>> Sweden or not sending him to Sweden. (As Norbert points out realistically in >>>>> another post). Possible strategies: >>>>> --Questioning in the UK. >>>>> --Video questioning. >>>>> --Remote video questioning, real-time, in a courtroom. >>>>> I am sure legal experts can come up with other more creative, and >>>>> workable options to allow the sexual misconduct charges to be fully and >>>>> clearly aired, without endangering Assange's political rights. >>>>> >>>>> I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his >>>>> WikiLeaks work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically >>>>> motivated harassment or charge. >>>>> I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing >>>>> charges of rape if the are legitimate. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure this has anything to do with IG. But I do think it is >>>>> important. >>>>> >>>>> Ginger >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 18 August 2012 14:00, Aldo Matteucci >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Ginger, >>>>>> >>>>>> the question is not whether the allegations are true - factual issues >>>>>> we can't decide. >>>>>> The question is whether Sweden, acting as proxy, will take that excuse >>>>>> to jail him for good and throw away the key. >>>>>> After all, that's what the US want. >>>>>> >>>>>> My feeling is that there is some truth in the criminal matter >>>>>> but that Assange would not get a "fair" trial, in the sense that the >>>>>> usual discretionary possibilities will be denied to him. >>>>>> One fears a self-righteous Swede - see Bergman movies. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't forget: over 90% of the cases are plea-bargained in the US. It is >>>>>> normal to get "justice at a discount". Why not here? >>>>>> >>>>>> Aldo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 18 August 2012 19:22, Ginger Paque wrote: >>>>>>> The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and >>>>>>> legal details. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, >>>>>>> close Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian >>>>>>> diplomats, does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political >>>>>>> issues more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be >>>>>>> investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from >>>>>>> political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the rape >>>>>>> charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can support >>>>>>> Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still want to see >>>>>>> him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that is a >>>>>>> well-founded allegation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible >>>>>>> solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) going on >>>>>>> at: >>>>>>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the >>>>>>> sexual misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / >>>>>>> or be mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers, Ginger >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>>>>>>> Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mawaki >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> America's vassal acts decisively and illegally >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. >>>>>>>>> He was >>>>>>>>> British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 >>>>>>>>> and Rector >>>>>>>>> of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after >>>>>>>>> immense >>>>>>>>> pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean >>>>>>>>> Embassy and >>>>>>>>> seize Julian Assange. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna >>>>>>>>> Convention >>>>>>>>> of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which >>>>>>>>> encodes >>>>>>>>> the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled >>>>>>>>> diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most >>>>>>>>> subscribed single international treaty in the world. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic >>>>>>>>> premises >>>>>>>>> are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no >>>>>>>>> modification or >>>>>>>>> qualification elsewhere in the treaty. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Article 22 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the >>>>>>>>> head of >>>>>>>>> the mission. >>>>>>>>> 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all >>>>>>>>> appropriate steps >>>>>>>>> to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or >>>>>>>>> damage and >>>>>>>>> to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or >>>>>>>>> impairment of its >>>>>>>>> dignity. >>>>>>>>> 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property >>>>>>>>> thereon >>>>>>>>> and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from >>>>>>>>> search, >>>>>>>>> requisition, attachment or execution. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to >>>>>>>>> arrest the >>>>>>>>> Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the >>>>>>>>> Cold War, >>>>>>>>> defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s >>>>>>>>> embassies. >>>>>>>>> Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British >>>>>>>>> Embassy to >>>>>>>>> help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law >>>>>>>>> will result >>>>>>>>> in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment >>>>>>>>> worldwide. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a >>>>>>>>> strong >>>>>>>>> enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of >>>>>>>>> international law. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The British Government bases its argument on domestic British >>>>>>>>> legislation. >>>>>>>>> But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its >>>>>>>>> obligations in >>>>>>>>> international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the >>>>>>>>> government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would >>>>>>>>> leave >>>>>>>>> British diplomats with no protection worldwide. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US >>>>>>>>> administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing >>>>>>>>> the move >>>>>>>>> against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been >>>>>>>>> taken in >>>>>>>>> Number 10. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal >>>>>>>>> Democrats. >>>>>>>>> That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” >>>>>>>>> impact now in >>>>>>>>> any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government >>>>>>>>> salaries and >>>>>>>>> privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any >>>>>>>>> belief to >>>>>>>>> these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that >>>>>>>>> party for >>>>>>>>> over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had >>>>>>>>> principles. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Geopolitics of Asylum >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian >>>>>>>>> Assange from >>>>>>>>> Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted >>>>>>>>> political >>>>>>>>> asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international >>>>>>>>> human rights >>>>>>>>> lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and >>>>>>>>> made it >>>>>>>>> into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, >>>>>>>>> president of the >>>>>>>>> Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation >>>>>>>>> today. >>>>>>>>> Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a >>>>>>>>> week in >>>>>>>>> Ecuador for discussions of the case. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through >>>>>>>>> negotiations or by >>>>>>>>> the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In >>>>>>>>> my memory, >>>>>>>>> no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize >>>>>>>>> someone who has >>>>>>>>> been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for >>>>>>>>> political >>>>>>>>> reasons. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, >>>>>>>>> Ecuadorian >>>>>>>>> diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the >>>>>>>>> British >>>>>>>>> and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the >>>>>>>>> United >>>>>>>>> States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. >>>>>>>>> Such >>>>>>>>> guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, >>>>>>>>> Ricardo >>>>>>>>> Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit >>>>>>>>> threat” to >>>>>>>>> “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British >>>>>>>>> colony,” Patiño >>>>>>>>> added. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his >>>>>>>>> government >>>>>>>>> will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for >>>>>>>>> what may be >>>>>>>>> a prolonged showdown. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict >>>>>>>>> Assange and >>>>>>>>> ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator >>>>>>>>> Diane >>>>>>>>> Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have >>>>>>>>> called for >>>>>>>>> Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong >>>>>>>>> objections from >>>>>>>>> civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may >>>>>>>>> prefer to >>>>>>>>> avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes >>>>>>>>> with the >>>>>>>>> UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in >>>>>>>>> Sweden. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the >>>>>>>>> conflict becomes >>>>>>>>> one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand >>>>>>>>> off against >>>>>>>>> the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the >>>>>>>>> wave of new >>>>>>>>> nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the >>>>>>>>> traditional US >>>>>>>>> dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa >>>>>>>>> joined >>>>>>>>> the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in >>>>>>>>> June 2009, >>>>>>>>> and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His >>>>>>>>> government >>>>>>>>> fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon >>>>>>>>> rainforest, in a >>>>>>>>> case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the >>>>>>>>> country.” >>>>>>>>> He survived a coup attempt in 2010. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision >>>>>>>>> without >>>>>>>>> consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive >>>>>>>>> reaction by the >>>>>>>>> British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to >>>>>>>>> solidify Latin >>>>>>>>> American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in >>>>>>>>> relations >>>>>>>>> with the United States. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked >>>>>>>>> the Obama >>>>>>>>> administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to >>>>>>>>> participate in >>>>>>>>> another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. >>>>>>>>> Shortly >>>>>>>>> after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy >>>>>>>>> chief, Dan >>>>>>>>> Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama >>>>>>>>> administration. >>>>>>>>> Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United >>>>>>>>> States and >>>>>>>>> the region. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Victoria Nuland >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Spokesperson >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Daily Press Briefing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Washington, DC >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> August 16, 2012 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> TRANSCRIPT: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 12:44 p.m. EDT >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s >>>>>>>>> on your >>>>>>>>> minds. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to >>>>>>>>> grant >>>>>>>>> diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the >>>>>>>>> Swedes. >>>>>>>>> I don't have anything particular to add. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> completely neutral, independent observer of it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, >>>>>>>>> it is an >>>>>>>>> issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to >>>>>>>>> interject >>>>>>>>> ourselves. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or >>>>>>>>> where he >>>>>>>>> may end up going, no. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing >>>>>>>>> the Brits >>>>>>>>> to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any >>>>>>>>> truth to >>>>>>>>> that at all. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the >>>>>>>>> Brits do not >>>>>>>>> recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States >>>>>>>>> recognizes >>>>>>>>> diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS >>>>>>>>> treaty >>>>>>>>> which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, >>>>>>>>> presumably, >>>>>>>>> within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. >>>>>>>>> recognize >>>>>>>>> diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal >>>>>>>>> answer to >>>>>>>>> the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, >>>>>>>>> diplomatic >>>>>>>>> asylum. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making >>>>>>>>> or the >>>>>>>>> statement that they made, our understanding was that they were >>>>>>>>> leaning on >>>>>>>>> British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future >>>>>>>>> plans, >>>>>>>>> not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our >>>>>>>>> legal >>>>>>>>> position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and >>>>>>>>> get back to >>>>>>>>> you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines >>>>>>>>> of the -- >>>>>>>>> of the OAS and those signatories. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And then when you said that you don't have any information to >>>>>>>>> suggest that >>>>>>>>> you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. >>>>>>>>> Assange removed >>>>>>>>> from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or >>>>>>>>> just that >>>>>>>>> you're not aware of it? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves >>>>>>>>> in this. >>>>>>>>> If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [...] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason >>>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>> Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that >>>>>>>>> -- they >>>>>>>>> agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- >>>>>>>>> government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the >>>>>>>>> United States >>>>>>>>> under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a >>>>>>>>> credible >>>>>>>>> argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government >>>>>>>>> persecution in >>>>>>>>> the United States? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: No. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: No? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: No. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country >>>>>>>>> guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to >>>>>>>>> show up in >>>>>>>>> the United States they might be subject to government persecution, >>>>>>>>> you don't >>>>>>>>> view that as -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran >>>>>>>>> thought >>>>>>>>> process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: OK. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: OK? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would >>>>>>>>> face >>>>>>>>> prosecution? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was >>>>>>>>> not headed >>>>>>>>> to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to >>>>>>>>> get into >>>>>>>>> all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been >>>>>>>>> in his >>>>>>>>> future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on >>>>>>>>> persecuting him, I >>>>>>>>> reject that completely. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case >>>>>>>>> does >>>>>>>>> rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the >>>>>>>>> legal >>>>>>>>> niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the >>>>>>>>> intention >>>>>>>>> was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face >>>>>>>>> prosecution in the United States? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action >>>>>>>>> that we were >>>>>>>>> all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, >>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>> Obviously, we have -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm >>>>>>>>> going to >>>>>>>>> send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case >>>>>>>>> against him. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much >>>>>>>>> involved >>>>>>>>> with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics >>>>>>>>> here on what >>>>>>>>> their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to >>>>>>>>> wade into >>>>>>>>> it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it >>>>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>>>> involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies >>>>>>>>> and that >>>>>>>>> kind of thing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: Right. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved >>>>>>>>> yourselves >>>>>>>>> at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was >>>>>>>>> going to >>>>>>>>> raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other >>>>>>>>> country, >>>>>>>>> you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: As I said -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in >>>>>>>>> Beijing >>>>>>>>> to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have >>>>>>>>> objected to >>>>>>>>> that, correct? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies >>>>>>>>> have cited >>>>>>>>> British law with regard to the statements they've made about >>>>>>>>> potential >>>>>>>>> future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, >>>>>>>>> international -- as compared to international law. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of >>>>>>>>> whether they >>>>>>>>> have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under >>>>>>>>> British >>>>>>>>> law, I'm going to send you to them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, >>>>>>>>> there is >>>>>>>>> international law here too, and presumably the United State would >>>>>>>>> oppose or >>>>>>>>> would condemn or at least express concerns about any government >>>>>>>>> entering or >>>>>>>>> violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the >>>>>>>>> world, >>>>>>>>> no? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are >>>>>>>>> standing on >>>>>>>>> vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to >>>>>>>>> what the >>>>>>>>> status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the >>>>>>>>> moment is. >>>>>>>>> So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know >>>>>>>>> where we are >>>>>>>>> on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back >>>>>>>>> in 1979, >>>>>>>>> presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a >>>>>>>>> Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest >>>>>>>>> of this >>>>>>>>> on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> Justice Department. Does that include -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department >>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>> working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak >>>>>>>>> to what >>>>>>>>> Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really >>>>>>>>> don't have >>>>>>>>> the details. OK? Thanks, guys. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> DPB #146 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Aldo Matteucci >>>>>> 65, Pourtalèsstr. >>>>>> CH 3074 MURI b. Bern >>>>>> Switzerland >>>>>> aldo.matteucci at gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To 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 >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 11:20:23 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:20:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:14 AM, parminder wrote: > The alternative is clear; There is an even clearer alternative, that of NO oversight by governments. Since we are CS, why would we insist on having gov'ts take on this role when we can do it ourselves (as a "free--floating" ICANN run by an international BoD)? Not only is this more desirable IMHO, but actually something that might be achieved. -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Mon Aug 20 11:34:53 2012 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:34:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Best statement I've heard yet in this ongoing, neverending debate. "There is an even clearer alternative, that of NO oversight by governments." Why are we as civil participants advocating for any government control of the Internet. An international board of representatives of all stakeholders with none having any more power than any other is the preferred option. We are on the way to that already. Why would we want to change this path? Kerry Brown From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: August-20-12 8:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:14 AM, parminder > wrote: The alternative is clear; There is an even clearer alternative, that of NO oversight by governments. Since we are CS, why would we insist on having gov'ts take on this role when we can do it ourselves (as a "free--floating" ICANN run by an international BoD)? Not only is this more desirable IMHO, but actually something that might be achieved. -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 11:40:32 2012 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 10:40:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <50325051.4080800@diplomacy.edu> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <0819D322-2A7F-45DE-9974-2A038A38AB1E@gmail.com> <50325051.4080800@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: Jovan but even on the situation you describe, Ecuador can work with another country to represent their interest with UK so Assange is under new diplomatic umbrella. Ecuador gov hopes that situation you describe does not occur but is ready to take action with other country Representing their interest if happen Carlos Vera Enviado desde mi iPhone El 20/08/2012, a las 9:57, Jovan Kurbalija escribió: > Hi Mawaki, > > Here is an attempt to answer your question on the international legality of the 1987 Act in three ways: Twitter, e-mail and blog post. > > The short answer – Twitter – is that the 1987 UK Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act is in accordance with international law (the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations - VCDR and international customary law). > A bit longer answer for this e-mail should rely on the sequence in establishing diplomatic relations between states with three important moments: > > - First, states have to recognise each other. > - Second, after recognition, states establish diplomatic relations. > - Third, after two states establish diplomatic relations, they can open diplomatic missions. > > Here is how this sequence can apply to the Assange asylum case: > > The UK can sever diplomatic relations unilaterally. Diplomatic relations are concluded by mutual consent (Article 2 of VCDR). If consent is withdrawn, diplomatic relations cease to exist. > After severing diplomatic relations, the UK would require Ecuador to close its embassy in London, and Ecuadorian diplomats to leave the territory of the United Kingdom within a reasonable time. ‘Reasonable time’ is not specified, but it usually takes between 7 days (in the case of the closure of the Libyan mission in London in 1984) and one month. On this point Assange would remain alone in the Ecuadorian embassy. The VDRC does not specify how long the premises of the mission mission should preserve diplomatic status (remain inviolable). > Most of the practice in diplomatic law provides the ‘reasonable time’ needed to protect and move the mission’s archives and property. The 1987 Act codifies this practice and specifies how to deal with this lacuna in the VCDR (time for closing the mission). > Once the premises are no longer inviolable, the UK can enter the premises of the Embassy and arrest Assange if he is still there. > > It is very difficult to envisage a scenario in which the UK police could enter the Ecuadorian embassy without following the above described sequence – starting with the severing of diplomatic relations with Ecuador. Any other action would be a serious blow to the modern diplomatic system exposing – among others – the UK diplomatic missions worldwide, to high risks. > > While the UK has a legal basis for an action against the Ecuadorian embassy, its initiative could turn into a real diplomatic fiasco. It is surprising that UK diplomacy did not take into account the strong attachment of Latin American countries to the right of diplomatic asylum. Even in the case of political conflicts among themselves, Latin American countries have supported diplomatic asylum. It is a well-established regional customary law, codified in a few conventions, including 1928 – Havana, 1933 – Montevideo, 1954 – Caracas. The right of asylum is also granted by Article 27 of the 1948 American Declaration on Human Rights. > > By accelerating the Assange asylum case, the UK – to use a football metaphor – put the ball into penalty and asked President Correa to strike without a goal-keeper. He could not miss such a chance. In a few days, President Correa will gather all LA ministers of foreign affairs as a symbol of unity against the UK action. Given his political situation, it is an unexpected and welcome gift. > > The Assange asylum case, like other similar cases, is likely to be solved through negotiations that will provide the UK with a face-saving exit strategy. Might the Swedish authorities be persuaded to conduct the hearing ‘remotely’? If negotiations fail, Assange is likely to be long-term tenant of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. > > You can also see two texts with more detailed legal elaboration of this e-mail and FAQs about diplomatic asylum. > > I hope it will help in clarifying, at least, legal aspect of this complex case. > > As ever, Jovan > > On 8/19/12 4:26 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> Two things: >> >> 1. Has anyone looked into or analyzed what the ground is in that >> Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 on which the UK >> authorities are basing their argument and decision? and how is that >> act supposed to relate to the Vienna Convention of 1961? Maybe there >> is some defect in the conditions/circumstance that surrounded the >> attribution of those premises or building to the Ecuador? I mean, what >> could possibly be the legally defensible basis from a domestic law >> that came about more than a quarter century after an international >> convention to which the concerned country was signatory - while nobody >> seems to have known that that law meant for the said country an >> amendment or a notable qualification to some significant provisions of >> the convention? >> >> 2. It might be a little too late for anyone to be able to disentangle >> possible political motivations from these legal procedures (in UK and >> Sweden). The party that appears the most obscure to me in terms of >> their true motivation and intent is the Swedish judiciary, >> surprisingly. To my recollection, the charges of sexual misconduct >> were dropped at some point and a while thereafter they were taken up >> again by another (higher?) level of the judiciary in Sweden. I have >> never come across any credible account as to why that was so, and I >> was surprised at the time I couldn't hear much about (at least not any >> substantial investigation of) that question in the US-based cable news >> as I tried to find an explanation. Adding to that the questions raised >> above by Norbert and also emphasized by Ginger... Furthermore, I too >> (as Carlos Vera) remember that it was mentioned in the news reports >> that the substance of the sexual charges - or at least the allegations >> - revolved around Assange not using a protection during those >> encounters, etc. I am not sure whether - indeed, I did not hear that - >> the presumed victims have alleged any physical coercion to that effect >> or whether those news reports were accurate as to the exact or >> official content of the charges, if any. The fact is, it is already >> difficult enough to get to the bottom of allegations of rape without >> third party witness and without evidence of violence, but now you have >> some hot political concoction surrounding it... >> >> Troubling. >> >> Mawaki >> >> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: >>> Ecuadorian gov. Express to Mr Assange he is welcome to Ecuador from the >>> begining of rhis affair. If he only would listen from that time this >>> political advise... >>> >>> Carlos Vera >>> >>> Enviado desde mi iPhone >>> >>> El 18/08/2012, a las 18:26, Ginger Paque escribió: >>> >>> A very important point is stated at >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 >>> This would appear to make the extradition unnecessary. >>> >>> This doesn't mean that the sexual misconduct charges should not be >>> investigated (whatever they actually are: I don't know). >>> >>> 18 November 2010 >>> >>> Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for >>> questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful c > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Mon Aug 20 11:44:45 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 15:44:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483BE02B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Hi, not to speak of the fact that the mechanisms we are building are specific to the problems at hand (domain names, phishing, mail abuse, etc.) and it's a really long shot to think of one oversight board comprehensive enough to deal with them all. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Kerry Brown [kerry at kdbsystems.com] Enviado el: lunes, 20 de agosto de 2012 10:34 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim Asunto: RE: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally Best statement I’ve heard yet in this ongoing, neverending debate. “There is an even clearer alternative, that of NO oversight by governments.” Why are we as civil participants advocating for any government control of the Internet. An international board of representatives of all stakeholders with none having any more power than any other is the preferred option. We are on the way to that already. Why would we want to change this path? Kerry Brown From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: August-20-12 8:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:14 AM, parminder > wrote: The alternative is clear; There is an even clearer alternative, that of NO oversight by governments. Since we are CS, why would we insist on having gov'ts take on this role when we can do it ourselves (as a "free--floating" ICANN run by an international BoD)? Not only is this more desirable IMHO, but actually something that might be achieved. -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jovank at diplomacy.edu Mon Aug 20 12:04:13 2012 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:04:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <0819D322-2A7F-45DE-9974-2A038A38AB1E@gmail.com> <50325051.4080800@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: <50325FFD.70406@diplomacy.edu> Dear Carlos, It is a valid point and it is rare that countries do not have protecting powers. However, if the UK wants to play a legal card it can find strong one in the following two articles of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, specifying a need for the consent of the receiving state: Article 45: b) the sending sTate may entrust the custody of the premises of the mission, together with its property and archives, to a third State /*acceptable to the receiving State. */ Article 46: A sending State may /*with the prior consent of a receiving State*/, and at the request of a third State not represented in teh receiving state, undertake the temporary protection of the interests of the third State nationals. Regards, Jovan On 8/20/12 5:40 PM, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > Jovan but even on the situation you describe, Ecuador can work with > another country to represent their interest with UK so Assange is > under new diplomatic umbrella. > > Ecuador gov hopes that situation you describe does not occur but is > ready to take action with other country Representing their interest if > happen > > Carlos Vera > > Enviado desde mi iPhone > > El 20/08/2012, a las 9:57, Jovan Kurbalija > escribió: > >> Hi Mawaki, >> >> Here is an attempt to answer your question on the international >> legality of the 1987 Act in three ways: Twitter, e-mail and blog post. >> >> The short answer – Twitter – is /that the 1987 UK Diplomatic and >> Consular Premises Act >> is in accordance with international law/ (the 1961 Vienna Convention >> on Diplomatic Relations - VCDR and international customary law). >> A bit longer answer for this e-mail should rely on the sequence in >> establishing diplomatic relations between states with three important >> moments: >> >> - First, states have to recognise each other. >> - Second, after recognition, states establish diplomatic relations. >> >> - Third, after two states establish diplomatic relations, they can >> open diplomatic missions. >> >> Here is how this sequence can apply to the Assange asylum case: >> >> >> The UK can sever diplomatic relations unilaterally. Diplomatic >> relations are concluded by mutual consent (Article 2 of VCDR). If >> consent is withdrawn, diplomatic relations cease to exist. >> After severing diplomatic relations, the UK would require Ecuador to >> close its embassy in London, and Ecuadorian diplomats to leave the >> territory of the United Kingdom within a reasonable time. ‘Reasonable >> time’ is not specified, but it usually takes between 7 days (in the >> case of the closure of the Libyan mission in London in 1984) and one >> month. On this point Assange would remain alone in the Ecuadorian >> embassy. The VDRC does not specify how long the premises of the >> mission mission should preserve diplomatic status (remain inviolable). >> Most of the practice in diplomatic law provides the ‘reasonable time’ >> needed to protect and move the mission’s archives and property. The >> 1987 Act codifies this practice and specifies how to deal with this >> lacuna in the VCDR (time for closing the mission). >> Once the premises are no longer inviolable, the UK can enter the >> premises of the Embassy and arrest Assange if he is still there. >> >> It is very difficult to envisage a scenario in which the UK police >> could enter the Ecuadorian embassy without following the above >> described sequence – starting with the severing of diplomatic >> relations with Ecuador. Any other action would be a serious blow to >> the modern diplomatic system exposing – among others – the UK >> diplomatic missions worldwide, to high risks. >> >> >> While the UK has a legal basis for an action against the Ecuadorian >> embassy, its initiative could turn into a real diplomatic fiasco. It >> is surprising that UK diplomacy did not take into account the strong >> attachment of Latin American countries to the right of diplomatic >> asylum.Even in the case of political conflicts among themselves, >> Latin American countries have supported diplomatic asylum. It is a >> well-established regional customary law, codified in a few >> conventions, including1928 – Havana >> , >> 1933 – Montevideo >> , 1954 – >> Caracas . The >> right of asylum is also granted by Article 27 of the 1948 American >> Declaration on Human Rights >> . >> >> >> By accelerating the Assange asylum case, the UK – to use a football >> metaphor – put the ball into penalty and asked President Correa to >> strike without a goal-keeper. He could not miss such a chance. In a >> few days, President Correa will gather all LA ministers of foreign >> affairs as a symbol of unity against the UK action. Given his >> political situation, it is an unexpected and welcome gift. >> >> The Assange asylum case, like other similar cases, is likely to be >> solved through negotiations that will provide the UK with a >> face-saving exit strategy. Might the Swedish authorities be persuaded >> to conduct the hearing ‘remotely’? If negotiations fail, Assange is >> likely to be long-term tenant of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. >> >> >> You can also see two texts with more detailed legal elaboration of >> this e-mail >> >> and FAQs about diplomatic asylum >> . >> >> >> >> I hope it will help in clarifying, at least, legal aspect of this >> complex case. >> >> As ever, Jovan >> >> >> On 8/19/12 4:26 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> Two things: >>> >>> 1. Has anyone looked into or analyzed what the ground is in that >>> Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 on which the UK >>> authorities are basing their argument and decision? and how is that >>> act supposed to relate to the Vienna Convention of 1961? Maybe there >>> is some defect in the conditions/circumstance that surrounded the >>> attribution of those premises or building to the Ecuador? I mean, what >>> could possibly be the legally defensible basis from a domestic law >>> that came about more than a quarter century after an international >>> convention to which the concerned country was signatory - while nobody >>> seems to have known that that law meant for the said country an >>> amendment or a notable qualification to some significant provisions of >>> the convention? >>> >>> 2. It might be a little too late for anyone to be able to disentangle >>> possible political motivations from these legal procedures (in UK and >>> Sweden). The party that appears the most obscure to me in terms of >>> their true motivation and intent is the Swedish judiciary, >>> surprisingly. To my recollection, the charges of sexual misconduct >>> were dropped at some point and a while thereafter they were taken up >>> again by another (higher?) level of the judiciary in Sweden. I have >>> never come across any credible account as to why that was so, and I >>> was surprised at the time I couldn't hear much about (at least not any >>> substantial investigation of) that question in the US-based cable news >>> as I tried to find an explanation. Adding to that the questions raised >>> above by Norbert and also emphasized by Ginger... Furthermore, I too >>> (as Carlos Vera) remember that it was mentioned in the news reports >>> that the substance of the sexual charges - or at least the allegations >>> - revolved around Assange not using a protection during those >>> encounters, etc. I am not sure whether - indeed, I did not hear that - >>> the presumed victims have alleged any physical coercion to that effect >>> or whether those news reports were accurate as to the exact or >>> official content of the charges, if any. The fact is, it is already >>> difficult enough to get to the bottom of allegations of rape without >>> third party witness and without evidence of violence, but now you have >>> some hot political concoction surrounding it... >>> >>> Troubling. >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: >>>> Ecuadorian gov. Express to Mr Assange he is welcome to Ecuador from the >>>> begining of rhis affair. If he only would listen from that time this >>>> political advise... >>>> >>>> Carlos Vera >>>> >>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone >>>> >>>> El 18/08/2012, a las 18:26, Ginger Paque escribió: >>>> >>>> A very important point is stated at >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 >>>> This would appear to make the extradition unnecessary. >>>> >>>> This doesn't mean that the sexual misconduct charges should not be >>>> investigated (whatever they actually are: I don't know). >>>> >>>> 18 November 2010 >>>> >>>> Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for >>>> questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful c >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- *Jovan Kurbalija, PhD* Director, DiploFoundation Rue de Lausanne 56 *| *1202 Geneva*|***Switzerland *Tel.*+41 (0) 22 7410435 *| **Mobile.*+41 (0) 797884226 *Email: *jovank at diplomacy.edu*| **Twitter:*@jovankurbalija *The latest from Diplo: *Learn about Internet governance and ICT policy: enrol for the 2012 Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme (more info ). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 12:16:40 2012 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 11:16:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <50325FFD.70406@diplomacy.edu> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <0819D322-2A7F-45DE-9974-2A038A38AB1E@gmail.com> <50325051.4080800@diplomacy.edu> <50325FFD.70406@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: Dear Jovan you are right on this. That's what we call negotiation on international relations where multiple scenarios are possible Carlos Enviado desde mi iPhone El 20/08/2012, a las 11:04, Jovan Kurbalija escribió: > Dear Carlos, > > It is a valid point and it is rare that countries do not have protecting powers. However, if the UK wants to play a legal card it can find strong one in the following two articles of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, specifying a need for the consent of the receiving state: > > Article 45: b) the sending sTate may entrust the custody of the premises of the mission, together with its property and archives, to a third State acceptable to the receiving State. > > Article 46: A sending State may with the prior consent of a receiving State, and at the request of a third State not represented in teh receiving state, undertake the temporary protection of the interests of the third State nationals. > > Regards, Jovan > > > On 8/20/12 5:40 PM, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: >> Jovan but even on the situation you describe, Ecuador can work with another country to represent their interest with UK so Assange is under new diplomatic umbrella. >> >> Ecuador gov hopes that situation you describe does not occur but is ready to take action with other country Representing their interest if happen >> >> Carlos Vera >> >> Enviado desde mi iPhone >> >> El 20/08/2012, a las 9:57, Jovan Kurbalija escribió: >> >>> Hi Mawaki, >>> >>> Here is an attempt to answer your question on the international legality of the 1987 Act in three ways: Twitter, e-mail and blog post. >>> >>> The short answer – Twitter – is that the 1987 UK Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act is in accordance with international law (the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations - VCDR and international customary law). >>> A bit longer answer for this e-mail should rely on the sequence in establishing diplomatic relations between states with three important moments: >>> >>> - First, states have to recognise each other. >>> - Second, after recognition, states establish diplomatic relations. >>> - Third, after two states establish diplomatic relations, they can open diplomatic missions. >>> >>> Here is how this sequence can apply to the Assange asylum case: >>> >>> The UK can sever diplomatic relations unilaterally. Diplomatic relations are concluded by mutual consent (Article 2 of VCDR). If consent is withdrawn, diplomatic relations cease to exist. >>> After severing diplomatic relations, the UK would require Ecuador to close its embassy in London, and Ecuadorian diplomats to leave the territory of the United Kingdom within a reasonable time. ‘Reasonable time’ is not specified, but it usually takes between 7 days (in the case of the closure of the Libyan mission in London in 1984) and one month. On this point Assange would remain alone in the Ecuadorian embassy. The VDRC does not specify how long the premises of the mission mission should preserve diplomatic status (remain inviolable). >>> Most of the practice in diplomatic law provides the ‘reasonable time’ needed to protect and move the mission’s archives and property. The 1987 Act codifies this practice and specifies how to deal with this lacuna in the VCDR (time for closing the mission). >>> Once the premises are no longer inviolable, the UK can enter the premises of the Embassy and arrest Assange if he is still there. >>> >>> It is very difficult to envisage a scenario in which the UK police could enter the Ecuadorian embassy without following the above described sequence – starting with the severing of diplomatic relations with Ecuador. Any other action would be a serious blow to the modern diplomatic system exposing – among others – the UK diplomatic missions worldwide, to high risks. >>> >>> While the UK has a legal basis for an action against the Ecuadorian embassy, its initiative could turn into a real diplomatic fiasco. It is surprising that UK diplomacy did not take into account the strong attachment of Latin American countries to the right of diplomatic asylum. Even in the case of political conflicts among themselves, Latin American countries have supported diplomatic asylum. It is a well-established regional customary law, codified in a few conventions, including 1928 – Havana, 1933 – Montevideo, 1954 – Caracas. The right of asylum is also granted by Article 27 of the 1948 American Declaration on Human Rights. >>> >>> By accelerating the Assange asylum case, the UK – to use a football metaphor – put the ball into penalty and asked President Correa to strike without a goal-keeper. He could not miss such a chance. In a few days, President Correa will gather all LA ministers of foreign affairs as a symbol of unity against the UK action. Given his political situation, it is an unexpected and welcome gift. >>> >>> The Assange asylum case, like other similar cases, is likely to be solved through negotiations that will provide the UK with a face-saving exit strategy. Might the Swedish authorities be persuaded to conduct the hearing ‘remotely’? If negotiations fail, Assange is likely to be long-term tenant of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. >>> >>> You can also see two texts with more detailed legal elaboration of this e-mail and FAQs about diplomatic asylum. >>> >>> I hope it will help in clarifying, at least, legal aspect of this complex case. >>> >>> As ever, Jovan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 12:25:35 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:25:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <50325051.4080800@diplomacy.edu> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <502DF5AB.3070607@gmail.com> <0819D322-2A7F-45DE-9974-2A038A38AB1E@gmail.com> <50325051.4080800@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: Hi Jovan, Thanks so much for this very informative reply. That was really useful. I just have to sit back now and watch this interesting diplomatic poker game go on :) Best, Mawaki On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Hi Mawaki, > > > > Here is an attempt to answer your question on the international legality of > the 1987 Act in three ways: Twitter, e-mail and blog post. > > > > The short answer – Twitter – is that the 1987 UK Diplomatic and Consular > Premises Act is in accordance with international law (the 1961 Vienna > Convention on Diplomatic Relations - VCDR and international customary law). > A bit longer answer for this e-mail should rely on the sequence in > establishing diplomatic relations between states with three important > moments: > > > > - First, states have to recognise each other. > - Second, after recognition, states establish diplomatic relations. > > - Third, after two states establish diplomatic relations, they can open > diplomatic missions. > > > > Here is how this sequence can apply to the Assange asylum case: > > > The UK can sever diplomatic relations unilaterally. Diplomatic relations are > concluded by mutual consent (Article 2 of VCDR). If consent is withdrawn, > diplomatic relations cease to exist. > After severing diplomatic relations, the UK would require Ecuador to close > its embassy in London, and Ecuadorian diplomats to leave the territory of > the United Kingdom within a reasonable time. ‘Reasonable time’ is not > specified, but it usually takes between 7 days (in the case of the closure > of the Libyan mission in London in 1984) and one month. On this point > Assange would remain alone in the Ecuadorian embassy. The VDRC does not > specify how long the premises of the mission mission should preserve > diplomatic status (remain inviolable). > Most of the practice in diplomatic law provides the ‘reasonable time’ needed > to protect and move the mission’s archives and property. The 1987 Act > codifies this practice and specifies how to deal with this lacuna in the > VCDR (time for closing the mission). > Once the premises are no longer inviolable, the UK can enter the premises of > the Embassy and arrest Assange if he is still there. > > > > It is very difficult to envisage a scenario in which the UK police could > enter the Ecuadorian embassy without following the above described sequence > – starting with the severing of diplomatic relations with Ecuador. Any other > action would be a serious blow to the modern diplomatic system exposing – > among others – the UK diplomatic missions worldwide, to high risks. > > > While the UK has a legal basis for an action against the Ecuadorian embassy, > its initiative could turn into a real diplomatic fiasco. It is surprising > that UK diplomacy did not take into account the strong attachment of Latin > American countries to the right of diplomatic asylum. Even in the case of > political conflicts among themselves, Latin American countries have > supported diplomatic asylum. It is a well-established regional customary > law, codified in a few conventions, including 1928 – Havana, 1933 – > Montevideo, 1954 – Caracas. The right of asylum is also granted by Article > 27 of the 1948 American Declaration on Human Rights. > > > By accelerating the Assange asylum case, the UK – to use a football metaphor > – put the ball into penalty and asked President Correa to strike without a > goal-keeper. He could not miss such a chance. In a few days, President > Correa will gather all LA ministers of foreign affairs as a symbol of unity > against the UK action. Given his political situation, it is an unexpected > and welcome gift. > > > > The Assange asylum case, like other similar cases, is likely to be solved > through negotiations that will provide the UK with a face-saving exit > strategy. Might the Swedish authorities be persuaded to conduct the hearing > ‘remotely’? If negotiations fail, Assange is likely to be long-term tenant > of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. > > > You can also see two texts with more detailed legal elaboration of this > e-mail and FAQs about diplomatic asylum. > > > I hope it will help in clarifying, at least, legal aspect of this complex > case. > > As ever, Jovan > > > On 8/19/12 4:26 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Two things: > > 1. Has anyone looked into or analyzed what the ground is in that > Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 on which the UK > authorities are basing their argument and decision? and how is that > act supposed to relate to the Vienna Convention of 1961? Maybe there > is some defect in the conditions/circumstance that surrounded the > attribution of those premises or building to the Ecuador? I mean, what > could possibly be the legally defensible basis from a domestic law > that came about more than a quarter century after an international > convention to which the concerned country was signatory - while nobody > seems to have known that that law meant for the said country an > amendment or a notable qualification to some significant provisions of > the convention? > > 2. It might be a little too late for anyone to be able to disentangle > possible political motivations from these legal procedures (in UK and > Sweden). The party that appears the most obscure to me in terms of > their true motivation and intent is the Swedish judiciary, > surprisingly. To my recollection, the charges of sexual misconduct > were dropped at some point and a while thereafter they were taken up > again by another (higher?) level of the judiciary in Sweden. I have > never come across any credible account as to why that was so, and I > was surprised at the time I couldn't hear much about (at least not any > substantial investigation of) that question in the US-based cable news > as I tried to find an explanation. Adding to that the questions raised > above by Norbert and also emphasized by Ginger... Furthermore, I too > (as Carlos Vera) remember that it was mentioned in the news reports > that the substance of the sexual charges - or at least the allegations > - revolved around Assange not using a protection during those > encounters, etc. I am not sure whether - indeed, I did not hear that - > the presumed victims have alleged any physical coercion to that effect > or whether those news reports were accurate as to the exact or > official content of the charges, if any. The fact is, it is already > difficult enough to get to the bottom of allegations of rape without > third party witness and without evidence of violence, but now you have > some hot political concoction surrounding it... > > Troubling. > > Mawaki > > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Carlos Vera Quintana > wrote: > > Ecuadorian gov. Express to Mr Assange he is welcome to Ecuador from the > begining of rhis affair. If he only would listen from that time this > political advise... > > Carlos Vera > > Enviado desde mi iPhone > > El 18/08/2012, a las 18:26, Ginger Paque escribió: > > A very important point is stated at > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341 > This would appear to make the extradition unnecessary. > > This doesn't mean that the sexual misconduct charges should not be > investigated (whatever they actually are: I don't know). > > 18 November 2010 > > Stockholm District Court approves a request to detain Mr Assange for > questioning on suspicion of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. > Sweden's Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny says he has not been available > for questioning. > > Mr Assange's British lawyer Mark Stephens says his client offered to be > interviewed at the Swedish embassy in London or Scotland Yard or via video > link. He accuses Ms Ny of "abusing her powers" in insisting that Mr Assange > return to Sweden. > > > > > > On 18 August 2012 18:47, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > meant to say *from various extradition treaties > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > A fundamental principle in criminal law is that only if Sweden had > already laid charges and served this on him physically, then they can begin > to make demands. As for extradition requests of this nature or obligations > stemming from various extraditions can only kick in after the charge has > been served on the person and the usual summons to attend trial. > > Question is were charges laid against Assange? > > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Carlos Vera Quintana > wrote: > > facing his responsibilities re: the sexual misconduct charges > > > Do you know that: the misconduct is about not inform both girls he was > no using protection in the sexual relation? It's not about other actions > from Assange > > I wonder how this girls does not were aware of this by themself > > This is a very particular case in Sweden legislation I guess... > > Carlos Vera > Enviado desde mi iPhone > > El 18/08/2012, a las 17:24, Ginger Paque escribió: > > Aldo, > I think it is very important that facing his responsibilities re: the > sexual misconduct charges, should not put Assange in danger of real or > imagined charges in the WikiLeaks matter. > > But three, not two worst-case scenarios are possible: > 1. Assange is turned over to a third country to face unrelated charges, > when he is sent to Sweden to face charges of sexual misconduct. > 2. Assange does not get a fair trial on the sexual misconduct charges, > because of prejudice about the WikiLeaks case. > **3. Assange does not face charges of sexual misconduct, because he is > using the WikiLeaks situation as a shield. Victimless crimes might easily be > settled by plea bargaining, or through justice at a discount. I don't think > rape should be included in this possibility. Assange should have a chance to > face his accusers, and defend himself, or pay the price, if he is guilty. > > As you (Aldo) point out, there are other options than sending Assange to > Sweden or not sending him to Sweden. (As Norbert points out realistically in > another post). Possible strategies: > --Questioning in the UK. > --Video questioning. > --Remote video questioning, real-time, in a courtroom. > I am sure legal experts can come up with other more creative, and > workable options to allow the sexual misconduct charges to be fully and > clearly aired, without endangering Assange's political rights. > > I admire Assange. I am glad he has the courage to carry out his > WikiLeaks work. I don't think he should be persecuted, or face politically > motivated harassment or charge. > I don't think being a legitimate social hero allows him to avoid facing > charges of rape if the are legitimate. > > I'm not sure this has anything to do with IG. But I do think it is > important. > > Ginger > > > > > > > > On 18 August 2012 14:00, Aldo Matteucci > wrote: > > Ginger, > > the question is not whether the allegations are true - factual issues > we can't decide. > The question is whether Sweden, acting as proxy, will take that excuse > to jail him for good and throw away the key. > After all, that's what the US want. > > My feeling is that there is some truth in the criminal matter > but that Assange would not get a "fair" trial, in the sense that the > usual discretionary possibilities will be denied to him. > One fears a self-righteous Swede - see Bergman movies. > > Don't forget: over 90% of the cases are plea-bargained in the US. It is > normal to get "justice at a discount". Why not here? > > Aldo > > > > > > > On 18 August 2012 19:22, Ginger Paque wrote: > > The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and > legal details. > > It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, > close Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian > diplomats, does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political > issues more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be > investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from > political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the rape > charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can support > Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still want to see > him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that is a > well-founded allegation. > > There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible > solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint) going on > at: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences > > I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the > sexual misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to / > or be mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying? > > Cheers, Ginger > > > > > > > On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this. > > Mawaki > > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally > > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. > He was > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 > and Rector > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010. > > > http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/ > > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation > from > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after > immense > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean > Embassy and > seize Julian Assange. > > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna > Convention > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which > encodes > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most > subscribed single international treaty in the world. > > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic > premises > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no > modification or > qualification elsewhere in the treaty. > > Article 22 > > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of > the > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the > head of > the mission. > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all > appropriate steps > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or > damage and > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or > impairment of its > dignity. > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property > thereon > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from > search, > requisition, attachment or execution. > > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to > arrest the > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the > Cold War, > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s > embassies. > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British > Embassy to > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law > will result > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment > worldwide. > > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a > strong > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom > of the > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era > of the > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of > international law. > > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British > legislation. > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its > obligations in > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by > the > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would > leave > British diplomats with no protection worldwide. > > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against > the > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing > the move > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been > taken in > Number 10. > > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal > Democrats. > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” > impact now in > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government > salaries and > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any > belief to > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that > party for > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had > principles. > > *** > > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) > > The Geopolitics of Asylum > > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012 > > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian > Assange from > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted > political > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international > human rights > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and > made it > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, > president of the > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation > today. > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a > week in > Ecuador for discussions of the case. > > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through > negotiations or by > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In > my memory, > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize > someone who has > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic > in > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for > political > reasons. > > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago, > Ecuadorian > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the > British > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the > United > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. > Such > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister, > Ricardo > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit > threat” to > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British > colony,” Patiño > added. > > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his > government > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for > what may be > a prolonged showdown. > > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict > Assange and > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator > Diane > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have > called for > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong > objections from > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may > prefer to > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes > with the > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in > Sweden. > > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the > conflict becomes > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand > off against > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the > wave of new > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the > traditional US > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa > joined > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in > June 2009, > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His > government > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon > rainforest, in a > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the > country.” > He survived a coup attempt in 2010. > > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision > without > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive > reaction by the > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to > solidify Latin > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in > relations > with the United States. > > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked > the Obama > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to > participate in > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba. > Shortly > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy > chief, Dan > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama > administration. > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United > States and > the region. > > *** > > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm > > > Victoria Nuland > > Spokesperson > > Daily Press Briefing > > Washington, DC > > August 16, 2012 > > TRANSCRIPT: > > 12:44 p.m. EDT > > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s > on your > minds. > > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to > grant > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange? > > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the > Swedes. > I don't have anything particular to add. > > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of > a > completely neutral, independent observer of it? > > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, > it is an > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to > interject > ourselves. > > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all? > > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or > where he > may end up going, no. > > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing > the Brits > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him. > > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any > truth to > that at all. > > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the > Brits do not > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States > recognizes > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS > treaty > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only, > presumably, > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S. > recognize > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law? > > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal > answer to > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers. > > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, > diplomatic > asylum. > > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making > or the > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were > leaning on > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future > plans, > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our > legal > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and > get back to > you. > > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines > of the -- > of the OAS and those signatories. > > And then when you said that you don't have any information to > suggest that > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. > Assange removed > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or > just that > you're not aware of it? > > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves > in this. > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you. > > [...] > > > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason > that the > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that > -- they > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution -- > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the > United States > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a > credible > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government > persecution in > the United States? > > MS. NULAND: No. > > Q: No? > > MS. NULAND: No. > > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case, > the > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to > show up in > the United States they might be subject to government persecution, > you don't > view that as -- > > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran > thought > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention > to > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no. > > Q: OK. > > MS. NULAND: OK? > > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would > face > prosecution? > > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was > not headed > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to > get into > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been > in his > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission. > > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on > persecuting him, I > reject that completely. > > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case > does > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the > legal > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the > intention > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face > prosecution in the United States? > > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action > that we were > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think > that > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, > right? > Obviously, we have -- > > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden. > > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm > going to > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK? > > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case > against him. > > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much > involved > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics > here on what > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to > wade into > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right? > > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it > doesn't > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies > and that > kind of thing. > > MS. NULAND: Right. > > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved > yourselves > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was > going to > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other > country, > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct? > > MS. NULAND: As I said -- > > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in > Beijing > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have > objected to > that, correct? > > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies > have cited > British law with regard to the statements they've made about > potential > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law, > international -- as compared to international law. > > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of > whether they > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under > British > law, I'm going to send you to them. > > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean, > there is > international law here too, and presumably the United State would > oppose or > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government > entering or > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the > world, > no? > > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are > standing on > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to > what the > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the > moment is. > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know > where we are > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK? > > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back > in 1979, > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right? > > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest > of this > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK? > > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by > the > Justice Department. Does that include -- > > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department > is > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak > to what > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice. > > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him? > > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really > don't have > the details. OK? Thanks, guys. > > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.) > > DPB #146 > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Aldo Matteucci > 65, Pourtalèsstr. > CH 3074 MURI b. Bern > Switzerland > aldo.matteucci at gmail.com > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 12:29:09 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:29:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> Well, precisely this announcement was what helped mobilize most South American countries in solidarity to Ecuador and endorsing its decision. BTW, what sort of terror or paranoia moved the UK Parliament to approve such Act in 1987? Those were Margareth Thatcher times which seem to be returning... frt rgds --c.a. On 08/20/2012 10:43 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <50323028.7010006 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:40:08 on Mon, 20 Aug > 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >> Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to >> storm the Embassy. > > Except they didn't announce any intentions, just recounted some > circumstances (which don't apply to this case) where they might be able > to. As the reaction is, however, predictable, we must assume that > reaction was what they intended - although what small part this step > plays in the overall scheme of things we probably won't be able to tell > for some time. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 12:32:50 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:32:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Root etc. References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> <"CACAaNxgz5P8Ks0cL Zir5xZ_q_EopYknnw--w4tn1dBRHstEeVw"@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD13E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi I was silent in this debate about root servers and USG role in authorization of the publication of TLD zone files in the root because everything has been already said since years and I did not see any big news since this was discussed at length and in detail by the WGIG. My article in Bill Drakes WGIG book (2005) has analyzed all dimensions and I see little reason to add something more in the light of the developments in the last seven years. The only two new things which has been emerged are a. we have now more than 150 anycast root server which makes the whole system more flexible, less dependent from the 13 members of the legacy root and improves the situation in particular in developing countries a lot (faster responses etc.) . b. we have seen the "moment of truth" with regard to the role of the USG in the authorization of the publication of a TLD Zone file which went through the ICANN process. The USG - pushed by the US Congress - was more or less against .xxx. Theoretically they could have stopped the publication of the zone file in the root (and EU Commissioner Kroes wanted to encourage the USG to do so). The DOC/NTIA did not and after the San Francisco meeting Strickling explained to the US Congress (and to the rest of the world) that the USG was, is and has to be the "neutral stewart" of this technical function and can not use this role to implement national policies. I understand, trust is good, a treaty is better. But in this case we have all reasons to trust and I have my doubt whether a treaty would be better. The idea of an "internationalization" of the authorization function was discussed, as I said above, by the WGIG and in this discussion in became clear that a transfer of this technical function to an intergovernmental body would unavoidably provoke an unwanted politization of this function with a tremondous potential for collatoral damages. Such a body would evolve into something like a UN Internet Security Council. This body would become soon a theater of political, economic, ideological, religious conflicts where different governments will fight until the bitter end to block the authorization of specific TLD zone files, even of ccTLDs when a ccTLD (of a hated enemy) has to modify their entry into the root for a new name server or something like that, Imagine if each of the new gTLDs, which will come to the root, would have to go - after adoption by ICANN - through a discussion of such an intergovernmental body? How you would organize voting in such a body? Which countries would get a veto right? How to select members? Will it have permanent members or will membership rotate? You open a box of pandora which would backfire to the three billion internet users of the world who would be the big loosers, including the developing countries which would be blocked to get benefits from a future internet development. I understand that governmental policy needs symbols and the root and the role of the USG is a good case to make noise because it is full of symbolism. But it should be one of the responsibilities of the members of this list to help governments to understand the issue better. In one of the first meetings WGIG had with Kofi Annan he said: You can not wish away history. The system , as it stands now, is the result of such a historic process and it does not harm and it is not broken. If you start to change the system the risk is high that you do harm. For people who have an interest in history I recommend to have a look into the history of the time zones. http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/info/time-zones-history.htm. When in the middle of the 19th century the need for a standard time was growing, the British governments proposed to use the Zero Meridian in Greenwich as a starting point. The man who invented the zero meridian decided that zero is where his table stands. If you go to Greenwich you can stand there with the right leg in the Eastern and with the left leg in the Western hemisphere. But this simple proposal became the subject of an incredible political struggle. It was rejected by the French govenrment as "British imperialism", that the UK wants to highjack the time zones etc. The waned to have the zero meridian in Paris. It needed 20 years of diplomatic negotiations and a intergovernmental conference in 1884 (in Washington, D.C., initiated by the US president) to reach a compromise. The compromise was: The UK got the Greenwich time (now UTC), and France got the "control" over the time which was delegated to the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) headquatered in Paris. The BIPM was established in 1875 based a the socalled intergovernmental "Meter Convention" and it was responsible to oversee the "metric system". With other words, if our time has to be fixed now for another milisecond this is done in Paris (under French jursidiction), but when we start counting our time zones we start in Greenwich. Today nobody says "Greenwich-Time" anymore, it is just UTC. The British empire is gone, but the system works. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von McTim Gesendet: Mo 20.08.2012 17:20 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Betreff: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:14 AM, parminder wrote: The alternative is clear; There is an even clearer alternative, that of NO oversight by governments. Since we are CS, why would we insist on having gov'ts take on this role when we can do it ourselves (as a "free--floating" ICANN run by an international BoD)? Not only is this more desirable IMHO, but actually something that might be achieved. -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 12:34:27 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:34:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: That was mentioned in the BBC reporting yesterday - in connection with someone who allegedly shot a policewoman in London and then ducked into the Libyan embassy. Deirdre On 20 August 2012 12:29, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Well, precisely this announcement was what helped mobilize most South > American countries in solidarity to Ecuador and endorsing its decision. > > BTW, what sort of terror or paranoia moved the UK Parliament to approve > such Act in 1987? Those were Margareth Thatcher times which seem to be > returning... > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 08/20/2012 10:43 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message <50323028.7010006 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:40:08 on Mon, 20 Aug > > 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes > >> Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to > >> storm the Embassy. > > > > Except they didn't announce any intentions, just recounted some > > circumstances (which don't apply to this case) where they might be able > > to. As the reaction is, however, predictable, we must assume that > > reaction was what they intended - although what small part this step > > plays in the overall scheme of things we probably won't be able to tell > > for some time. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 12:36:43 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 01:36:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Yvonne Fletcher ? Adam On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > That was mentioned in the BBC reporting yesterday - in connection with > someone who allegedly shot a policewoman in London and then ducked into the > Libyan embassy. > Deirdre > > On 20 August 2012 12:29, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> Well, precisely this announcement was what helped mobilize most South >> American countries in solidarity to Ecuador and endorsing its decision. >> >> BTW, what sort of terror or paranoia moved the UK Parliament to approve >> such Act in 1987? Those were Margareth Thatcher times which seem to be >> returning... >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/20/2012 10:43 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> > In message <50323028.7010006 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:40:08 on Mon, 20 Aug >> > 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >> >> Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to >> >> storm the Embassy. >> > >> > Except they didn't announce any intentions, just recounted some >> > circumstances (which don't apply to this case) where they might be able >> > to. As the reaction is, however, predictable, we must assume that >> > reaction was what they intended - although what small part this step >> > plays in the overall scheme of things we probably won't be able to tell >> > for some time. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Aug 20 12:54:59 2012 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:54:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] WWW III.0 Message-ID: Dar folks, I am surprised and somewhat dismayed that no one in "Civil Society" and @LARGEs seems interested and that no one is discussing the "W.W.W. 3.0" episode that is now developing. I name WWW 3.0 as the Whole World War at the "3.0" level that concerns us all. This episode is the attempt of the commercial funding (and not the ITU) to take over ultimate control of international standardization's future throughout and through the Internet standardization process (IAB/IETF/ISOC), reversing its documented position in RFC 3869 and 3935 and hijacking innovation trends (the "3.0" coming layers). 1. Why do I talk of "commercial funding"? Because the IAB warned us of the danger that we are facing and explained how to avoid it in RFC 3869 (Aug. 2004) and neither Governments, nor Civil Society or International Organizations, did anything about it. Only a small kernel of us tried to do something. In Aug. 2004, the IAB stated: "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet." This resulted from "the reduced U.S. Government funding and profit-focused, low-risk, short-term industry funding has been a decline in higher-risk but more innovative research activities. Industry has also been less interested in research to evolve the overall Internet architecture, because such work does not translate into a competitive advantage for the firm funding such work." Therefore, IAB believed "that it would be helpful for governments and other non-commercial sponsors to increase their funding of both basic research and applied research relating to the Internet, and to sustain these funding levels going forward." * In Tunis the world's Governments left the US Government to take care of the Legacy Internet and did not get themselves involved in the emergence of any architectural research. * The IETF did not participate in the WSIS nor get involved in the IGF. * Civil society non-commercial sponsors or helpers did not join our successful efforts (so far) at the IETF: * To protect languages and cultures from engineering and business control. * Introduce a civil society technical place at the IETF (the Internet Users Contributing Group) * To obtain the validation of an Intelligent Use (IUse) Interface (IUI) concepts. * We feel alone in creating the Intelligent Use Task Force (IUTF) to explore, document, validate, and deploy the people centric capacity demanded by the WSIS. 2. Why do I use "3.0"? This is because in a nutshell if "2.0" has now an accepted meaning, the 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 "notions" (i.e. all of what can relate to a topic) can be perceived as: * "1.0" meaning: server centric monologue, and related * "2.0" meaning: network centric dialogue, and related * and "3.0" meaning: people centric polylogue, and related. So, * "Master/Slave" initial Web connections are "1.0". * Wikis, AJAX, WebSocket, etc. are "2.0". * The Internet+, the IUI (intelligent use interface), Midori/Hurd (the Microsoft's and Stallman's expected replacements for Windows and Linux), etc. are "3.0." Another "technical way" to understand this might be, in strict, simple, and robust concordance with RFC 1958, which defines the internet architecture, to say that: * 1.0 builds atop "plug to plug" hardware, * 2.0 builds atop "end to end" software, * and 3.0 atop "fringe to fringe" middleware. Two key points remain, however: what about "0.0" and "4.0" and exactly what is "3.0"? * "0.0" is everything that we do in order to communicate and understand information without digital tools in mind and that is generically called semiotics. "4.0" is what our brains do through digital semiotics that we can call brainware. * "3.0" is what RFC 1958 states that we must put at the fringe: network intelligent services. It is only some plugged layers on the user side (PLUS), extending the OSI communication model, along with its administration and governance. The "OSEX" model extended layers concern: * Security (and presentation in the Internet case). * Network services. * Interoperations between network applications and services In the users' life, it should appear as personal distributed middleware empowering browsers (in computers, mobiles, tablets, appliances, TVs, houses, cars, etc.) with intelligent open services that are free to choose their reference providers. One may understand a person's IUI as an "intelligent socket" system acting as private intelligent gateway network interfacing the OS of his/her machines and appliances in such a way that it makes that person the center of his/her freely selected worldwide digital ecosystem. 3. Why do I use "Whole"? This is because we do not discuss the Web or even the sole Internet any more. We discuss the whole digital ecosystem (WDE), i.e. all the physical or logical parallel interconnections to anything digital by our Intelligent Use Interface (IUI). So, what is at stake is the whole digital ecosystem industrial pollution (and corruption) and biased innovation. How? Through market driven commercially sponsored international standards, as was just explained by the IAB. To understand why: * a norm is the description of normality. Until now, norms were local (for a country) or professional (for a trade, skill, or task). * Norms, therefore, opposed globalization. This is why the trend that is pushed by the commercial funding is to unify normality, i.e. to shape the world as a unique market. Hundreds of wars and revolutions have failed to attain that target throughout history. Those who Richard Buckminster Fuller calls the "Grand Pirates" (in his "Operating Manual For Spaceship Earth") found a simpler way after WWI and WW II where they had lost control to engineers (from submarines and planes to the atom and computers): to recover control by using the common desire for international peace, human rights, democracy, etc. and the resulting needs for a better economy through a world market and rules. These rules in technologies are "standards". They say how to technically best build atop of norms. Therefore, they call for common uniform norms, and at the same time the international standards progressively shape a new "world normality" as, and for, a "common world market". This normality must be stable to protect market shares: as we know they call this stability the "status quo". Disruptive and fundamental innovations become a risk. TMs and incremental innovation are tuned to keep consumers buying. However, incremental innovation must be based upon international standards protecting from a competitor's breakthrough and have to be coherently ubiquitous to keep being accepted by the permanently reshaped customers (us). Industrial evolution is only permitted after amortization and only if it increases benefits. However, this is not the lead-users' (FLOSS, start-ups, user R&D, press) pace. What the Web 2.0 already did to the Internet 1.0 has to be digested and reshaped in a commercially favorable landscape of WebApps: this is the task of the International Standardization and marketing consensuses. The IDNA2008 consensus and its progressive propagation throughout the protocol space (WG/Precis) shows the coming of the IUI 3.0 and of the Internet+ (tested by Google+) – whatever you want to call that Internet built-in trend – as ineluctable. The International Standards bodies are to confuse and delay its concepts enough for it not to become: * An identified, independent, and acknowledged middleware standardization core area (IUTF) * A people centric enhanced cooperation capacity for the internet, social nets, telephone, radio, TV, digital music, e-books, etc. polycratic stewardship. Multistakeholderism must stay among commercial leaders, not to extend to everyone, especially if Civil Society and ethitechnics (ethical considerations in architectural design) are involved. 4. Why do I say "World"? This is because this does not only concern the sole US market, or the Western developed countries market, or even the emergent countries (India, China, Russia, etc.), but rather everywhere. This results from the WWWeb e-marketing field of competition. All is market driven and the market is global. No one must be able to endanger the commercial leaders' famous names and commercial rights anywhere in the world. The strategy for years has been called "internationalization": offensive business protection through the spread of the commercial leaders' industrial technology supported by: * favorable commercial conditions * correlative identical local standardization * permitted mass production increases, now on a multinational basis. A well known example is the Unicode consortium's (IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo!, Oracle...) successful technical "globalization": * internationalization of the media (International English capacity to quote any string in any script, which does not fully support the languages that use the scripts), being the maintainer of the ISO 10646 standard. * localization (local translation) of the English semantic, which does not support the various cultural semantics * language tagging for technical, operational, commercial non-neutral filtering purposes. This globalization is not a multilingualization that would set out to technically treat and culturally respect every language and its orthotypography the same as English is treated. 4. Why do I say "War"? Because of: 1. the TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) rules The WTO rules do not permit a country to protect its people against a technology (or a TLD, as we see with Saudi Arabia and GAC protests) that is an international standard. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_e.htm. This is why the ultimate weapon to fight States' Barriers to Trade is to erode the credibility of their legitimate policy objectives, such as: the requirements for quality, the respect of cultures and minorities the protection of human health and safety, or the environment. The war is then on the Governments and the slogan for the "market forces" is to protect ... Human Rights (through free speech in using international market standards, for example) against people's Governments. One of the vectors is GNI (http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/) where Microsoft, Google etc. decide on the people's best interest and defend their rights. This is far from democratically transparent technical standardization and network neutrality. Certainly civil and human rights are to be defended, but is it up to technical standardization bodies to defend them? In confusing the issues doesn't that harm the needed international standard technical credibility and lead to political restrictions affecting the free flow of information? 2. The competition on us, the users We (technical and civil society people) represent a real danger for industry leaders in being: Uncontrollable international competition, potentially rogue, possible divergent definition of what is a "better" Internet (in RFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement). Smart enough to introduce, propose, defend, and deploy more innovative and people centric architectural solutions (i.e. for a "3.0" information society that is "people centered, à caractère humain, centrada en la persona"). In the same way as the financial crisis is resulting from financially dominant people/entities (speculators and corporate interests), the international standardization mechanics is to protect market driven standardizing from lead users disrupting innovation. 5. The strategic impact. This battle is now conducted at the ITU, IAB/IETF, IEEE, ISO, Governments level. This results in particular from the Dubai December meeting (http://world2012.itu.int/) that is to revise the International Telecommunications Rules (http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx). In this debate, commercial leaders plan to oppose and negotiate with States alone, since Civil Society is absent and users are represented by their Governments. In the Internet case, the IAB and IETF Chairs (the IAB Chair is a Microsoft employee) have prepared a draft document putting the (now ISOC affiliate) IETF in the commercial leaders' orbit. Being the facilitator of the Civil Society IETF iucg at ietf.org mailing list and one of the bootstrappers of the "3.0" IUTF (Intelligent Use Task Force), I posed the question of us, the IUsers, of the non-consulted IUCG channel and of our emergent IUTF standardization pole and called for a WG/RFC3869bis (a WG dedicated to rewrite RFC 3869), * To consensually adapt the description of the IAB/IETF position regarding the standardization referents (market or people, commerce or sustainable development), as we do not think that market and commercial interests can develop without the support of the end-users. * To document what the IETF means in its mission statement of "influencing those who design, use, and manage the Internet for it to work *better*" and to protect us against the RFC3869 IAB identified threats of sole merchant sponsoring bias of the Internet R&D. Our remarks have been acknowledged as part of the working file of the IAB (Track #202). We also maintain an information portal on the matter and our Civil Society Technical Rights in this area at http://iutf.org/wiki/Modern_Global_Standards_Paradigm. The best place for debating and building up a Civil Society technical position that can really help as part of the IETF standardization process, at least to show that we actually feel concerned by the "constitution of the Internet" (the source code as documented by Dr. Lessig) is the non-WG (i.e. permanent) iucg at ietf.org mailing list and helping us with the http://iucg.org/wiki site. 6. A civil society ethitechnical doctrine More generally, there is a need for Civil Society to have a technical doctrine or at least mutually informed presence. The reason why is that technology choices are not ethically neutral. * As documented by the IAB RFC 3869, there are no technically rooted influences. They are commercial in the current episode, but they respond to (magnified) real political risks of influences. Civil Society has to make sure that the people's best interest is the reference. * Network neutrality is something difficult to enforce. The easiest way to get it is to get the technology designed in such a way that it is difficult or costly to not respect it (what is not the case today, but that a "3.0" evolution helps in making it very complex to filter the network). * A multilinguistic internet (the cybernetic of all the languages and cultures considered as equal on the common network) is to be explored and discussed. This is a typical civil society concern and, moreover, the real issue is our (we the people) relations to mecalanguages, i.e. our own native languages as spoken by our machines and in our anthtropobotic society ("on the internet, nobody knows I am a dog" or a machine). We did start in France an effort in that area, creating the MLTF, participating with MAAYA (http://maaya.org) and ITU, UNESCO, SIL, Union Latine, Linguasphere, etc. This effort is to be resumed. * The civil society has accepted a stewardship inherited from the "1.0" legacy. Experience has been gained during the last decade regarding the various forms of governance tools, stakeholders, etc. common decision/trend processes, etc. while the 2.0 evolution and the 3.0 preparation will make several of them obsolete. * One of the major concerns, since it is traditionally a main part of the Internet Governance, is certainly the plain technological deployment of the DNS, content centric networking, and the resulting opportunities and evolutions in the understanding of the domain name nature, use, economy, and impact on commercial, IPR, and societal usages. To address these needs, a clear understanding of the very technical nature of the Internet tool and of its cons and pros is necessary. We cannot object to politics if they do not understand the internet nature when they discuss SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, HADOPI, etc. legislations and act as if we are actually no better than them. The IUCG is certainly the best place to discuss and document the Internet as a global and coherent system, under the control of engineers, in a way that civil society and decision and lawmakers can understand and master it. Help would certainly be welcome, in every language that governments and users use, as documented in ISO 3166. The best way to join the IUCG and to help us (me) is at http://iucg.org/wiki/ jfc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Mon Aug 20 13:05:06 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:05:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Root etc. In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD13E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> <"CACAaNxgz5P8Ks0cL Zir5xZ_q_EopYknnw--w4tn1dBRHstEeVw"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD13E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <50326E42.5020002@panamo.eu> Thanks Wolfgang for that interesting recall about UTC. Does anyone know what is the use of the timezone database, included in Iana function (http://www.iana.org/time-zones) and what sort of links with UTC managing by the BIPM? Regards, @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 20/08/12 18:32, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" a écrit : > Hi > > I was silent in this debate about root servers and USG role in authorization of the publication of TLD zone files in the root because everything has been already said since years and I did not see any big news since this was discussed at length and in detail by the WGIG. My article in Bill Drakes WGIG book (2005) has analyzed all dimensions and I see little reason to add something more in the light of the developments in the last seven years. > > The only two new things which has been emerged are > a. we have now more than 150 anycast root server which makes the whole system more flexible, less dependent from the 13 members of the legacy root and improves the situation in particular in developing countries a lot (faster responses etc.) . > b. we have seen the "moment of truth" with regard to the role of the USG in the authorization of the publication of a TLD Zone file which went through the ICANN process. The USG - pushed by the US Congress - was more or less against .xxx. Theoretically they could have stopped the publication of the zone file in the root (and EU Commissioner Kroes wanted to encourage the USG to do so). The DOC/NTIA did not and after the San Francisco meeting Strickling explained to the US Congress (and to the rest of the world) that the USG was, is and has to be the "neutral stewart" of this technical function and can not use this role to implement national policies. > > I understand, trust is good, a treaty is better. But in this case we have all reasons to trust and I have my doubt whether a treaty would be better. > > The idea of an "internationalization" of the authorization function was discussed, as I said above, by the WGIG and in this discussion in became clear that a transfer of this technical function to an intergovernmental body would unavoidably provoke an unwanted politization of this function with a tremondous potential for collatoral damages. Such a body would evolve into something like a UN Internet Security Council. This body would become soon a theater of political, economic, ideological, religious conflicts where different governments will fight until the bitter end to block the authorization of specific TLD zone files, even of ccTLDs when a ccTLD (of a hated enemy) has to modify their entry into the root for a new name server or something like that, Imagine if each of the new gTLDs, which will come to the root, would have to go - after adoption by ICANN - through a discussion of such an intergovernmental body? How you would organize voting in such a body? Which countries would get a veto right? How to select members? Will it have permanent members or will membership rotate? You open a box of pandora which would backfire to the three billion internet users of the world who would be the big loosers, including the developing countries which would be blocked to get benefits from a future internet development. > > I understand that governmental policy needs symbols and the root and the role of the USG is a good case to make noise because it is full of symbolism. But it should be one of the responsibilities of the members of this list to help governments to understand the issue better. > > In one of the first meetings WGIG had with Kofi Annan he said: You can not wish away history. The system , as it stands now, is the result of such a historic process and it does not harm and it is not broken. If you start to change the system the risk is high that you do harm. > > For people who have an interest in history I recommend to have a look into the history of the time zones. http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/info/time-zones-history.htm. When in the middle of the 19th century the need for a standard time was growing, the British governments proposed to use the Zero Meridian in Greenwich as a starting point. The man who invented the zero meridian decided that zero is where his table stands. If you go to Greenwich you can stand there with the right leg in the Eastern and with the left leg in the Western hemisphere. But this simple proposal became the subject of an incredible political struggle. It was rejected by the French govenrment as "British imperialism", that the UK wants to highjack the time zones etc. The waned to have the zero meridian in Paris. It needed 20 years of diplomatic negotiations and a intergovernmental conference in 1884 (in Washington, D.C., initiated by the US president) to reach a compromise. The compromise was: The UK got the Greenwich time (now UTC), and France got the "control" over the time which was delegated to the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) headquatered in Paris. The BIPM was established in 1875 based a the socalled intergovernmental "Meter Convention" and it was responsible to oversee the "metric system". With other words, if our time has to be fixed now for another milisecond this is done in Paris (under French jursidiction), but when we start counting our time zones we start in Greenwich. Today nobody says "Greenwich-Time" anymore, it is just UTC. The British empire is gone, but the system works. > > Wolfgang > > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von McTim > Gesendet: Mo 20.08.2012 17:20 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Betreff: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally > > > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:14 AM, parminder wrote: > > > > > > The alternative is clear; > > > > There is an even clearer alternative, that of NO oversight by governments. > > Since we are CS, why would we insist on having gov'ts take on this role when we can do it ourselves (as a "free--floating" ICANN run by an international BoD)? > > Not only is this more desirable IMHO, but actually something that might be achieved. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 13:12:31 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:12:31 -0300 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <50326FFF.8010603@cafonso.ca> Well, I do not know about this shooting, but I do recall the arbitrary murder of Jean Charles by the UK police. --c.a. On 08/20/2012 01:34 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > That was mentioned in the BBC reporting yesterday - in connection with > someone who allegedly shot a policewoman in London and then ducked into the > Libyan embassy. > Deirdre > > On 20 August 2012 12:29, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Well, precisely this announcement was what helped mobilize most South >> American countries in solidarity to Ecuador and endorsing its decision. >> >> BTW, what sort of terror or paranoia moved the UK Parliament to approve >> such Act in 1987? Those were Margareth Thatcher times which seem to be >> returning... >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/20/2012 10:43 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>> In message <50323028.7010006 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:40:08 on Mon, 20 Aug >>> 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >>>> Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to >>>> storm the Embassy. >>> >>> Except they didn't announce any intentions, just recounted some >>> circumstances (which don't apply to this case) where they might be able >>> to. As the reaction is, however, predictable, we must assume that >>> reaction was what they intended - although what small part this step >>> plays in the overall scheme of things we probably won't be able to tell >>> for some time. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 13:13:49 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:13:49 -0300 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5032704D.2080609@cafonso.ca> Jean Charles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes --c.a. On 08/20/2012 01:36 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Yvonne Fletcher ? > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Deirdre Williams > wrote: >> That was mentioned in the BBC reporting yesterday - in connection with >> someone who allegedly shot a policewoman in London and then ducked into the >> Libyan embassy. >> Deirdre >> >> On 20 August 2012 12:29, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>> Well, precisely this announcement was what helped mobilize most South >>> American countries in solidarity to Ecuador and endorsing its decision. >>> >>> BTW, what sort of terror or paranoia moved the UK Parliament to approve >>> such Act in 1987? Those were Margareth Thatcher times which seem to be >>> returning... >>> >>> frt rgds >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 08/20/2012 10:43 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>>> In message <50323028.7010006 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:40:08 on Mon, 20 Aug >>>> 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >>>>> Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to >>>>> storm the Embassy. >>>> >>>> Except they didn't announce any intentions, just recounted some >>>> circumstances (which don't apply to this case) where they might be able >>>> to. As the reaction is, however, predictable, we must assume that >>>> reaction was what they intended - although what small part this step >>>> plays in the overall scheme of things we probably won't be able to tell >>>> for some time. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 13:14:56 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:14:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <50326FFF.8010603@cafonso.ca> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> <50326FFF.8010603@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I'm not offering a defence, just trying to answer your question :-) On 20 August 2012 13:12, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Well, I do not know about this shooting, but I do recall the arbitrary > murder of Jean Charles by the UK police. > > --c.a. > > On 08/20/2012 01:34 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > That was mentioned in the BBC reporting yesterday - in connection with > > someone who allegedly shot a policewoman in London and then ducked into > the > > Libyan embassy. > > Deirdre > > > > On 20 August 2012 12:29, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > >> Well, precisely this announcement was what helped mobilize most South > >> American countries in solidarity to Ecuador and endorsing its decision. > >> > >> BTW, what sort of terror or paranoia moved the UK Parliament to approve > >> such Act in 1987? Those were Margareth Thatcher times which seem to be > >> returning... > >> > >> frt rgds > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> On 08/20/2012 10:43 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > >>> In message <50323028.7010006 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:40:08 on Mon, 20 Aug > >>> 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes > >>>> Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to > >>>> storm the Embassy. > >>> > >>> Except they didn't announce any intentions, just recounted some > >>> circumstances (which don't apply to this case) where they might be able > >>> to. As the reaction is, however, predictable, we must assume that > >>> reaction was what they intended - although what small part this step > >>> plays in the overall scheme of things we probably won't be able to tell > >>> for some time. > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 13:23:59 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:23:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Yes - but the 1987 act, creating the power to revoke the status of a diplomatic mission, was passed by Parliament in the wake of the Libyan embassy crisis three years before, when PC Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead with a bullet fired from inside the embassy. Ministers said they needed powers to revoke an embassy's status where the mission was not being used for a proper purpose connected to diplomacy. The then Foreign Office Minister, Baroness Young, told the Lords at the time that the government had in mind a situation where a mission "was being used... in support of terrorist activity". In other words, the power was needed for exceptional circumstances. Taken from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18521881 - scroll down to heading But aren't all embassies protected from interference? Deirdre On 20 August 2012 12:34, Deirdre Williams wrote: > That was mentioned in the BBC reporting yesterday - in connection with > someone who allegedly shot a policewoman in London and then ducked into the > Libyan embassy. > Deirdre > > On 20 August 2012 12:29, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Well, precisely this announcement was what helped mobilize most South >> American countries in solidarity to Ecuador and endorsing its decision. >> >> BTW, what sort of terror or paranoia moved the UK Parliament to approve >> such Act in 1987? Those were Margareth Thatcher times which seem to be >> returning... >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/20/2012 10:43 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> > In message <50323028.7010006 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:40:08 on Mon, 20 Aug >> > 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >> >> Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to >> >> storm the Embassy. >> > >> > Except they didn't announce any intentions, just recounted some >> > circumstances (which don't apply to this case) where they might be able >> > to. As the reaction is, however, predictable, we must assume that >> > reaction was what they intended - although what small part this step >> > plays in the overall scheme of things we probably won't be able to tell >> > for some time. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > -- “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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 13:42:49 2012 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:42:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Root etc. In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD13E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de > References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> <"CACAaNxgz5P8Ks0cL Zir5xZ_q_EopYknnw--w4tn1dBRHstEeVw"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD13E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang, Thank you for a very interesting and insightful comment. The history of setting the zero meridian really put this discussion into a useful perspective. I appreciate your invoking Kofi Annan's perspective on this issue. I would only add that while you are correct that everything that can be said has probably been said -- at least for the present -- not everyone has said it yet. At least several times over. :-( George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 6:32 PM +0200 8/20/12, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >Content-type: text/plain >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message > >Hi > >I was silent in this debate about root servers >and USG role in authorization of the publication >of TLD zone files in the root because everything >has been already said since years and I did not >see any big news since this was discussed at >length and in detail by the WGIG. My article in >Bill Drakes WGIG book (2005) has analyzed all >dimensions and I see little reason to add >something more in the light of the developments >in the last seven years. > >The only two new things which has been emerged are >a. we have now more than 150 anycast root server >which makes the whole system more flexible, less >dependent from the 13 members of the legacy root >and improves the situation in particular in >developing countries a lot (faster responses >etc.) . >b. we have seen the "moment of truth" with >regard to the role of the USG in the >authorization of the publication of a TLD Zone >file which went through the ICANN process. The >USG - pushed by the US Congress - was more or >less against .xxx. Theoretically they could have >stopped the publication of the zone file in the >root (and EU Commissioner Kroes wanted to >encourage the USG to do so). The DOC/NTIA did >not and after the San Francisco meeting >Strickling explained to the US Congress (and to >the rest of the world) that the USG was, is and >has to be the "neutral stewart" of this >technical function and can not use this role to >implement national policies. > >I understand, trust is good, a treaty is better. >But in this case we have all reasons to trust >and I have my doubt whether a treaty would be >better. > >The idea of an "internationalization" of the >authorization function was discussed, as I said >above, by the WGIG and in this discussion in >became clear that a transfer of this technical >function to an intergovernmental body would >unavoidably provoke an unwanted politization of >this function with a tremondous potential for >collatoral damages. Such a body would evolve >into something like a UN Internet Security >Council. This body would become soon a theater >of political, economic, ideological, religious >conflicts where different governments will fight >until the bitter end to block the authorization >of specific TLD zone files, even of ccTLDs when >a ccTLD (of a hated enemy) has to modify their >entry into the root for a new name server or >something like that, Imagine if each of the new >gTLDs, which will come to the root, would have >to go - after adoption by ICANN - through a >discussion of such an intergovernmental body? >How you would organize voting in such a body? >Which countries would get a veto right? How to >select members? Will it have permanent members >or will membership rotate? You open a box of >pandora which would backfire to the three >billion internet users of the world who would be >the big loosers, including the developing >countries which would be blocked to get benefits >from a future internet development. > >I understand that governmental policy needs >symbols and the root and the role of the USG is >a good case to make noise because it is full of >symbolism. But it should be one of the >responsibilities of the members of this list to >help governments to understand the issue better. > >In one of the first meetings WGIG had with Kofi >Annan he said: You can not wish away history. >The system , as it stands now, is the result of >such a historic process and it does not harm and >it is not broken. If you start to change the >system the risk is high that you do harm. > >For people who have an interest in history I >recommend to have a look into the history of the >time zones. >http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/info/time-zones-history.htm. >When in the middle of the 19th century the need >for a standard time was growing, the British >governments proposed to use the Zero Meridian in >Greenwich as a starting point. The man who >invented the zero meridian decided that zero is >where his table stands. If you go to Greenwich >you can stand there with the right leg in the >Eastern and with the left leg in the Western >hemisphere. But this simple proposal became the >subject of an incredible political struggle. It >was rejected by the French govenrment as >"British imperialism", that the UK wants to >highjack the time zones etc. The waned to have >the zero meridian in Paris. It needed 20 years >of diplomatic negotiations and a >intergovernmental conference in 1884 (in >Washington, D.C., initiated by the US president) >to reach a compromise. The compromise was: The >UK got the Greenwich time (now UTC), and France >got the "control" over the time which was >delegated to the Bureau International des Poids >et Mesures (BIPM) headquatered in Paris. The >BIPM was established in 1875 based a the >socalled intergovernmental "Meter Convention" >and it was responsible to oversee the "metric >system". With other words, if our time has to be >fixed now for another milisecond this is done in >Paris (under French jursidiction), but when we >start counting our time zones we start in >Greenwich. Today nobody says "Greenwich-Time" >anymore, it is just UTC. The British empire is >gone, but the system works. > >Wolfgang > > > > >________________________________ > >Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von McTim >Gesendet: Mo 20.08.2012 17:20 >An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder >Betreff: Re: [governance] Tangential (On >Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts >decisively and illegally > > > > >On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 9:14 AM, parminder wrote: > > > > > > The alternative is clear; > > > >There is an even clearer alternative, that of NO oversight by governments. > >Since we are CS, why would we insist on having >gov'ts take on this role when we can do it >ourselves (as a "free--floating" ICANN run by an >international BoD)? > >Not only is this more desirable IMHO, but >actually something that might be achieved. > > > >-- >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.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 13:51:29 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:51:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <50327921.2020909@cafonso.ca> Good to know, Deirdre, thanks. frt rgds --c.a. On 08/20/2012 02:23 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Yes - but the 1987 act, creating the power to revoke the status of a > diplomatic mission, > was > passed by Parliament in the wake of the Libyan embassy crisis three years > before, when PC Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead with a bullet fired from > inside the embassy. > > Ministers said they needed powers to revoke an embassy's status where the > mission was not being used for a proper purpose connected to diplomacy. > > The then Foreign Office Minister, Baroness Young, told the Lords at the > time that the government had in mind a situation where a mission "was being > used... in support of terrorist activity". In other words, the power was > needed for exceptional circumstances. > > Taken from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18521881 - scroll down to heading > But aren't all embassies protected from interference? > Deirdre > > On 20 August 2012 12:34, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> That was mentioned in the BBC reporting yesterday - in connection with >> someone who allegedly shot a policewoman in London and then ducked into the >> Libyan embassy. >> Deirdre >> >> On 20 August 2012 12:29, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Well, precisely this announcement was what helped mobilize most South >>> American countries in solidarity to Ecuador and endorsing its decision. >>> >>> BTW, what sort of terror or paranoia moved the UK Parliament to approve >>> such Act in 1987? Those were Margareth Thatcher times which seem to be >>> returning... >>> >>> frt rgds >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 08/20/2012 10:43 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>>> In message <50323028.7010006 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:40:08 on Mon, 20 Aug >>>> 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >>>>> Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to >>>>> storm the Embassy. >>>> >>>> Except they didn't announce any intentions, just recounted some >>>> circumstances (which don't apply to this case) where they might be able >>>> to. As the reaction is, however, predictable, we must assume that >>>> reaction was what they intended - although what small part this step >>>> plays in the overall scheme of things we probably won't be able to tell >>>> for some time. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 13:56:41 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:56:41 -0300 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> <50326FFF.8010603@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <50327A59.4080701@cafonso.ca> Yes, Deirdre, I know, of course. :) hugs --c.a. On 08/20/2012 02:14 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > I'm not offering a defence, just trying to answer your question :-) > > On 20 August 2012 13:12, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Well, I do not know about this shooting, but I do recall the arbitrary >> murder of Jean Charles by the UK police. >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 08/20/2012 01:34 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> That was mentioned in the BBC reporting yesterday - in connection with >>> someone who allegedly shot a policewoman in London and then ducked into >> the >>> Libyan embassy. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> On 20 August 2012 12:29, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>>> Well, precisely this announcement was what helped mobilize most South >>>> American countries in solidarity to Ecuador and endorsing its decision. >>>> >>>> BTW, what sort of terror or paranoia moved the UK Parliament to approve >>>> such Act in 1987? Those were Margareth Thatcher times which seem to be >>>> returning... >>>> >>>> frt rgds >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 08/20/2012 10:43 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>>>> In message <50323028.7010006 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:40:08 on Mon, 20 Aug >>>>> 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >>>>>> Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to >>>>>> storm the Embassy. >>>>> >>>>> Except they didn't announce any intentions, just recounted some >>>>> circumstances (which don't apply to this case) where they might be able >>>>> to. As the reaction is, however, predictable, we must assume that >>>>> reaction was what they intended - although what small part this step >>>>> plays in the overall scheme of things we probably won't be able to tell >>>>> for some time. >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 14:01:02 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:01:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In the broadest sense it seems to me that this is "to do with Internet Governance" because it appears to be about: 1) the intersection of national with international law; 2) jurisdiction over physical space (which is frequently conflated with virtual space); 3) the power and political manipulation of language - which is the main medium of internet communication and which seems to be woefully neglected as a potential "issue". Please note - I did NOT write English language - just language :-) On #3 I find that the word "rape", a very powerful word with lots of additional baggage in English, is being quite shamefully manipulated by all parties. Deirdre On 20 August 2012 13:23, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Yes - but the 1987 act, creating the power to revoke the status of a > diplomatic mission, was > passed by Parliament in the wake of the Libyan embassy crisis three years > before, when PC Yvonne Fletcher was shot dead with a bullet fired from > inside the embassy. > > Ministers said they needed powers to revoke an embassy's status where the > mission was not being used for a proper purpose connected to diplomacy. > > The then Foreign Office Minister, Baroness Young, told the Lords at the > time that the government had in mind a situation where a mission "was being > used... in support of terrorist activity". In other words, the power was > needed for exceptional circumstances. > > Taken from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18521881 - scroll down to > heading > But aren't all embassies protected from interference? > Deirdre > > On 20 August 2012 12:34, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> That was mentioned in the BBC reporting yesterday - in connection with >> someone who allegedly shot a policewoman in London and then ducked into the >> Libyan embassy. >> Deirdre >> >> On 20 August 2012 12:29, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Well, precisely this announcement was what helped mobilize most South >>> American countries in solidarity to Ecuador and endorsing its decision. >>> >>> BTW, what sort of terror or paranoia moved the UK Parliament to approve >>> such Act in 1987? Those were Margareth Thatcher times which seem to be >>> returning... >>> >>> frt rgds >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 08/20/2012 10:43 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>> > In message <50323028.7010006 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:40:08 on Mon, 20 Aug >>> > 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >>> >> Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to >>> >> storm the Embassy. >>> > >>> > Except they didn't announce any intentions, just recounted some >>> > circumstances (which don't apply to this case) where they might be able >>> > to. As the reaction is, however, predictable, we must assume that >>> > reaction was what they intended - although what small part this step >>> > plays in the overall scheme of things we probably won't be able to tell >>> > for some time. >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- “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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 14:10:08 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:10:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Root etc. In-Reply-To: <50326E42.5020002@panamo.eu> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD13E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <50326E42.5020002@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Thanks Wolfgang for that interesting recall about UTC. > Does anyone know what is the use of the timezone database, included in > Iana function (http://www.iana.org/time-**zones > ) > that happened a year ago, background reading here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/07/unix_time_zone_database_destroyed/ "The FTP database is the principal source for time-zone data, mapping the the zones of a given geography on a given date. The Unix operating system, Java-based applications, and untold numbers of websites rely on it to determine what time it is or was in a certain location. The service was free." http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/16/icann_rescues_time_zone_database/ -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Mon Aug 20 14:25:08 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 20:25:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Root etc. In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD13E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> <"CACAaNxgz5P8Ks0cL Zir5xZ_q_EopYknnw--w4tn1dBRHstEeVw"@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD13E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <50328104.9090202@panamo.eu> Le 20/08/12 18:32, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" a écrit : > France got the "control" over the time which was delegated to the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) headquatered in Paris. The BIPM was established in 1875 based a the socalled intergovernmental "Meter Convention" and it was responsible to oversee the "metric system". With other words, if our time has to be fixed now for another milisecond this is done in Paris (under French jursidiction), Sorry Wolfgang, I fear that some inexact points weaken your comparison. - Place: Parc de Saint-Cloud, near Paris, but linked to the City of Sèvres. - Status: BIPM is an international organization, created by an international treaty. - Legal: the Pavillon de Breteuil, where is the BIPM, enjoys extraterritorial rights with headquarter agreement. - Philosophy: Metric system and SI are the fruit of the French Revolution. About *universality* and for the worldwide public interest. (Note that UK is still inside and outside...) It was really for the benefits of all countries. ICANN is far from that step! Further : physics.nist.gov/Pubs/SP330/sp330.pdf Let's support together the idea of an international treaty about Internet management? ;-) Kind regards, @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 12:35:56 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:35:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5032676C.1030508@gmail.com> There was someone shooting from within the embassy and someone got killed... On 2012/08/20 06:29 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Well, precisely this announcement was what helped mobilize most South > American countries in solidarity to Ecuador and endorsing its decision. > > BTW, what sort of terror or paranoia moved the UK Parliament to approve > such Act in 1987? Those were Margareth Thatcher times which seem to be > returning... > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 08/20/2012 10:43 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <50323028.7010006 at cafonso.ca>, at 09:40:08 on Mon, 20 Aug >> 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >>> Yes, really simple, unless... the UK announced its stupid intention to >>> storm the Embassy. >> Except they didn't announce any intentions, just recounted some >> circumstances (which don't apply to this case) where they might be able >> to. As the reaction is, however, predictable, we must assume that >> reaction was what they intended - although what small part this step >> plays in the overall scheme of things we probably won't be able to tell >> for some time. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 15:02:11 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 07:02:11 +1200 Subject: [governance] Negotiating Values in a Global Infrastructure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Philosophy determines how a community or nation shapes or crafts its laws and how subscribers to that community develop a world view. With Internet Governance, the challenge of governance, particularly when hearing a diverse plethora of views from all over the world makes it incumbent on stakeholders to discuss how these values are going to be negotiated. I was thinking of the Iceberg where the visible is 10% and the invisible is 90%. In weaving and navigating through the maze, it is my personal view that in addressing the 10% without managing the 90% is recipe for disaster, case in point, the glorious magnificent ship touted to be "unsinkable". Lessons that I draw from the Iceberg is the need to understand the magnitude of the 90% that whilst is not visible is lurking. The manner in which views are prioritised will reflect the philosophy behind the decisions. So the question is what should that philosophy encompass. What values etc? The first one that I would like to suggest is:- - Global public interest [although I am not sure whether this is an objective or a value] Inherent within is the notion of consideration for others etc. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Dear Salanieta, > > Thanks for this highlight. I just wanted to acknowledge the typos that > you and everyone else have certainly noticed. > > * without necessarily the possibility to classify in a compelling manner... > > In hindsight, I must say it is an immense and intimidating question > even to its author... But discussion is always possible, of course. In > fact, it has occurred in various forms on this list at least since > WGIG proceedings. I'm not sure whether there has ever been a stable > outcome or consensus on this. > > Best, > > Mawaki > > On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Today is International Humanitarian day and we applaud the work that > > humanitarians are doing all over the world to try and make it a better > place > > for our fellow human citizens. Some have lost their lives whilst living > > their lives for others. There are some humanitarians on this list, I am > sure > > who are doing excellent work in touching people's lives. We salute you! > > > > I also wanted to highlight something brought out in another thread that > > deserves a thread of it's own. Mawaki raised some really excellent points > > which is something that we should ask ourselves. I have underlined and > > emphasised what I consider to be a critical question. I hope that we can > > also discuss how these values should or could be negotiated or > otherwise. As > > always please feel free to express your views... > > > > [Mawaki Chango:] > > Does anyone on this list still believe that policy - > > including policy for technical infrastructure - does not involve > > worldviews and values, which are diverse around the world, without > > necessary the possibility to classified in a compelling manner which > > ones are the best for everybody? > > > > And how do we negotiate the values that will prevail for a global > > infrastructure? > > > > It seems to me those are relevant questions we have been wrestling with > in > > this space and > > other IG-related forums for quite a while now. > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 15:33:11 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 07:33:11 +1200 Subject: [governance] Negotiating Values in a Global Infrastructure In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Having just read JFC's post, I would say the second value to borrow from him would be:- - people centric On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:02 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Philosophy determines how a community or nation shapes or crafts its laws > and how subscribers to that community develop a world view. With Internet > Governance, the challenge of governance, particularly when hearing a > diverse plethora of views from all over the world makes it incumbent on > stakeholders to discuss how these values are going to be negotiated. > > I was thinking of the Iceberg where the visible is 10% and the invisible > is 90%. In weaving and navigating through the maze, it is my personal view > that in addressing the 10% without managing the 90% is recipe for disaster, > case in point, the glorious magnificent ship touted to be "unsinkable". > Lessons that I draw from the Iceberg is the need to understand the > magnitude of the 90% that whilst is not visible is lurking. > > The manner in which views are prioritised will reflect the philosophy > behind the decisions. So the question is what should that philosophy > encompass. What values etc? > > The first one that I would like to suggest is:- > > - Global public interest [although I am not sure whether this is an > objective or a value] Inherent within is the notion of consideration for > others etc. > > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Dear Salanieta, >> >> Thanks for this highlight. I just wanted to acknowledge the typos that >> you and everyone else have certainly noticed. >> >> * without necessarily the possibility to classify in a compelling >> manner... >> >> In hindsight, I must say it is an immense and intimidating question >> even to its author... But discussion is always possible, of course. In >> fact, it has occurred in various forms on this list at least since >> WGIG proceedings. I'm not sure whether there has ever been a stable >> outcome or consensus on this. >> >> Best, >> >> Mawaki >> >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> > Dear All, >> > >> > Today is International Humanitarian day and we applaud the work that >> > humanitarians are doing all over the world to try and make it a better >> place >> > for our fellow human citizens. Some have lost their lives whilst living >> > their lives for others. There are some humanitarians on this list, I am >> sure >> > who are doing excellent work in touching people's lives. We salute you! >> > >> > I also wanted to highlight something brought out in another thread that >> > deserves a thread of it's own. Mawaki raised some really excellent >> points >> > which is something that we should ask ourselves. I have underlined and >> > emphasised what I consider to be a critical question. I hope that we can >> > also discuss how these values should or could be negotiated or >> otherwise. As >> > always please feel free to express your views... >> > >> > [Mawaki Chango:] >> > Does anyone on this list still believe that policy - >> > including policy for technical infrastructure - does not involve >> > worldviews and values, which are diverse around the world, without >> > necessary the possibility to classified in a compelling manner which >> > ones are the best for everybody? >> > >> > And how do we negotiate the values that will prevail for a global >> > infrastructure? >> > >> > It seems to me those are relevant questions we have been wrestling with >> in >> > this space and >> > other IG-related forums for quite a while now. >> > -- >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> > P.O. Box 17862 >> > Suva >> > Fiji >> > >> > Twitter: @SalanietaT >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 14:41:29 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:41:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message <503265D5.70405 at cafonso.ca>, at 13:29:09 on Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >BTW, what sort of terror or paranoia moved the UK Parliament to approve >such Act in 1987? Libyan Embassy Siege: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher Lots of other countries have similar laws. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 14:54:57 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:54:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <50324117.4040101@gmail.com> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <50324117.4040101@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <50324117.4040101 at gmail.com>, at 15:52:23 on Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >Precision please. They sent a letter to the Ecuadorian embassy BEFORE >the asylum decision was made and recanted after. The so-called threat in the letter is entirely nullified as soon as he got asylum. You might think the intent was to push the Ecuadorians into granting asylum, but I couldn't possibly comment. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 14:59:06 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 19:59:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> Message-ID: In message <503245F7.8000109 at gmx.net>, at 21:13:11 on Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Norbert Klein writes >" For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused to >explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." > >Why not calm the storm by responding to this 19 month old question? As far as I'm aware the questioning they want to do has to be done in front of what's generically described as an "investigating magistrate" (and not the police) and therefore has to be on that magistrate's home territory. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 17:38:01 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:38:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <5032AE39.1020508@cafonso.ca> And right now I listen to CNN's anchor "horrified" because a Pakistani child (11-year old) has been arrested for blasphemy. This is indeed brutal, but I've never seen an American anchor horrified when the Americans arrest kids for downloading music. E la nave va... --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 18:44:19 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:44:19 +1200 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <50322B84.3050808@itforchange.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E6AFA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <502F37E2.2020609@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21E7506@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50322B84.3050808@itforchange.net> Message-ID: http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748 http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Mon Aug 20 20:48:43 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 07:48:43 +0700 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> Message-ID: <5032DAEB.8020104@gmx.net> On 8/21/2012 1:59 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <503245F7.8000109 at gmx.net>, at 21:13:11 on Mon, 20 Aug > 2012, Norbert Klein writes >> " For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused to >> explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." >> >> Why not calm the storm by responding to this 19 month old question? > > As far as I'm aware the questioning they want to do has to be done in > front of what's generically described as an "investigating magistrate" > (and not the police) and therefore has to be on that magistrate's home > territory. Thanks for the revelation - still extremely surprised that the Swedish government did not give this information for 19 months! But now, thanks to this information on our list, the world can know and relax. Still deeply wondering why the world had to wait for 19 months until finally our list breaks the silence. And I observe all this in the context where I live and work, where, years ago, there were often appeals using examples from the "developed world" which should be followed where there is transparency and public justice. Of course such black-and-white arguments where wrong anyway, but convenient. To take a similar approach when we here have to discuss more and more issues of freedom of expression (which is in the constitution) and Internet control, it is not so easy to point to other more ideal worlds. That is the background from which I think that the allegation of personal misconduct and the different case of Wikileaks have a rightful place on this list: different legal issues are connected. Like we have to struggle often in similar ways here. Norbert Klein Cambodia -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ecology2001 at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 21:07:25 2012 From: ecology2001 at gmail.com (Robert Pollard) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 21:07:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs Message-ID: Salanieta Thanks for these interesting links. I'm re-posting your message with a new subject line, as the issue would seem to deserve a separate thread from "new gTLDs". Although the suit may have some implications for new gTLDs, many of the allegations re antitrust issues re the .xxx tld are based on the the particular history of the establishment of .xxx and the actions of ICM Registry, LLC in obtaining control of it Robert On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748 > > http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 21:32:51 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 03:32:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <5032AE39.1020508@cafonso.ca> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> <5032AE39.1020508@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Pax Americana, money is God and no God but money. The RIIA Book - - - On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > And right now I listen to CNN's anchor "horrified" because a Pakistani > child (11-year old) has been arrested for blasphemy. This is indeed > brutal, but I've never seen an American anchor horrified when the > Americans arrest kids for downloading music. > > E la nave va... > > --c.a. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk Mon Aug 20 22:44:44 2012 From: jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk (jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:44:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <5032AE39.1020508@cafonso.ca> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> <5032AE39.1020508@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <136205144-1345517087-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2121122948-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> Downloading does not carry the death penalty. But IP law and blasphemy law are being used to send messages to the communities to which those arrested belong as much as (if not more than) to punish crime. I have seen considerable shock and contempt in the UK press for such downloading arrests, and for e.g. US demands for extradition of the UK hacker and Asperger's victim Gary McKinnon. Not sure I see the point you are making. Could you clarify? Is it about press coverage? It doesn't seem to be law and free speech; blasphemy laws in general may raise free speech issues but burning a stack of documents allegedly containing pages from the Qu'ran does not; nor does downloading (though I suppose hosting material in violation of IPR might). Cheers, J. Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange -----Original Message----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:38:01 To: Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" Subject: Re: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain And right now I listen to CNN's anchor "horrified" because a Pakistani child (11-year old) has been arrested for blasphemy. This is indeed brutal, but I've never seen an American anchor horrified when the Americans arrest kids for downloading music. E la nave va... --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Mon Aug 20 22:53:14 2012 From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:53:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world Message-ID: A shot across the bow from China's government mouthpiece... http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html (People's Daily Online ) 11:10, August 18, 2012 The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a fewdecades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resourceis still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1, 2005 that its CommerceDepartment would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for AssignedNames and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet’s 13 rootservers. This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet,which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenlyparalyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to thecountry. More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world’s Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike,and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource.The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leadingto the U.S. hegemonic monopoly over the world’s Internet. During the Iraq War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to terminate services relating to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” and then all websites with the domainname “.iq” disappeared overnight. The United States has taken advantage of its control over the Internet to launch an invisible war against disobedient countries and to intimidate and threaten other countries. The United States have repeatedly called for “protecting Internet freedom.”In fact, it is only protecting its own “Internet freedom” even at the expense of other countries. Ten of the global Internet’s 13 root servers are located in the United States, and the U.S.government can supervise the Internet for national security reasons according to the U.S. law. By doing so, the United States actually gains access to all information transmitted online, while other countries can do nothing about it. Ultimate control over the Internet has been an important tool for the United States to promote its power politics and hegemony worldwide, and any other country may fallvictim to this. As a big country on the Internet, China opposes the U.S. unreasonable and unilateral management of the Internet, and seeks to work with the international community to build a new international Internet governance system. -- Rebecca MacKinnon Author, Consent of the Networked Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation Co-founder, Global Voices Twitter: @rmack Office: +1-202-596-3343 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 23:10:16 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:10:16 +1200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Storm's brewing...this is in retaliation to the Resolution passed by the US House of Reps but the dissension has been building up for a while (9/10 of the iceberg) On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Rebecca MacKinnon < rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com> wrote: > A shot across the bow from China's government mouthpiece... > > http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html > (People's Daily Online > ) 11:10, August 18, 2012 > > > > The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a fewdecades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resourceis still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. > > The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1, > 2005 that its CommerceDepartment would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for AssignedNames and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet’s 13 rootservers. > > > This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet,which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenlyparalyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to thecountry. > > More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world’s > Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all > countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike,and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource.The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. > > The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries > can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leadingto the U.S. hegemonic monopoly over the world’s Internet. > > During the Iraq War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to terminate services > relating to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” and then all websites with the domainname “.iq” disappeared overnight. The United States has taken advantage of its > control over the Internet to launch an invisible war against disobedient countries and to > intimidate and threaten other countries. > > The United States have repeatedly called for “protecting Internet freedom.”In fact, it is > only protecting its own “Internet freedom” even at the expense of other countries. Ten > of the global Internet’s 13 root servers are located in the United States, and the U.S.government can supervise the Internet for national security reasons according to the > U.S. law. By doing so, the United States actually gains access to all information > transmitted online, while other countries can do nothing about it. > > Ultimate control over the Internet has been an important tool for the United States to > promote its power politics and hegemony worldwide, and any other country may fallvictim to this. As a big country on the Internet, China opposes the U.S. unreasonable > and unilateral management of the Internet, and seeks to work with the international > community to build a new international Internet governance system. > > -- > Rebecca MacKinnon > Author, Consent of the Networked > Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation > Co-founder, Global Voices > Twitter: @rmack > Office: +1-202-596-3343 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 02:45:25 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:15:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> This is a very important, and possibly a historic, news, which exposing the meaninglessness of ICANN's claim of independence from the US establishment. A US court has given the go ahead to the anti-trust filing against ICANN decision instituting the .xxx gtld . There is every likelihood that this decision of ICANN may be found as going against US laws. What would ICANN do in that case? At the very least, it is quite probable that ICANN may be asked to put certain new provisions in its registry agreement regarding .xxx, as has been sought by the plaintiff. What would be ICANN's response in that case? Remember that each of the new gltds will be open to similar review by US courts. ICANN has lost a major battle regarding its claimed status as a global organisation responsible only to the global community, a claim which in any case had feet of clay.... And with it, also those who defend ICANN on the above ground have lost a major battle. I hope such defendants on the list will respond to this news and the paradox it poses. It is now clear that ICANN is subject to US judicial review (which of course it always was), and that its decisions can be struck down by US courts, in which case, ICANN has just no option other than to reverse its decisions. For those who have expressed lack of clarity about the meaning of oversight, this is oversight. Well, to me more precise, this is judicial review which is a part of overall oversight. parminder On Tuesday 21 August 2012 06:37 AM, Robert Pollard wrote: > Salanieta > > Thanks for these interesting links. I'm re-posting your message with a > new subject line, as the issue would seem to deserve a separate thread > from "new gTLDs". > > Although the suit may have some implications for new gTLDs, many of > the allegations re antitrust issues re the .xxx tld are based on the > the particular history of the establishment of .xxx and the actions of > ICM Registry, LLC in obtaining control of it > > Robert > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748 > > http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 18:21:13 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:21:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> Message-ID: <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> There is precedent in a Serbian murder case investigation. On 2012/08/20 08:59 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <503245F7.8000109 at gmx.net>, at 21:13:11 on Mon, 20 Aug > 2012, Norbert Klein writes >> " For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused to >> explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." >> >> Why not calm the storm by responding to this 19 month old question? > > As far as I'm aware the questioning they want to do has to be done in > front of what's generically described as an "investigating magistrate" > (and not the police) and therefore has to be on that magistrate's home > territory. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 20 18:22:06 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:22:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <50324117.4040101@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5032B88E.5090101@gmail.com> I don't understand how you get this from what I wrote. Why is the threat letter nullified after asylum? On 2012/08/20 08:54 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <50324117.4040101 at gmail.com>, at 15:52:23 on Mon, 20 Aug > 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >> Precision please. They sent a letter to the Ecuadorian embassy BEFORE >> the asylum decision was made and recanted after. > > The so-called threat in the letter is entirely nullified as soon as he > got asylum. You might think the intent was to push the Ecuadorians > into granting asylum, but I couldn't possibly comment. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 03:23:57 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:23:57 +1200 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: My personal views are if anything I would say that the situation proves that the system works. It means that decisions can be subject to scrutiny. Having personally seen voluntary scrutiny take place within ICANN and now seeing decisions being checked by the legal system it shows that the organisation is answerable. If anything, the US is probably the strictest enforcer of antitrust laws in the world and standards for corporate governance rate as among the highest if not the highest. This should inspire confidence that decisions can be checked. For ICANN it means an internal self evaluation and ongoing assessment to ensure that they perform their obligations to the highest standards. Organisations all over the world, governments included continue to learn, grow and evolve that is part of life. You pick up and learn and move on. It does not mean that all your actions are going to be flawless - show me one perfect organisation and I will show you Utopia. Of course that does not mean that we do not strive for excellent standards. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:45 PM, parminder wrote: > > This is a very important, and possibly a historic, news, which exposing > the meaninglessness of ICANN's claim of independence from the US > establishment. > > A US court has given the go ahead to the anti-trust filing against ICANN > decision instituting the .xxx gtld . There is every likelihood that this > decision of ICANN may be found as going against US laws. What would ICANN > do in that case? At the very least, it is quite probable that ICANN may be > asked to put certain new provisions in its registry agreement regarding > .xxx, as has been sought by the plaintiff. What would be ICANN's response > in that case? > > Remember that each of the new gltds will be open to similar review by US > courts. > > ICANN has lost a major battle regarding its claimed status as a global > organisation responsible only to the global community, a claim which in any > case had feet of clay.... > > And with it, also those who defend ICANN on the above ground have lost a > major battle. I hope such defendants on the list will respond to this news > and the paradox it poses. > > It is now clear that ICANN is subject to US judicial review (which of > course it always was), and that its decisions can be struck down by US > courts, in which case, ICANN has just no option other than to reverse its > decisions. For those who have expressed lack of clarity about the meaning > of oversight, this is oversight. Well, to me more precise, this is judicial > review which is a part of overall oversight. > > parminder > > On Tuesday 21 August 2012 06:37 AM, Robert Pollard wrote: > > Salanieta > > Thanks for these interesting links. I'm re-posting your message with a new > subject line, as the issue would seem to deserve a separate thread from > "new gTLDs". > > Although the suit may have some implications for new gTLDs, many of the > allegations re antitrust issues re the .xxx tld are based on the the > particular history of the establishment of .xxx and the actions of ICM > Registry, LLC in obtaining control of it > > Robert > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748 >> >> http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 21 03:25:29 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:25:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <5032DAEB.8020104@gmx.net> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032DAEB.8020104@gmx.net> Message-ID: In message <5032DAEB.8020104 at gmx.net>, at 07:48:43 on Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Norbert Klein writes >>> " For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused to >>>explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." >>> >>> Why not calm the storm by responding to this 19 month old question? >> >> As far as I'm aware the questioning they want to do has to be done in >>front of what's generically described as an "investigating magistrate" >>(and not the police) and therefore has to be on that magistrate's home >>territory. >Thanks for the revelation - still extremely surprised that the Swedish >government did not give this information for 19 months! But now, thanks >to this information on our list, the world can know and relax. > >Still deeply wondering why the world had to wait for 19 months until >finally our list breaks the silence. The Swedish Government is not trying to keep the mechanisms of its criminal justice system secret, but neither does the media seem to understand the routine procedure in Sweden. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 21 03:30:29 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:30:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: In message , at 14:01:02 on Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Deirdre Williams writes >On #3 I find that the word "rape", a very powerful word with lots of >additional baggage in English, is being quite shamefully manipulated by >all parties I think the arrest warrant mentions "sexual molestation and unlawful coercion". -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 21 03:31:59 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:31:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <5032B859.90808 at gmail.com>, at 00:21:13 on Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >There is precedent in a Serbian murder case investigation. Was that a Swedish investigation? >On 2012/08/20 08:59 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <503245F7.8000109 at gmx.net>, at 21:13:11 on Mon, 20 Aug >>2012, Norbert Klein writes >>> " For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused to >>>explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." >>> >>> Why not calm the storm by responding to this 19 month old question? >> >> As far as I'm aware the questioning they want to do has to be done in >>front of what's generically described as an "investigating magistrate" >>(and not the police) and therefore has to be on that magistrate's home >>territory. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 03:35:56 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:05:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> Sala, You are getting me wrong... I am not faulting ICANN's decision.... I have no view on this particular decision of ICANN to have a .xxx gtld. I am speaking about applicability of the jurisdiction of US courts on all ICANN decisions. And since US courts apply US law, it is the applicability of US laws over all ICANN decisions, which is also called 'oversight'. And I dont like anything that calls itself a global system/ infrastructure to be subject to laws that I do not have an opportunity to participate in making. Simple democratic principle. No legislation without representation....... The argument that US has strongest anti-trust laws is quite beside the point.... But then if you have to pursue that line, US has some of the worst IP laws, but still when an IP issue vis a vis any ICANN decision comes up for judicial review, it will still be the same US courts and US law, and not Brazilian courts and law..... Dont you think this is undemocratic, and unjustified.... parminder On Tuesday 21 August 2012 12:53 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > My personal views are if anything I would say that the situation > proves that the system works. It means that decisions can be subject > to scrutiny. Having personally seen voluntary scrutiny take place > within ICANN and now seeing decisions being checked by the legal > system it shows that the organisation is answerable. > > If anything, the US is probably the strictest enforcer of antitrust > laws in the world and standards for corporate governance rate as among > the highest if not the highest. This should inspire confidence that > decisions can be checked. For ICANN it means an internal self > evaluation and ongoing assessment to ensure that they perform their > obligations to the highest standards. > > Organisations all over the world, governments included continue to > learn, grow and evolve that is part of life. You pick up and learn and > move on. It does not mean that all your actions are going to be > flawless - show me one perfect organisation and I will show you > Utopia. Of course that does not mean that we do not strive for excellent > standards. > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:45 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > This is a very important, and possibly a historic, news, which > exposing the meaninglessness of ICANN's claim of independence from > the US establishment. > > A US court has given the go ahead to the anti-trust filing against > ICANN decision instituting the .xxx gtld . There is every > likelihood that this decision of ICANN may be found as going > against US laws. What would ICANN do in that case? At the very > least, it is quite probable that ICANN may be asked to put certain > new provisions in its registry agreement regarding .xxx, as has > been sought by the plaintiff. What would be ICANN's response in > that case? > > Remember that each of the new gltds will be open to similar review > by US courts. > > ICANN has lost a major battle regarding its claimed status as a > global organisation responsible only to the global community, a > claim which in any case had feet of clay.... > > And with it, also those who defend ICANN on the above ground have > lost a major battle. I hope such defendants on the list will > respond to this news and the paradox it poses. > > It is now clear that ICANN is subject to US judicial review (which > of course it always was), and that its decisions can be struck > down by US courts, in which case, ICANN has just no option other > than to reverse its decisions. For those who have expressed lack > of clarity about the meaning of oversight, this is oversight. > Well, to me more precise, this is judicial review which is a part > of overall oversight. > > parminder > > On Tuesday 21 August 2012 06:37 AM, Robert Pollard wrote: >> Salanieta >> >> Thanks for these interesting links. I'm re-posting your message >> with a new subject line, as the issue would seem to deserve a >> separate thread from "new gTLDs". >> >> Although the suit may have some implications for new gTLDs, many >> of the allegations re antitrust issues re the .xxx tld are based >> on the the particular history of the establishment of .xxx and >> the actions of ICM Registry, LLC in obtaining control of it >> >> Robert >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > > wrote: >> >> http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748 >> >> http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 21 03:35:39 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:35:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <5032B88E.5090101@gmail.com> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <50324117.4040101@gmail.com> <5032B88E.5090101@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <5032B88E.5090101 at gmail.com>, at 00:22:06 on Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >I don't understand how you get this from what I wrote. > >Why is the threat letter nullified after asylum? Because I understand that the actions which the letter referred to are not possible against Assange once asylum has been granted (unless he starts shooting policemen out of the window, or taking hostages etc). >On 2012/08/20 08:54 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <50324117.4040101 at gmail.com>, at 15:52:23 on Mon, 20 Aug >>2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >>> Precision please. They sent a letter to the Ecuadorian embassy >>>BEFORE the asylum decision was made and recanted after. >> >> The so-called threat in the letter is entirely nullified as soon as >>he got asylum. You might think the intent was to push the Ecuadorians >>into granting asylum, but I couldn't possibly comment. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Tue Aug 21 03:42:30 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:42:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I see this whole debate on Internet control similar to the mandate of ICANN; i.e. they are both under intense pressure to be internationalized, yet they both are there to exist as is for a VERY long time. Fahd On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:53 AM, Rebecca MacKinnon < rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com> wrote: > A shot across the bow from China's government mouthpiece... > > http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html > (People's Daily Online > ) 11:10, August 18, 2012 > > > > The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a fewdecades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resourceis still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. > > The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1, > 2005 that its CommerceDepartment would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for AssignedNames and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet’s 13 rootservers. > > > This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet,which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenlyparalyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to thecountry. > > More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world’s > Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all > countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike,and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource.The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. > > The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries > can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leadingto the U.S. hegemonic monopoly over the world’s Internet. > > During the Iraq War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to terminate services > relating to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” and then all websites with the domainname “.iq” disappeared overnight. The United States has taken advantage of its > control over the Internet to launch an invisible war against disobedient countries and to > intimidate and threaten other countries. > > The United States have repeatedly called for “protecting Internet freedom.”In fact, it is > only protecting its own “Internet freedom” even at the expense of other countries. Ten > of the global Internet’s 13 root servers are located in the United States, and the U.S.government can supervise the Internet for national security reasons according to the > U.S. law. By doing so, the United States actually gains access to all information > transmitted online, while other countries can do nothing about it. > > Ultimate control over the Internet has been an important tool for the United States to > promote its power politics and hegemony worldwide, and any other country may fallvictim to this. As a big country on the Internet, China opposes the U.S. unreasonable > and unilateral management of the Internet, and seeks to work with the international > community to build a new international Internet governance system. > > -- > Rebecca MacKinnon > Author, Consent of the Networked > Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation > Co-founder, Global Voices > Twitter: @rmack > Office: +1-202-596-3343 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 03:50:46 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:50:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <5032DAEB.8020104@gmx.net> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032DAEB.8020104@gmx.net> Message-ID: <50333DD6.1000103@gmail.com> But let us be clear that the rich countries play fast and loose with their own laws, according to a well referenced comment (seems consistent with other reports) on the UK Guardian editorial lambasting Assange (quoted below) and that Australia also seems to have no concerns regarding Assange and his extradition (and possible torture). So the double standards in the selective application of Swedish law is something that also needs to be faced and it is INSUFFICIENT to argue that Sweden is just following the rules. Perhaps we need to widen the net say that it is not just America and its poodle (as the Atlanticist humour goes) but Northern exceptionalism. Perhaps IG could consider a coalition of civil society that firmly rejects such exceptionalism, irrespective of one's position on how to change CIR governance. The problem I have on this list is how to deal with those who enter the fray and then do not deal with issues that are raised in response. I am sure that I have not been convincing in many cases, but it shows the tenor of discussions on this list... those with critical views are required to justify ad nauseum while the "mainstream IG" views can just plod along with satisfaction that they are hanging on the coat tails of the mighty... As this is a techie community perhaps I should explain why this sucks (barring people being busy etc): because it indicates that one is participating not in a genuine dialogue (people are interested in being partisan or being right, not in an evolutionary manner that is apt to change). The matters are not interrogated to the point where the essentialia of the dispute are clarified so that lurkers can discern the points in contest, forks in the road regarding reasoning/judgement are identified, etc - and then make judgements based on their own predilection - they just drop the issue. It is important to engage so that this point is reached if we are civil society, otherwise we are idiots (the classical definition - as I would like to those who have the monopoly on namecalling to retain it as it bespokes for most not only intent but substance as far as I discern). But then again tolerance of double standards is something "we" just have to put up with (and still be called out for non-participation even though it is exercise of a democratic choice, fork in the road decision, etc). But if this is the case, then let it not be said there is not grounds for saying that at an ESSENTIAL level (many of those who engage against a proverbial "us") the virtue of engagement on this list is based on "might is right" (which explains namecalling and double standards as preponderant method of engagement on CIR and "tangential" issues)... Now it is convenient to think that the excellent dialogue between Conrad and Parminder showed up Parminder as being unclear, non--technical, not-knowing-what-he-is-talking-about, etc... on the other hand it can be a reflection of the virtues of engagement in a community where we work together even if we disagree on issues... I prefer the latter discourse to the former.... Snip: /"Firstly, in Sweden they revealed the identity of Assange against the law (SFS: 2009:400 Law about Public Access to Information and Security, Chapter 18 and 35). In Britain, Assange could sue for defamation simply on those grounds. / /It is also important that the case is addressed immediately so that a person can be detained on a sufficient basis. Ms Ny, the prosecutor, denied the opportunity to interview Mr. Assange after she took over the case on 1 September 2010, even though he was in Sweden until the 27 September 2010, and had already been voluntarily interviewed over the three lesser allegations./ /When Ms Ny revived the investigations on the 2 September and had re-interviewed one of the complainants she did not act then to interview Mr Assange, which would have been an imperative in such a case (Supreme Court in Sweden NJA 2009 s. 447 I o II and B 2937-10). / /Also another denial of justice was done to Mr Assange by the Swedish police when they interviewed both complainants together allowing the contamination of evidence./ /Ms Ny also used unreasonable and disproportionate powers by enacting a European Arrest Warrant rather than arranging for questioning in Britain using Mutual Legal Assistance, especially in a case where it is one person’s word against another."/ On 2012/08/21 02:48 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: > On 8/21/2012 1:59 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <503245F7.8000109 at gmx.net>, at 21:13:11 on Mon, 20 Aug >> 2012, Norbert Klein writes >>> " For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused to >>> explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." >>> >>> Why not calm the storm by responding to this 19 month old question? >> >> As far as I'm aware the questioning they want to do has to be done in >> front of what's generically described as an "investigating >> magistrate" (and not the police) and therefore has to be on that >> magistrate's home territory. > Thanks for the revelation - still extremely surprised that the Swedish > government did not give this information for 19 months! But now, > thanks to this information on our list, the world can know and relax. > > Still deeply wondering why the world had to wait for 19 months until > finally our list breaks the silence. > > And I observe all this in the context where I live and work, where, > years ago, there were often appeals using examples from the "developed > world" which should be followed where there is transparency and public > justice. Of course such black-and-white arguments where wrong anyway, > but convenient. > > To take a similar approach when we here have to discuss more and more > issues of freedom of expression (which is in the constitution) and > Internet control, it is not so easy to point to other more ideal worlds. > > That is the background from which I think that the allegation of > personal misconduct and the different case of Wikileaks have a > rightful place on this list: different legal issues are connected. > Like we have to struggle often in similar ways here. > > > Norbert Klein > Cambodia > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 04:37:20 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:37:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > [snip] > If anything, the US is probably the strictest enforcer of antitrust laws > in the world and standards for corporate governance rate as among the > highest if not the highest. This should inspire confidence that decisions > can be checked. For ICANN it means an internal self evaluation and ongoing > assessment to ensure that they perform their obligations to the highest > standards. > - - - > AFIK around the early years 2000 a case had been under preparation by the EU Commission against ICANN for abuse of dominant position, or somesuch. But it was shelved due to USG pressure. Starting with the G W Bush administration the USG turned protector of American worldwide monopolies. No wonder it's beginning to backfire. Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Aug 21 04:48:20 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:48:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: > A shot across the bow from China's government mouthpiece... > > http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html > (People's Daily Online > ) 11:10, August 18, 2012 > > > >> During the Iraq War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to >> terminate services relating to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” >> and then all websites with the domainname “.iq” disappeared >> overnight. Did any such websites exist at the time of the redelegation? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 04:54:15 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:54:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> Yes, they interviewed a murder suspect in Serbia. On 2012/08/21 09:31 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <5032B859.90808 at gmail.com>, at 00:21:13 on Tue, 21 Aug > 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes > >> There is precedent in a Serbian murder case investigation. > > Was that a Swedish investigation? > >> On 2012/08/20 08:59 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >>> In message <503245F7.8000109 at gmx.net>, at 21:13:11 on Mon, 20 Aug >>> 2012, Norbert Klein writes >>>> " For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused >>>> to explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." >>>> >>>> Why not calm the storm by responding to this 19 month old question? >>> >>> As far as I'm aware the questioning they want to do has to be done >>> in front of what's generically described as an "investigating >>> magistrate" (and not the police) and therefore has to be on that >>> magistrate's home territory. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 04:57:15 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:57:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <50324117.4040101@gmail.com> <5032B88E.5090101@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50334D6B.1040209@gmail.com> Ah, you mean that commodious term exceptional circumstances... a similar commodious term terrorism was used against Iceland when it refused to bail out savers who invested in its banks. Of course that was meant for terrorists and muslims. Not Icelanders or environmental protesters. We can, on these matters, agree to disagree. On 2012/08/21 09:35 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <5032B88E.5090101 at gmail.com>, at 00:22:06 on Tue, 21 Aug > 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Aug 21 05:04:42 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:04:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I don't think ICANN/IANA did anything. The ccTLD was already a mess Adam On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: > >> A shot across the bow from China's government mouthpiece... >> >> http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html >> (People's Daily Online >> ) 11:10, August 18, 2012 >> >> >> >>> During the Iraq War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to >>> terminate services relating to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” >>> and then all websites with the domainname “.iq” disappeared >>> overnight. > > Did any such websites exist at the time of the redelegation? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 05:07:15 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:07:15 +1200 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I hear you Parminder. I recognise that the WGIG 2005 document also recognise the perceived unilateral control that the US has over ICANN and its operation. The US House of Representatives recently passed a resolution calling for an open and free internet and one which is multistakeholder by nature. On one view, perhaps this presents an opportunity to see this manifest in greater levels even within current structures. I believe that ICANN has done alot for the community in that it is possibly the first experiment in designing a multistakeholder policy making body. I had mentioned in an entirely different thread that at the end of the days philosophy drives policy, laws and architecture. With something as global as the Internet and with people who hold diverse philosophical foundations, it is critical that all stakeholders come to some *common understanding on values*. This is why Mawaki's comments are very critical in the governance aspect. Without a doubt the USG also has to re-look and re-examine some of its processes to gain some trust and goodwill. This is why the 9/10 of the iceberg is critical. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 7:35 PM, parminder wrote: > > Sala, > > You are getting me wrong... I am not faulting ICANN's decision.... I have > no view on this particular decision of ICANN to have a .xxx gtld. I am > speaking about applicability of the jurisdiction of US courts on all ICANN > decisions. And since US courts apply US law, it is the applicability of US > laws over all ICANN decisions, which is also called 'oversight'. And I dont > like anything that calls itself a global system/ infrastructure to be > subject to laws that I do not have an opportunity to participate in making. > Simple democratic principle. No legislation without representation....... > > The argument that US has strongest anti-trust laws is quite beside the > point.... But then if you have to pursue that line, US has some of the > worst IP laws, but still when an IP issue vis a vis any ICANN decision > comes up for judicial review, it will still be the same US courts and US > law, and not Brazilian courts and law..... > > Dont you think this is undemocratic, and unjustified.... parminder > > > On Tuesday 21 August 2012 12:53 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > My personal views are if anything I would say that the situation proves > that the system works. It means that decisions can be subject to scrutiny. > Having personally seen voluntary scrutiny take place within ICANN and now > seeing decisions being checked by the legal system it shows that the > organisation is answerable. > > If anything, the US is probably the strictest enforcer of antitrust laws > in the world and standards for corporate governance rate as among the > highest if not the highest. This should inspire confidence that decisions > can be checked. For ICANN it means an internal self evaluation and ongoing > assessment to ensure that they perform their obligations to the highest > standards. > > Organisations all over the world, governments included continue to > learn, grow and evolve that is part of life. You pick up and learn and move > on. It does not mean that all your actions are going to be flawless - show > me one perfect organisation and I will show you Utopia. Of course that does > not mean that we do not strive for excellent > standards. > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:45 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> This is a very important, and possibly a historic, news, which exposing >> the meaninglessness of ICANN's claim of independence from the US >> establishment. >> >> A US court has given the go ahead to the anti-trust filing against ICANN >> decision instituting the .xxx gtld . There is every likelihood that this >> decision of ICANN may be found as going against US laws. What would ICANN >> do in that case? At the very least, it is quite probable that ICANN may be >> asked to put certain new provisions in its registry agreement regarding >> .xxx, as has been sought by the plaintiff. What would be ICANN's response >> in that case? >> >> Remember that each of the new gltds will be open to similar review by US >> courts. >> >> ICANN has lost a major battle regarding its claimed status as a global >> organisation responsible only to the global community, a claim which in any >> case had feet of clay.... >> >> And with it, also those who defend ICANN on the above ground have lost a >> major battle. I hope such defendants on the list will respond to this news >> and the paradox it poses. >> >> It is now clear that ICANN is subject to US judicial review (which of >> course it always was), and that its decisions can be struck down by US >> courts, in which case, ICANN has just no option other than to reverse its >> decisions. For those who have expressed lack of clarity about the meaning >> of oversight, this is oversight. Well, to me more precise, this is judicial >> review which is a part of overall oversight. >> >> parminder >> >> On Tuesday 21 August 2012 06:37 AM, Robert Pollard wrote: >> >> Salanieta >> >> Thanks for these interesting links. I'm re-posting your message with a >> new subject line, as the issue would seem to deserve a separate thread from >> "new gTLDs". >> >> Although the suit may have some implications for new gTLDs, many of the >> allegations re antitrust issues re the .xxx tld are based on the the >> particular history of the establishment of .xxx and the actions of ICM >> Registry, LLC in obtaining control of it >> >> Robert >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748 >>> >>> http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Aug 21 05:36:43 2012 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at)) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 11:36:43 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Rebecca .. certainly illuminating. What's really interesting is that most calls for "internationalization" of Internet Governance issues are actually calls for a re-nationalization via the United Nations. It's a new type of 'bluewashing' national censorship policies. I've written an entry in my International Law and the Internet blog on some of the dangers of this trend. Kind regards Matthias -- Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Institute of International Law | University of Graz (Austria) Mail | Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Rebecca MacKinnon Gesendet: Dienstag, 21. August 2012 04:53 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world A shot across the bow from China's government mouthpiece... http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html (People's Daily Online ) 11:10, August 18, 2012 [http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/img/2011english/images/icon16.gif] [http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/img/2011english/images/icon17.gif] [http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/img/2011english/images/icon18.gif] The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a fewdecades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resourceis still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1, 2005 that its CommerceDepartment would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for AssignedNames and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet's 13 rootservers. This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet,which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenlyparalyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to thecountry. More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world's Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike,and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource.The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leadingto the U.S. hegemonic monopoly over the world's Internet. During the Iraq War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to terminate services relating to Iraq's top-level domain name ".iq" and then all websites with the domainname ".iq" disappeared overnight. The United States has taken advantage of its control over the Internet to launch an invisible war against disobedient countries and to intimidate and threaten other countries. The United States have repeatedly called for "protecting Internet freedom."In fact, it is only protecting its own "Internet freedom" even at the expense of other countries. Ten of the global Internet's 13 root servers are located in the United States, and the U.S.government can supervise the Internet for national security reasons according to the U.S. law. By doing so, the United States actually gains access to all information transmitted online, while other countries can do nothing about it. Ultimate control over the Internet has been an important tool for the United States to promote its power politics and hegemony worldwide, and any other country may fallvictim to this. As a big country on the Internet, China opposes the U.S. unreasonable and unilateral management of the Internet, and seeks to work with the international community to build a new international Internet governance system. -- Rebecca MacKinnon Author, Consent of the Networked Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation Co-founder, Global Voices Twitter: @rmack Office: +1-202-596-3343 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Aug 21 06:24:10 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:24:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] equality of stakeholders? (was Re: Tangential...) In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20120821122410.3bb16f18@quill5.bollow.ch> Kerry Brown wrote: > Why are we as civil participants advocating for any government > control of the Internet. An international board of representatives of > all stakeholders with none having any more power than any other is > the preferred option. We are on the way to that already. I don't see how you can say that we're on the path to that. Governments have the power to collect taxes and thereby fund whatever they choose to do. Industry stakeholders, as part and parcel of selling their services, also have the power to make us fund whatever lobbying and other governance activities they choose to undertake. I don't think that it could be said that civil society organizations are in any way on the path towards having similar powers of taxation. We're maybe on the way to having the right to having a seat at the table provided we self-fund all expenses and the time that it takes, or manage to confince some funder. Unless a way is found to fix this fundamental inequality, in any governance system that does not give government representatives a special responsibility to act in the public interest and the power to act as umpire at least in some kinds of conflicts of interest, what you describe is impossible. Even when theoretically all stakeholders have equal rights of participation (even getting at least that degree of equality is still an uphill battle in many fora), civil society organizations will in practical reality always have less power than industry stakeholders. What I see as a possible solution to this dilemma is that unequal power is not necessarily a disaster, since there are different kinds of power. In principle, the greater financial power of industry stakeholders could be balanced by greater moral authority of civil society organizations, when in a democratically governed country that leads to a greater ability to influence public opinion. Key ingredients to Internet governance (or governance in any other field) being truly in the public interest are therefore: - governments employing not only experts on their respective legal system (i.e. lawyers) but also people with an in-depth understanding of the subject matter under consideration (e.g. on how dns works, what the Internet technical community expects of root server operators, etc.) - these government experts keeeping their understanding up-to-date by engaging in relevant in-depth, technical discussions (e.g. active participation in IETF working-groups, and for topics outside the scope of IETF this role could be played by ECTF working-groups.) - appropriate national mechanisms with the effect that when a government takes positions that are technically wrong or clearly not in the public interest, there is a resulting broad public opinion backlash. In my view, it will be good to increase the role of governments in Internet governance roughly at the same pace as these three ingredients are put in place. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 07:19:21 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 13:19:21 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50336EB9.7090305@gmail.com> Great that some of myths of "control" are dispelled. But in short, still an argument at an essentialist level for Exceptionalism (US good discretion) and if it ain't broke don't fix it... and here I was waiting for the techie-challenged single rooters to take their own arguments seriously and say,"if there is there is a threat to THE root, we have to deal appropriately with China to save it..."... dare I say it, we are back to 2003/4... but not quite... Snips (as legitimate fair use) from the article , with comments appended prefix with hyphen: The Internet is increasingly important, but "governance mechanism for such an important international resource is still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country." (True, but the Internet is not worse off for it.) -- effectiveness is NOT a substitute for legitimacy. -- this is a judgement call, a fork in the road, and we can agree to disagree... but whatever rests on this chain/link of the argument then is also weakened. The US retains "ultimate control over the global Internet, which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenly paralyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to the country." (Theoretically true, but completely implausible.) -- Theoretically there should not be wars of aggression without UN Security Council mandate. Practically implausible. Opinion not fact. "The United States has taken advantage of its controlover the Internet to launch an invisible war against disobedient countries and to intimidate and threaten other countries." (Not true.) -- Cuba, Iraq? Enhanced cooperation failures? "Ultimate control over the Internet has been an important tool for the United States to promote its power politics and hegemony worldwide, and any other country may fall victim to this." (Again, the US doesn't actually exercise ultimate control over the Internet. If it did, then China wouldn't be able to censor the web so effectively.) -- which puts into doubt the fact that national level controls do not already exist in the framing of the argument... i.e. nationalisation of control. "As a big country on the Internet, China opposes the U.S. unreasonable and unilateral management of the Internet, and seeks to work with the international community to build a new international Internet governance system." (The US has not behaved unreasonably in the past. As is evident from China and Russia's proposal for an Internatioal Code of Conduct for Information Security, China's idea of an "international Internet governance system" would be one where countries would agree, per para. 3 of the Code, to cooperate to curb the dissemination of information undermining "other countries' political, economic and social stability, as well as their spiritual and cultural environment." Hello, censorship. -- Bye Bye Wikileaks? -- Not so clear, is enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (including on domain names) not a form of censorship (albeit not conventionally defined)? After all Intel Prop is national not global... perhaps we can see what happens with counterfeiting issue at ICANN... and check if there is overreach... and blowback... Summing up: some criticism is valid, but there is no better, more legitimate and more stable alternative than the current system. Most of the criticism, however, is politically motivated. -- translation? - legitimacy in governance is not an issue... if it ain't broke, don't fix it... -- Translation anti-evolutionary, if there is no concrete alternative pre-cooked and ready now, the prospect of change cannot even be considered. Sorry but no thanks. We reserve the right to define the debate in our own terms. Keep your coins, we want change... As Internet architecture expert Wolfgang Kleinwächter pointed out there are now more than 150 anycast root server which makes the root server system much more reliable and have greatly reduced what the article calls the US hegemony. -- Apologies but this is a point that can be made BOTH for and against change... Importantly, there has also been a "moment of truth" as far as the control of the US government regarding publication of TLD zone files is concerned: the .xxx case. The US goverment was opposed to the publication and could have - theoretically - stopped it. But they didn't. -- Examples of good governance merely reiterate a point, restatement or overstatement is not an argument when dealing with issues of legitimacy... -- Framing the debate in terms of pure cases simplifies too much. There can be "incremental debasement" of rhetorically stated values. This point is ill-considered. Nothing stops abuses on a case by case basis. I hope to be wrong, but the intellectual property frontier is predictably the next one that would put paid to this view... ICANN will never and can never meet the legitimacy requirements of a nation state. Because it is no nation state it shouldn't have to. Its role in Internet Governance can be legitimated through other avenues of legitimacy, including input, throughput and output legitimacy. -- The changes to GAC representation show some seek to be more Catholic than the Pope... apologies for re-using this refrain, but it is so apt. -- Perhaps I am dumb but how can you say can't say there can't be change, and that there can be other avenues for legitimacy - unless of course a much reduced notion of legitimacy is envisaged... -- Any way Rosa Parks said she was tired and would not move. And MLK had a dream. Rather calling for an "internationalization" of DNS and root server management, we should use a functional approach that first asks what exactly the function of the regime needs to be (ensuring Internet integrity, stability and functionality in a process coherenent with (and outputs consoncant with) the Internet's core values, including the protection of human rights). -- selectively taking on evolutionary arguments (like structure follows function) in this manner shows resistance to change rather than adaptation. You can have any car you want, as long as it is black... -- effectively protection of human rights here would de facto mean a hierarchy of rights with US jurisprudence being favoured explicitly. Here I am decidedly a universalist. Internationalization is not always good. A treaty on DNS issues is not always the best option. Trust, accountability, rational legitimacy and distributed decentralized de facto control can serve just as well. -- legitimacy is ALSO about de jure control. Apologies but the performative "We" reserve the right to determine the terms of the terms of the debate. They don't actually want Internet governance to be internationalized, but rather nationalized. The UN, where China has a voice (and the Security Council where it has veto powers) are only means to the end of increasing control. -- Double standard. US is in de facto "control" (with all the caveats), this argument is status quo-ist. And unconvincing, if the US then why not others? And is felicity to a single root not important anymore? Rather than calling on the "US [to] hand over Internet control to the world" what Chinese media should call for is for "China [to] hand over Internet control to its people." -- Love this stuff. A clear radical position that lambasts China (in many instances rightly so) but looses the singular important perspective of de jure and de facto control currently by the US. Essentially this is rhetorical flourish, because this is legitimacy argument - the people are legitimate and the Chinese state is not. Of course, we know the score, this legitimacy argument is used to stifle the international legitimacy argument. It remains incoherent and inconsistent no matter how plausible in some circles. On 2012/08/21 11:36 AM, Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > > Thanks, Rebecca .. certainly illuminating. What’s really interesting > is that most calls for “internationalization” of Internet Governance > issues are actually calls for a re-nationalization via the United > Nations. It’s a new type of ‘bluewashing’ > national censorship policies. > I’ve written an entry in my International Law and the Internet blog on > some of the dangers of this trend > . > > Kind regards > > Matthias > > -- > > Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) > > Institute of International Law | University of Graz (Austria) > > Mail | Blog > | Twitter > | Facebook > | Google+ > > > *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von > *Rebecca MacKinnon > *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 21. August 2012 04:53 > *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Betreff:* [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over > Internet control to the world > > > A shot across the bow from China's government mouthpiece... > > http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html > > > (People's Daily Online > > > ) > > > 11:10, August 18, 2012 > > > > > > The Internet has become one of the most important resources in the world in just a fewdecades, but the governance mechanism for such an important international resourceis still dominated by a private sector organization and a single country. > > > The U.S. government said in a statement on July 1, > 2005 that its CommerceDepartment would continue to support the work of Internet Corporation for AssignedNames and Numbers (ICANN), and indefinitely retain oversight of the Internet’s 13 rootservers. > > > This indicated the U.S. decision to retain ultimate control over the global Internet,which enabled it to unilaterally close the Internet of another country. A suddenlyparalyzed Internet would definitely cause huge social and economic losses to thecountry. > > > More and more countries are beginning to question the U.S. control over the world’s > Internet as the international resource should be managed and supervised by all > countries together. However, the United States has conducted a pre-emptive strike,and refused to give up control over the Internet in the name of protecting the resource.The refusal reflects its hegemonic mentality and double standards. > > > The United States controls and owns all cyberspaces in the world, and other countries > can only lease Internet addresses and domain names from the United States, leadingto the U.S. hegemonic monopoly over the world’s Internet. > > > During the Iraq War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to terminate services > relating to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” and then all websites with the domainname “.iq” disappeared overnight. The United States has taken advantage of its > control over the Internet to launch an invisible war against disobedient countries and to > intimidate and threaten other countries. > > The United States have repeatedly called for “protecting Internet freedom.”In fact, it is > only protecting its own “Internet freedom” even at the expense of other countries. Ten > of the global Internet’s 13 root servers are located in the United States, and the U.S.government can supervise the Internet for national security reasons according to the > U.S. law. By doing so, the United States actually gains access to all information > transmitted online, while other countries can do nothing about it. > > Ultimate control over the Internet has been an important tool for the United States to > promote its power politics and hegemony worldwide, and any other country may fallvictim to this. As a big country on the Internet, China opposes the U.S. unreasonable > and unilateral management of the Internet, and seeks to work with the international > community to build a new international Internet governance system. > > -- > Rebecca MacKinnon > Author, Consent of the Networked > Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation > > > Co-founder, Global Voices > > Twitter: @rmack > > Office: +1-202-596-3343 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 07:57:32 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:57:32 +0300 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <503377AC.5020907@digsys.bg> When one considers these government controlled press "opinions", two things must be kept in mind: 1. China already has it's own Internet. You see "Internet" in China in the form of what the Great Firewall of China is designed to present to you. So this is an thief crying "catch the thieves" story. It's possible China already has their very own ICANN/IANA structure and root-server constellation. 2. Internet is an open network of private networks. Each private network operator can do and actually does what their own agenda suggests (such as, in China's case -- implement the Great Firewall). There is nothing in the design of "Internet" that has any provision for "countries" and therefore "countries" are not an defined party in the Internet. This includes the USA. (I know, this sounds harsh, but truth is always this way) Anyway, articles like this always leave me wondering, whether it is because of utter ignorance, or some political agenda (*). Daniel (*) It is always about power grab. Some think it is about money, but money is just a way to grab more power, as humans are greedy. Some yet think it is about politics, but politics are ultimately about money and power grab. Yet, some believe it is all for the imaginary "public good" or "so God said", but it is simply about grabbing more power. It is pointless to argue with religion (as opposed to faith). Same with patriotism. Luckily, Internet is designed to deal with this. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Tue Aug 21 08:21:23 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:21:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <50337D43.2020403@panamo.eu> Yes, Adam. We already had that discussion and I pointed the fact that .iq sunk when the registry manager was put in jail, as it is written in the IANA Report on Redelegation IANA Report on Redelegation of the . BUT, that moves the question onto confidence in the US legal system. Could US invent a pursuit case against someone in the mind to achieve a political, strategical or military aim? Neither me nor you would have such an idea, for sure. But we are obliged to consider that such confidence in US loyalty may not be universal. That may enlighten a lot of positions. The question is inside Assange's case also. @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 21/08/12 11:04, Adam Peake a écrit : > I don't think ICANN/IANA did anything. The ccTLD was already a mess > > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: >> >>> A shot across the bow from China's government mouthpiece... >>> >>> http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html >>> (People's Daily Online >>> ) 11:10, August 18, 2012 >>> >>> >>> >>>> During the Iraq War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to >>>> terminate services relating to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” >>>> and then all websites with the domainname “.iq” disappeared >>>> overnight. >> Did any such websites exist at the time of the redelegation? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 08:23:28 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:53:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <503377AC.5020907@digsys.bg> References: <503377AC.5020907@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <50337DC0.8040006@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 21 August 2012 05:27 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: snip > > 2. Internet is an open network of private networks. Each private > network operator can do and actually does what their own agenda > suggests (such as, in China's case -- implement the Great Firewall). > There is nothing in the design of "Internet" that has any provision > for "countries" and therefore "countries" are not an defined party in > the Internet. This includes the USA. > (I know, this sounds harsh, but truth is always this way) What holds as the ideal is your mind is obviously not the real Internet that operates. For instance, US courts can decide which gtlds are allowed and which not as per US law and/or dictate the terms of registry agreement (do you refute this). This is of course apart from the fact that no change in the root can be made without US gov's express authorisation.... The Internet that I use in India has the properties as indicated. Which Internet are you referring to, Daniel..... And so strange that you refer to 'harsh truth' while making such an entirely fantastical statement that no country - including the US is 'an defined party in the Internet'. parminder > > Anyway, articles like this always leave me wondering, whether it is > because of utter ignorance, or some political agenda (*). > > Daniel > > (*) It is always about power grab. Some think it is about money, but > money is just a way to grab more power, as humans are greedy. Some yet > think it is about politics, but politics are ultimately about money > and power grab. Yet, some believe it is all for the imaginary "public > good" or "so God said", but it is simply about grabbing more power. It > is pointless to argue with religion (as opposed to faith). Same with > patriotism. Luckily, Internet is designed to deal with this. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 08:23:43 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:23:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <503377AC.5020907@digsys.bg> References: <503377AC.5020907@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <50337DCF.2010004@gmail.com> From anecdotal reports I have heard about the Germans, Swiss, etc, the talk was that one can develop one's one structure in the event of a failure (particularly if there is the now discounted single point of failure), abuse or national whim. This option is real for countries that have both capabilities and resources. All others are however subject to rules that may or may not be in their interest. Some of us are not miserly with the conjuncture of interests of less well resourced countries and those seeking to challenge US hegemony. On politics, I am not sure I understand the allusions in the context they are made. Asserting a 'don't fix what's not broken' is ALSO politics (I remain unconvinced by arguments that technical and politics are seperate, as does Lessig in principle) - if but a power maintenance rather a power grab view. So as an exposition it is rather empty, and used previously to stifle debate that challenges power maintenance. The (ex/)implicit point being, this is just politics, it is irrelevant as there is 'no problem'. On this list we have a range of views (my characterisation, and probably faulty) from Status Quoist (of various shades, some technical, other Exceptionalism, etc) through to anti-Statist (in a Leviathan monster kind of way, or liberal - not American, but continentalist) and radical autonomist (like no need for government in this sphere - can be read as anti-Statist, but seems to be determined by the potential of the technology - not suggesting techno-determinism but not excluding it either) as well as a South view (not homogenous, and picking the strand I prefer - IT4C) that is critically engaged (sometimes I get the feeling that Mueller is more radical than Parminder in conception - although it can just be my reading of how to get from here to there... i.e. strategy vs tactics) working with what is there to decolonise the transformative/evolutionary imagination (although it stands out for less deference to creationism than some of the "evolutionary" arguments presented here). So, in short, the politics of the "don't fix what ain't broke" is pro-US DOC ultimate control. And we see, the proponents of this view are powerful but struggle to engage on the legitimacy issue. Some sophistication is in the offing, but I remain of the view that it remains hard to find good help these days to defend the indefensible (from a legitimacy point of view) ... and I am sure that better arguments could be put forward (at least in this space)... and the only inference I can make about this is (in my limited understanding) "why bother"... On 2012/08/21 01:57 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > Anyway, articles like this always leave me wondering, whether it is > because of utter ignorance, or some political agenda (*). > > Daniel > > (*) It is always about power grab. Some think it is about money, but > money is just a way to grab more power, as humans are greedy. Some yet > think it is about politics, but politics are ultimately about money > and power grab. Yet, some believe it is all for the imaginary "public > good" or "so God said", but it is simply about grabbing more power. It > is pointless to argue with religion (as opposed to faith). Same with > patriotism. Luckily, Internet is designed to deal with this. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk Tue Aug 21 08:30:09 2012 From: jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk (jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:30:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1765163335-1345552210-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-366298376-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> Note difference between interview for investigation and prosecution, as noted in the High Court (UK) judgement on the appeal. I don't know how many of us are lawyers, but I am not and am reluctant to second-guess detailed and expert legal opinion. J. Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange -----Original Message----- From: Riaz K Tayob Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:54:15 To: ; Roland Perry Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Riaz K Tayob Subject: Re: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain Yes, they interviewed a murder suspect in Serbia. On 2012/08/21 09:31 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <5032B859.90808 at gmail.com>, at 00:21:13 on Tue, 21 Aug > 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes > >> There is precedent in a Serbian murder case investigation. > > Was that a Swedish investigation? > >> On 2012/08/20 08:59 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >>> In message <503245F7.8000109 at gmx.net>, at 21:13:11 on Mon, 20 Aug >>> 2012, Norbert Klein writes >>>> " For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused >>>> to explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." >>>> >>>> Why not calm the storm by responding to this 19 month old question? >>> >>> As far as I'm aware the questioning they want to do has to be done >>> in front of what's generically described as an "investigating >>> magistrate" (and not the police) and therefore has to be on that >>> magistrate's home territory. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 08:45:58 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:45:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Just Foreign Policy Issues $14, 500 Reward for Wikileaks to Publish Trans Pacific Partnership Negotiating Text Message-ID: <027801cd7f9a$fbe173c0$f3a45b40$@gmail.com> From: Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com [mailto:Ottawadissenters at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve Kurtz Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 1:57 PM Subject: [Ottawadissenters] Just Foreign Policy Issues $14, 500 Reward for Wikileaks to Publish Trans Pacific Partnership Negotiating Text Just Foreign Policy Monday, August 20, 2012 Contact: Robert Naiman, cell: 217-979-2857 office: (202) 448-2898 naiman at justforeignpolicy.org JUST FOREIGN POLICY ISSUES $14,500 REWARD FOR WIKILEAKS TO PUBLISH TRANS PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP NEGOTIATING TEXT As of Monday noon, "crowdsourced" reward stands at $14,543 Washington - The U.S. foreign policy reform organization Just Foreign Policy has issued a "crowdsourced" reward for WikiLeaks to publish the negotiating text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. On Friday, August 17, Just Foreign Policy issued an appeal online for pledges to make donations to WikiLeaks if it publishes the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiating text. As of noon Eastern Time on Monday, August 20, the reward stands at $14,543, based on 344 pledges, of which the median pledge was $25. The appeal - and the running tally of pledges collected so far - can be seen at http://freetpp.org On September 6, negotiators will go to Leesburg, Virginia, for the latest round of secretive talks on the "Trans-Pacific Partnership" agreement. This proposed agreement threatens access to essential medicines in developing countries, threatens environmental regulations, and threatens internet freedom. Even Members of Congress and their staffs have been blocked from seeing the draft text, while corporate representatives have been allowed to see it. [1] "Americans have a right to know what's in this agreement before it is signed," said Robert Naiman, Policy Director of Just Foreign Policy. "After an agreement is signed we'll be told that it's too late to change it. It was precisely to publish leaked government documents of public interest that WikiLeaks was formed." Partial leaks of the TPP negotiating text have raised concerns that the agreement would threaten access to essential medicines [2], would threaten environmental regulations that could be subject to new corporate lawsuits [3], and would threaten internet freedom. [4] "Our growing reward for WikiLeaks to publish the TPP text shows the growing public concern about this attempted power grab by corporations from democratic accountability for government policy," Naiman said. "If WikiLeaks can publish the TPP text, allowing the public to see the provisions which U.S. negotiators are putting forward on behalf of the U.S. but are hiding from the U.S. public, it will dramatically illustrate that the public interest lies not in greater crackdowns on whistleblowers, but in greater government transparency in the first place so we don't have to rely on leaks to find out what the government is doing." ### References: 1. "Trans-Pacific Partnership Talks: Senators Demand Access To Controversial Documents After Leak," Zach Carter, Huffington Post, 06/25/2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/trans-pacific-partnership-documents -sherrod-brown-jeff-merkley-ron-wyden-robert-menendez_n_1624956.html 2. "Trading Away Health: How the U.S.'s Intellectual Property Demands for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Threaten Access to Medicines," Issue Brief, MSF Access Campaign, August 2012, http://aids2012.msf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/TPP-Issue-Brief-IAC-July2 012.pdf 3. " The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (aka NAFTA on Steroids): What it could mean for the Environment ," Sierra Club, http://www.sierraclub.org/trade/downloads/TPP-Factsheet.pdf 4. "Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement," Electronic Frontier Foundaton, https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp C 2012 Just Foreign Policy empowered by Salsa -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org naiman at justforeignpolicy.org __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Yahoo! Groups Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest . Unsubscribe . Terms of Use . __,_._,___ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 21 09:12:12 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:12:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <50334CB7.4070600 at gmail.com>, at 10:54:15 on Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >Yes, they interviewed a murder suspect in Serbia. "They" being the Swedish police, it seems. Not the prosecutors. So back to square one. >On 2012/08/21 09:31 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message <5032B859.90808 at gmail.com>, at 00:21:13 on Tue, 21 Aug >>2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >> >>> There is precedent in a Serbian murder case investigation. >> >> Was that a Swedish investigation? >> >>> On 2012/08/20 08:59 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >>>> In message <503245F7.8000109 at gmx.net>, at 21:13:11 on Mon, 20 Aug >>>>2012, Norbert Klein writes >>>>> " For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused >>>>>to explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." >>>>> >>>>> Why not calm the storm by responding to this 19 month old question? >>>> >>>> As far as I'm aware the questioning they want to do has to be done >>>>in front of what's generically described as an "investigating >>>>magistrate" (and not the police) and therefore has to be on that >>>>magistrate's home territory. >> > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 09:17:38 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:17:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> So where is the concern for the complainants now given the impasse? And how do you read the former Stockholm Chief District prosecutor Sven-Erik Alhem views, who testified that the decision to extradite Assange is "unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and disproportionate."? As he could be questioned in the UK? On 2012/08/21 03:12 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <50334CB7.4070600 at gmail.com>, at 10:54:15 on Tue, 21 Aug > 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes > >> Yes, they interviewed a murder suspect in Serbia. > > "They" being the Swedish police, it seems. Not the prosecutors. > > So back to square one. > >> On 2012/08/21 09:31 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >>> In message <5032B859.90808 at gmail.com>, at 00:21:13 on Tue, 21 Aug >>> 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >>> >>>> There is precedent in a Serbian murder case investigation. >>> >>> Was that a Swedish investigation? >>> >>>> On 2012/08/20 08:59 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >>>>> In message <503245F7.8000109 at gmx.net>, at 21:13:11 on Mon, 20 Aug >>>>> 2012, Norbert Klein writes >>>>>> " For more than 19 months now, the Swedish government has refused >>>>>> to explain why he could not be questioned in the UK." >>>>>> >>>>>> Why not calm the storm by responding to this 19 month old question? >>>>> >>>>> As far as I'm aware the questioning they want to do has to be done >>>>> in front of what's generically described as an "investigating >>>>> magistrate" (and not the police) and therefore has to be on that >>>>> magistrate's home territory. >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 21 09:23:35 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:23:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <50334D6B.1040209@gmail.com> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <50324117.4040101@gmail.com> <5032B88E.5090101@gmail.com> <50334D6B.1040209@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <50334D6B.1040209 at gmail.com>, at 10:57:15 on Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >Ah, you mean that commodious term exceptional circumstances... No, those words don't appear in the legisation. What does say is that any activity (by the UK Authorities) must be "permissible under international law". -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 09:27:21 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:27:21 -0300 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <136205144-1345517087-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2121122948-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> <5032AE39.1020508@cafonso.ca> <136205144-1345517087-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2121122948-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <50338CB9.6020707@cafonso.ca> Jonathan, two obvious points here: one is the way some countries treat children as adults. None of these two cases would be legally possible in Brazil, for example (although of course violence against children by police and society are frequently committed, illegally in all cases). The other is the recurring theme of double standards by "developed democracies". --c.a. On 08/20/2012 11:44 PM, jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk wrote: > Downloading does not carry the death penalty. But IP law and blasphemy law are being used to send messages to the communities to which those arrested belong as much as (if not more than) to punish crime. I have seen considerable shock and contempt in the UK press for such downloading arrests, and for e.g. US demands for extradition of the UK hacker and Asperger's victim Gary McKinnon. > > Not sure I see the point you are making. Could you clarify? Is it about press coverage? It doesn't seem to be law and free speech; blasphemy laws in general may raise free speech issues but burning a stack of documents allegedly containing pages from the Qu'ran does not; nor does downloading (though I suppose hosting material in violation of IPR might). Cheers, J. > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" > Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:38:01 > To: > Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" > Subject: Re: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to > co-operate' with Britain > > And right now I listen to CNN's anchor "horrified" because a Pakistani > child (11-year old) has been arrested for blasphemy. This is indeed > brutal, but I've never seen an American anchor horrified when the > Americans arrest kids for downloading music. > > E la nave va... > > --c.a. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 09:35:07 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:35:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <50324117.4040101@gmail.com> <5032B88E.5090101@gmail.com> <50334D6B.1040209@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50338E8B.8090602@gmail.com> Yes you are more precise, and correct on this one. On 2012/08/21 03:23 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <50334D6B.1040209 at gmail.com>, at 10:57:15 on Tue, 21 Aug > 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes > >> Ah, you mean that commodious term exceptional circumstances... > > No, those words don't appear in the legisation. What does say is that > any activity (by the UK Authorities) must be "permissible under > international law". -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Aug 21 10:56:49 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:56:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I should correct the "all parties". I suppose that that is another "internet governance" issue in so far as the facilitation of the Internet allows the "voice of the people", some of which voices are very ill-informed, to drown the "voice of the law". The biggest question of all seems to be how and where to find the point of balance. On 21 August 2012 03:30, Roland Perry wrote: > In message NxzHP7HVjqpsFdg at mail.gmail.com > **>, at 14:01:02 on Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> writes > > > On #3 I find that the word "rape", a very powerful word with lots of >> additional baggage in English, is being quite shamefully manipulated by all >> parties >> > > I think the arrest warrant mentions "sexual molestation and unlawful > coercion". > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 11:10:28 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:10:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <50337DC0.8040006@itforchange.net> References: <503377AC.5020907@digsys.bg> <50337DC0.8040006@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5033A4E4.1020708@digsys.bg> On 21.08.12 15:23, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 21 August 2012 05:27 PM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > snip >> >> 2. Internet is an open network of private networks. Each private >> network operator can do and actually does what their own agenda >> suggests (such as, in China's case -- implement the Great Firewall). >> There is nothing in the design of "Internet" that has any provision >> for "countries" and therefore "countries" are not an defined party in >> the Internet. This includes the USA. >> (I know, this sounds harsh, but truth is always this way) > > What holds as the ideal is your mind is obviously not the real > Internet that operates. For instance, US courts can decide which gtlds > are allowed and which not as per US law and/or dictate the terms of > registry agreement (do you refute this). This is of course apart from > the fact that no change in the root can be made without US gov's > express authorisation.... The Internet that I use in India has the > properties as indicated. Which Internet are you referring to, > Daniel..... And so strange that you refer to 'harsh truth' while > making such an entirely fantastical statement that no country - > including the US is 'an defined party in the Internet'. > There is nothing fantastic about this. Let me give you some perspective, why I think so: The hard truth is, that I can run any of the root servers (with their proper content!) on my very own desktop computer. It runs UNIX, so that helps in a way (with performance, Internet standards compliance etc), but is not a requirement. I could even run it on my old 1st generation iPod Touch (which also happens to run UNIX). The data that goes in the root servers is.. PUBLIC. By using visualization, I could run ALL the 13 root servers in my desktop computers. I could assign their original IP addresses etc. Then instruct my router(s) to direct traffic to these root servers there. For anyone in my network, they will believe they are talking to the original root servers and for all practical purposes they will get exactly the same responses as from the original root servers. Now, some more hard facts. I happen to be responsible for my country's very first ISP that has presence practically everywhere. There are also very good internal connectivity etc. This means, I do not have to "overload" my very own desktop computer with these tasks, I could spread them over to a number of datacenters across the country. I could also announce the routes to these root servers to anyone in the country (or even neighboring countries' ISPs) locally. So, even if the US, or China, or say, Macedonia :) decides they will cut all connectivity to our country, or filter us from any other TLD, we can have our very own copies of the root DNS servers and be fine with it. If I wanted, I could have my very own imaginary TLDs in my root servers. In fact, many countries, industrial groups and individuals have done this for years, primarily with IDN domains, during the time ICANN was hesitant to work in that direction. I don't like India's TLD? Or I don't like the IN registry? I "re-delegate" the IN TLD in my very own root servers to someone else. Or just remove it altogether. I see my own version of the Internet. The way I like it. Let's hope you understand... If you think that I could do this because of some unique abilities or special powers, you are wrong. I know of kids that have done this, many many times. It doesn't require much resources. The whole setup process could take me less than an hour, from the idea, to implementation and documenting it. It is trivial. I am however, one of the people who oppose such ideas. Why? It is simple: remember the Cold War? When the "Western Block" and the "Eastern Block" were at (whatever) parity -- no one could risk attacking the other party, because mutual destruction was guaranteed. Some (many) were thinking they could be faster than the enemy, so why not just try... but thankfully there were enough sane people to prevent it from happening. Or we would not be discussing this Internet thing today. It is because creating your very own version of Internet is so inconvenient and pushing you back (in any possible sense), why countries like Cuba abandoned that idea. Why countries like China will at some point in time dismantle the Great China Firewall. As to your other concerns, I don't really care what gTLD labels exist. Domain names are just labels. Like the street address you use to address someone. Or their phone number. Do I care if there is an XYZ street in Los Angeles? Or do I care if there is Los Angeles city at all? No, I don't. They can rename it any way they wish. And I don't get mad at people who don't even know where Bulgaria is. :) Daniel PS: I believe by now you decided that I have used too much reference to myself. If it helps, substitute "I" with "You", or "Them", or "He" -- won't change anything. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 21 12:06:27 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:06:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <50338A72.7080103 at gmail.com>, at 15:17:38 on Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Riaz K Tayob writes >So where is the concern for the complainants now given the impasse? If you mean the risk of the embassy being "stormed", I think that has now subsided. >And how do you read the former Stockholm Chief District prosecutor >Sven-Erik Alhem views,  who testified that the decision to extradite >Assange is ?unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and >disproportionate.?? As he could be questioned in the UK A different view from a different lawyer. I'm a bit surprised (reading his testimony) that [in Sweden] rape suspects cannot be given bail and are tried in secret. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Aug 21 12:24:53 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:24:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > I don't think ICANN/IANA did anything. The ccTLD was already a mess > I think it is clear that IANA did something: The ccTLD was redelegated. http://www.iana.org/reports/2005/iq-report-05aug2005.pdf The question is whether the implied accusation holds water that .iq websites were harmed by the concerned actions of the US government (in arresting the person in charge of the TLD without arranging for continuity of the TLD) and IANA (in redelegating the TLD). And I think that this question boils down to whether there were actually any .iq websites at the time when the ccTLD operator was arrested. Greetings, Norbert > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: > > > >> A shot across the bow from China's government mouthpiece... > >> > >> http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html > >> (People's Daily Online > >> ) 11:10, August 18, 2012 > >> > >> > >> > >>> During the Iraq War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to > >>> terminate services relating to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” > >>> and then all websites with the domainname “.iq” disappeared > >>> overnight. > > > > Did any such websites exist at the time of the redelegation? > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jstyre at jstyre.com Tue Aug 21 12:35:29 2012 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:35:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> To my knowledge, ICANN has never claimed (at least not in court) that it isn’t subject to U.S. law or subject to review by U.S. courts. Certainly it didn’t so here, its argument was a more nuanced argument that U.S. antitrust law did not apply because ICANN was engaging in a noncommercial activity (and antitrust law does not apply to such activities). The court disagreed with ICANN, but that’s different from a broad claim that ICANN is exempt from U.S. law. But let’s use the Wayback Machine to go back in time a decade. During the only time when ICANN had elected Directors, one of the elected directors was Karl Auerbach. Karl attempted to assert his absolute rights as a Director of a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (which is what ICANN is), but ICANN rebuffed him at every step. So, eventually, Karl hired a lawyer (me) to sue ICANN. The short story is that we won. The relevant part to your post is that, even back then, ICANN did not claim to be exempt from either U.S. or California law. It’s defense of the lawsuit was based on either grounds. That ICANN is subject to U.S. judicial review is neither new nor controversial. -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 11:45 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs This is a very important, and possibly a historic, news, which exposing the meaninglessness of ICANN's claim of independence from the US establishment. A US court has given the go ahead to the anti-trust filing against ICANN decision instituting the .xxx gtld . There is every likelihood that this decision of ICANN may be found as going against US laws. What would ICANN do in that case? At the very least, it is quite probable that ICANN may be asked to put certain new provisions in its registry agreement regarding .xxx, as has been sought by the plaintiff. What would be ICANN's response in that case? Remember that each of the new gltds will be open to similar review by US courts. ICANN has lost a major battle regarding its claimed status as a global organisation responsible only to the global community, a claim which in any case had feet of clay.... And with it, also those who defend ICANN on the above ground have lost a major battle. I hope such defendants on the list will respond to this news and the paradox it poses. It is now clear that ICANN is subject to US judicial review (which of course it always was), and that its decisions can be struck down by US courts, in which case, ICANN has just no option other than to reverse its decisions. For those who have expressed lack of clarity about the meaning of oversight, this is oversight. Well, to me more precise, this is judicial review which is a part of overall oversight. parminder On Tuesday 21 August 2012 06:37 AM, Robert Pollard wrote: Salanieta Thanks for these interesting links. I'm re-posting your message with a new subject line, as the issue would seem to deserve a separate thread from "new gTLDs". Although the suit may have some implications for new gTLDs, many of the allegations re antitrust issues re the .xxx tld are based on the the particular history of the establishment of .xxx and the actions of ICM Registry, LLC in obtaining control of it Robert On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748 http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Aug 21 12:47:45 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:47:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20120821184745.73c6f2a4@quill5.bollow.ch> Matthias Kettemann wrote: > Thanks, Rebecca .. certainly illuminating. What's really interesting > is that most calls for "internationalization" of Internet Governance > issues are actually calls for a re-nationalization via the United > Nations. It's a new type of 'bluewashing' > national censorship policies. Good point. The propaganga goals of governments engaging in political Internet censorship are already served to a significant extent by them being able (with some credibility) to point fingers at "the U.S. control over the world's Internet". These propaganda objectives will of course be served even more effectively if they succeed in gaining a significant amount of traction at ITU for their demands. I would suggest that conversely, from the perspective of promoting human hights of communication, the public interest would be best served by a refort of the institutional arrangements of Internet governance which removes all credibility in assertions of "the U.S. control over the world's Internet", while the reformed institutional arrangements must be designed with the objective of promoting human rights. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Aug 21 13:06:16 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 02:06:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, hi. Please read the IANA report you give a link to. For example "The .IQ ccTLD was never active." It was re delegated in 2005. The news article claims "During the Iraq War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to terminate services relating to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” " The timing's wrong. And at the time we were in the middle of WSIS, we were developing the civil society position (still stands I hope) against unilateral control of the root. At the time a lot of people were following this. It seems the article's wrong. No websites harmed, etc. Thanks, Adam On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Adam Peake wrote: >> I don't think ICANN/IANA did anything. The ccTLD was already a mess >> > > I think it is clear that IANA did something: The ccTLD was redelegated. > http://www.iana.org/reports/2005/iq-report-05aug2005.pdf > > The question is whether the implied accusation holds water that .iq > websites were harmed by the concerned actions of the US government (in > arresting the person in charge of the TLD without arranging for > continuity of the TLD) and IANA (in redelegating the TLD). > > And I think that this question boils down to whether there were > actually any .iq websites at the time when the ccTLD operator was > arrested. > > Greetings, > Norbert > >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: >> > >> >> A shot across the bow from China's government mouthpiece... >> >> >> >> http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html >> >> (People's Daily Online >> >> ) 11:10, August 18, 2012 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> During the Iraq War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to >> >>> terminate services relating to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” >> >>> and then all websites with the domainname “.iq” disappeared >> >>> overnight. >> > >> > Did any such websites exist at the time of the redelegation? >> > >> > Greetings, >> > Norbert >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 13:12:27 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:12:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <20120821184745.73c6f2a4@quill5.bollow.ch> References: <20120821184745.73c6f2a4@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5033C17B.6020408@gmail.com> Bollow, while I tend to disagree with the quote you cite and some aspects of formulation (eg necessary propaganda like single root arguments), the prescription you suggest seems most reasonable and imminently capable of reasoned and collective action. On 2012/08/21 06:47 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Matthias Kettemann wrote: > >> Thanks, Rebecca .. certainly illuminating. What's really interesting >> is that most calls for "internationalization" of Internet Governance >> issues are actually calls for a re-nationalization via the United >> Nations. It's a new type of 'bluewashing' >> national censorship policies. > Good point. > > The propaganga goals of governments engaging in political Internet > censorship are already served to a significant extent by them being > able (with some credibility) to point fingers at "the U.S. control over > the world's Internet". > > These propaganda objectives will of course be served even more > effectively if they succeed in gaining a significant amount of traction > at ITU for their demands. > > I would suggest that conversely, from the perspective of promoting human > hights of communication, the public interest would be best served by a > refort of the institutional arrangements of Internet governance which > removes all credibility in assertions of "the U.S. control over > the world's Internet", while the reformed institutional arrangements > must be designed with the objective of promoting human rights. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Tue Aug 21 13:28:17 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:28:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5033C531.3090200@panamo.eu> Exact, thanks Norbert. It clearly appears a large hole in the IANA report for the year 2003. I ignore whether this hole is filled with water or not. Beside Iraq invasion by US army (20 mars 2003). In case it was, the IANA report could contain false statements. A point for the Iznogoodatall kingdom. Karen McKarthy, generally very well informed, wrote in 2003: " /It is difficult to track back in the past what domains may have existed since the entire domain is now down and has been for some time. However, Internet and telecoms consulting firm TeleGeography claimed in January 2002 that there were *225* owners of .iq domains/." She also says that the manager Bayan Elashi never paid any fee to ICANN. Some army tanks (sent by George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein) may be as efficient as ICANN in order to scare ISP, registrars and site creators. But what ICANN-IANA did exactly between Bayan Elashi's imprisonment and the effective redelegation? And why the correct details are not in the IANA report? Best, @+, Dominique Le 21/08/12 18:24, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > Adam Peake wrote: >> I don't think ICANN/IANA did anything. The ccTLD was already a mess >> > I think it is clear that IANA did something: The ccTLD was redelegated. > http://www.iana.org/reports/2005/iq-report-05aug2005.pdf > > The question is whether the implied accusation holds water that .iq > websites were harmed by the concerned actions of the US government (in > arresting the person in charge of the TLD without arranging for > continuity of the TLD) and IANA (in redelegating the TLD). > > And I think that this question boils down to whether there were > actually any .iq websites at the time when the ccTLD operator was > arrested. > > Greetings, > Norbert > >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: >>> >>>> A shot across the bow from China's government mouthpiece... >>>> >>>> http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html >>>> (People's Daily Online >>>> ) 11:10, August 18, 2012 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> During the Iraq War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to >>>>> terminate services relating to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” >>>>> and then all websites with the domainname “.iq” disappeared >>>>> overnight. >>> Did any such websites exist at the time of the redelegation? >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Aug 21 13:33:10 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 07:33:10 -1000 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <67927596-73D3-4992-A34F-5365A89E9BC2@virtualized.org> Hi, Adam is correct. As mentioned previously, .IQ was dysfunctional and remained so until a redelegation was done in 2005. The USG did not ask ICANN to "terminate services" to .IQ. The folks who ran the TLD were arrested (in Texas, US I believe) and put into jail for violating US law (not a lawyer and don't know the details so won't argue whether that arrest was appropriate), but this is unrelated to ICANN. Regards, -drc On Aug 21, 2012, at 7:06 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Norbert, hi. > > Please read the IANA report you give a link to. For example "The .IQ > ccTLD was never active." > > It was re delegated in 2005. The news article claims "During the Iraq > War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to terminate services > relating to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” " The timing's wrong. > And at the time we were in the middle of WSIS, we were developing the > civil society position (still stands I hope) against unilateral > control of the root. At the time a lot of people were following this. > > It seems the article's wrong. No websites harmed, etc. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Adam Peake wrote: >>> I don't think ICANN/IANA did anything. The ccTLD was already a mess >>> >> >> I think it is clear that IANA did something: The ccTLD was redelegated. >> http://www.iana.org/reports/2005/iq-report-05aug2005.pdf >> >> The question is whether the implied accusation holds water that .iq >> websites were harmed by the concerned actions of the US government (in >> arresting the person in charge of the TLD without arranging for >> continuity of the TLD) and IANA (in redelegating the TLD). >> >> And I think that this question boils down to whether there were >> actually any .iq websites at the time when the ccTLD operator was >> arrested. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> Rebecca MacKinnon wrote: >>>> >>>>> A shot across the bow from China's government mouthpiece... >>>>> >>>>> http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90777/7915248.html >>>>> (People's Daily Online >>>>> ) 11:10, August 18, 2012 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> During the Iraq War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to >>>>>> terminate services relating to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” >>>>>> and then all websites with the domainname “.iq” disappeared >>>>>> overnight. >>>> >>>> Did any such websites exist at the time of the redelegation? >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Aug 21 14:03:46 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:03:46 -1000 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <5033C531.3090200@panamo.eu> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <5033C531.3090200@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <5A2AA381-D15A-45F6-B671-A1BDE8B31A83@virtualized.org> Dominique, On Aug 21, 2012, at 7:28 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Karen McKarthy, generally very well informed, wrote in 2003: > " It is difficult to track back in the past what domains may have existed since the entire domain is now down and has been for some time. However, Internet and telecoms consulting firm TeleGeography claimed in January 2002 that there were 225 owners of .iq domains." > > She While Kieren may be many things, he is not a she (:-)). > also says that the manager Bayan Elashi never paid any fee to ICANN. Most likely true, like the majority of other ccTLD administrators to this day I believe. ccTLD contributions are voluntary and IANA staff are unaware whether anyone has paid anything (or signed any agreements). > Some army tanks (sent by George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein) may be as efficient as ICANN in order to scare ISP, registrars and site creators. Yes, but unless things have changed a bit since I left, ICANN doesn't control any tanks. > But what ICANN-IANA did exactly between Bayan Elashi's imprisonment and the effective redelegation? Nothing. IANA does not do anything unless asked by the TLD administrator (the ancient .HT case discussed a while back notwithstanding). > And why the correct details are not in the IANA report? My guess (informed by the Kieren's comment "the entire domain is now down and has been for some time") would be that the .IQ name servers went offline/were misconfigured such that by the time the .IQ redelegation occurred, the .IQ name servers were not providing answers so any .IQ second-level domains would not show up on the Internet. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Aug 21 14:08:07 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 08:08:07 -1000 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, On Aug 21, 2012, at 6:24 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > And I think that this question boils down to whether there were > actually any .iq websites at the time when the ccTLD operator was > arrested. I'm not sure whether there were .iq websites is relevant. I believe the operative question is whether or not the USG directed IANA to do anything to the .IQ domain. As far as I am aware, they did not. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Tue Aug 21 14:26:51 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:26:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5033D2EB.4090602@panamo.eu> Le 21/08/12 20:08, David Conrad a écrit : > On Aug 21, 2012, at 6:24 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> And I think that this question boils down to whether there were >> actually any .iq websites at the time when the ccTLD operator was >> arrested. > I'm not sure whether there were .iq websites is relevant. I believe the operative question is whether or not the USG directed IANA to do anything to the .IQ domain. As far as I am aware, they did not. From an external point of view, it could look like /Starsky & Hutch/ series. The gentle picks flowers and the other one drives tanks? @+, Dominique -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Tue Aug 21 14:54:08 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:54:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <5A2AA381-D15A-45F6-B671-A1BDE8B31A83@virtualized.org> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <5033C531.3090200@panamo.eu> <5A2AA381-D15A-45F6-B671-A1BDE8B31A83@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <5033D950.9030600@panamo.eu> Le 21/08/12 20:03, David Conrad a écrit : >> Karen McKarthy, generally very well informed, wrote in 2003: >> " /It is difficult to track back in the past what domains may have >> existed since the entire domain is now down and has been for some >> time. However, Internet and telecoms consulting firm TeleGeography >> claimed in January 2002 that there were *225* owners of .iq domains/." >> >> She > While Kieren may be many things, he is not a she (:-)). :-)) Well, as he seems to stay in many places, he is perhaps here. So, Kieren, please, excuse me. > [...] >> Some army tanks (sent by George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein) may be as >> efficient as ICANN in order to scare ISP, registrars and site creators. > Yes, but unless things have changed a bit since I left, ICANN doesn't > control any tanks. That ICANN's quality seems to me likely indisputable. And quite positive. >> But what ICANN-IANA did exactly between Bayan Elashi's imprisonment >> and the effective redelegation? > Nothing. IANA does not do anything unless asked by the TLD > administrator (the ancient .HT case discussed a while back > notwithstanding). >> And why the correct details are not in the IANA report? > My guess (informed by the Kieren's comment "the entire domain is now > down and has been for some time") would be that the .IQ name servers > went offline/were misconfigured such that by the time the .IQ > redelegation occurred, the .IQ name servers were not providing answers > so any .IQ second-level domains would not show up on the Internet. Thanks a lot, David. So, I presume the 18 months sequence could be: - The registry manager disappears (tourism or whatever) - The tanks scare the rare ISP, registrars and clients. - The telecom lines are destroyed. - The registry becomes empty. - As it is a ccTLD and that we are app. 10 years ago, nobody claims any very light fees that could be asked for. - Some ISP engineers could see, during some weeks, that a domain generates some technical issues, but its a very little phenomenon beside day to day network life. - The app. 200 owners cannot reniew their domain and they guess that something may be broken. - The .iq problem becomes visible when the question of rebuilding iraqi networks is on a possible agenda. Best, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Tue Aug 21 15:06:30 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:06:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <5033DC36.30809@gih.com> David, On 21/08/2012 20:08, David Conrad wrote: > Norbert, > > On Aug 21, 2012, at 6:24 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> And I think that this question boils down to whether there were >> actually any .iq websites at the time when the ccTLD operator was >> arrested. > I'm not sure whether there were .iq websites is relevant. I believe the operative question is whether or not the USG directed IANA to do anything to the .IQ domain. As far as I am aware, they did not. > > > From memory, I think you are absolutely right. Iraq never had a thriving Internet industry: http://www.nsrc.org/db/lookup/report.php?id=1078938114138:488695109&fromISO=IQ In fact, one of the earliest times of Internet connectivity was only a few years earlier: http://www.nsrc.org/db/lookup/report.php?id=1002154924195:488669636&fromISO=IQ When the war started, there was a main ISP called uruklink.net and a couple of smaller ones connected by satellite. Bombing, not ICANN, took them off-line. http://www.salon.com/2003/03/31/iraq_offline/ Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Aug 21 15:13:44 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:13:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120821211344.365ae09b@quill5.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > Please read the IANA report you give a link to. For example "The .IQ > ccTLD was never active." > > http://www.iana.org/reports/2005/iq-report-05aug2005.pdf I'm a bit cautious about taking that at face value because (1) I have seen plenty of assertions that I know to be false in reports of governance bodies. (2) No source is given for the "never" aspect of this information. It is stated however that the one person who would know with definitiveness could not be reached for comment. (3) Kieren McCarthy's article in The Register contains assertions which in my understanding contradict the claim that "the .IQ TLD was never active". >>> > It was re delegated in 2005. The news article claims "During the Iraq > War, the U.S. government in 2003 asked ICANN to terminate services > relating to Iraq’s top-level domain name “.iq” " The timing's wrong. > And at the time we were in the middle of WSIS, we were developing the > civil society position (still stands I hope) against unilateral > control of the root. At the time a lot of people were following this. I do not doubt that that Chinese propaganda article is wrong on many details, and I do not doubt that IANA handled the redelegation request with the correct result. What I'm unsure about is whether or not the US government had caused earlier, by means of arresting of the person who was in charge of the .iq ccTLD, any .iq websites, email addresses, or other services in active use for actual communication purposes between humans, to become unavailable. If no such human-to-human communications were actually adversely affected, then the Chinese propaganda is IMO wrong in a much stronger sense than otherwise. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 15:53:13 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 22:53:13 +0300 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <5033DC36.30809@gih.com> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <5033DC36.30809@gih.com> Message-ID: <5033E729.2070903@digsys.bg> On 21.08.12 22:06, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Bombing, not ICANN, took them off-line. > http://www.salon.com/2003/03/31/iraq_offline/ While this is probably the case for that historical event, the concerns today are that common global Internet infrastructure can be used as cyber warfare. As with any other 'war' situation, one needs to be prepared in order to survive. Those countries, that do care, are likely to have emergency tools in case anyone misbehaves. Those countries that either do not care, or have no resources to be prepared, should be more concerned - because they are unlikely to be prepared for tanks coming or any bombing as well.... Having said that, those countries concerned should be prepared even for non-malicious failures. Imagine some huge natural disaster hits North America and wipes out the USA from the face of Earth. Yet, say, China remains ok. Whose failure would be if the Chinese Internet suddenly stops functioning? In the case of .IQ, at the time they mostly did not care. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 15:57:04 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:57:04 +1200 Subject: [governance] Ethiopia loses its PM/ Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP Message-ID: Dear All, Just a few months ago (feels like years in the internet world), we were having discussions on the criminalisation of VOIP in Ethiopia. As the country mourns the passing of Meles Zenawi the Prime Minister who was in power for more than 20 years, this is going to be a massive time of transition for the nation of Ethiopia. Without a doubt the new leader will face the extraordinary challenges of prioritising resources where there are serious resource constraints. We wish our Ethiopian friends well during this time of transition. Kind Regards, Sala On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > FYI, > > 12 years ago 70 countries banned voice over Internet; I don't have the > current numbers but Ethiopia isn't the only nation to still declare voice > over Internet illegal. It is however reversing the general trend of > relaxing such bans, for Ethiopia to be passing new legislation. > > Even if as many have noted, in countries with official 'bans' VoIP > services like Skype are widely used. > > Some of you may be amused by my presentation to an ITU workshop, attended > by the secretary general, entitled 'How to Regulate a Platypus.' > http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/iptel/workshop/mcknight.pdf In which I > suggested such efforts were bound to fail, and that it would not to easy to > 'kill the duck.' > > Now to our present concerns: ITU actions can indeed legitimate actions > which I would argue are not in the interests of a nation's citizens, but > may be in the interests of a state ministry of telecoms, and/or a national > telecom provider. Which is reason enough to remain - observant - of what > WCIT is up to, in all areas. > > Lee > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:24 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; William Drake > *Cc:* International Ivission; Gaël Hernandez > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Ethiopia criminalises the use of VOIP > > My personal view is that each context is different and has unique > challenges. In this instance, Ethiopia Telecommunication Corporation is > licensed to provide the following:- > > - Public Switched Telecommunication Service > - GSM 900 MHz Mobile Telecommunication Service > - Internet Service > - Digital Data Communication > > Of the 153 countries ranked in the 2011 IDI ranks as 151 which is very > low. Ethiopia is also classified as a low income economy. Ethiopia is > considered as the second most populous country in Africa and this affects > issues of "accessibility" and teledensity. They are also dealing with their > Financial Crisis and there is a Study on the Impact on Human Development by > the UNFPA. > > The World Bank Ethiopia Director, Ken Ohashi is reported by Bloomberg in > 2011 to have said that Ethiopia's dependence on foreign capital to finance > budget deficits and a five year investment plan is unsustainable. > > According to the Bloomberg article, telecommunications is owned by the > State, > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-08/ethiopia-s-investment-plan-may-be-unsustainable-world-bank-official-says.html > . > > The challenges of having a sole provider of telecommunications. Is the > market liberalised? Are there incentives for liberalisation. > > Liberalisation of markets aside - if VOIP is banned, the first thing > that comes to mind is the inference that the conflict lies between > providing affordable access and operating a business where the bottom line > helps to increase "access". > > The Internet Governance Forum is an excellent place that allows > developing countries like Ethiopia who rank very poorly on the IDI to be > able to mingle and discuss history of growth of telecommunications with > others from around the world who are at different stages in development. > They may be inspired to figure our creative and innovative ways and means > to advance access and also give room for innovation and sustainability of > business models. > > This is why collaboration and the rich sharing of information and > resources through dialogue. It is normal and usual for people to be in > their comfortable cliques at some of these forums. The rich diversity of > the global landscape and terrain and its challenges truly make the world a > diverse place. > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Aug 21 16:13:04 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:13:04 -1000 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <5033D950.9030600@panamo.eu> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <5033C531.3090200@panamo.eu> <5A2AA381-D15A-45F6-B671-A1BDE8B31A83@virtualized.org> <5033D950.9030600@panamo.eu> Message-ID: Dominique, On Aug 21, 2012, at 8:54 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> My guess (informed by the Kieren's comment "the entire domain is now down and has been for some time") would be that the .IQ name servers went offline/were misconfigured such that by the time the .IQ redelegation occurred, the .IQ name servers were not providing answers so any .IQ second-level domains would not show up on the Internet. > So, I presume the 18 months sequence could be: > - The registry manager disappears (tourism or whatever) From what I've read, the original delegation to Elashi/Infocom in Texas was in 1997. Elashi was indicted in 2002 and went to trial in 2004. > - The tanks scare the rare ISP, registrars and clients. > - The telecom lines are destroyed. > - The registry becomes empty. I've no idea what happened to the original 2LD registrations however I suspect it more likely that the folks at Infocom were busy doing other things (e.g., staying out of jail) than to concern themselves with managing .IQ, ensuring the name servers were operating effectively, etc. > - As it is a ccTLD and that we are app. 10 years ago, nobody claims any very light fees that could be asked for. My impression from stuff I've read on the Internet (so it must be true! :-)) was that .IQ 2LDs were handed out as favors, not that .IQ was a significant money maker. > - Some ISP engineers could see, during some weeks, that a domain generates some technical issues, but its a very little phenomenon beside day to day network life. Or, the fact that a TLD is having issues is so common that most folks don't care unless they're trying to get to a domain in one of those TLDs. For example, if you look at https://tldmon.dns-oarc.net/nagios/, you'll see there are 200 warnings. TLD delegations are pretty clean now at least compared to the way things were historically. > - The app. 200 owners cannot reniew their domain and they guess that something may be broken. If the owners were in Iraq, they might have had other concerns as well. > - The .iq problem becomes visible when the question of rebuilding iraqi networks is on a possible agenda. According to http://www.usatoday.com/tech/world/2004-06-28-iq-snafu_x.htm, there was a concerted push in the 2004 timeframe to get the redelegation done. For those that believe ICANN is at the beck and call of the USG, it might be worth noting that the redelegation still took a year to get done despite calls by the urging documented in that article. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 21 16:41:50 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:41:50 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Sector Collaboration Guidelines [Standards] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would say that this is moving towards "enhanced cooperation"... The History Behind this draft RFC according to the IETF Liaison officer is as follows:- In January, several Member States of the ITU-T requested that the IETF and ITU-T work together to update the existing guidelines for collaboration, RFC 3356. To be fair the document is over a decade old, and does have some outdated information in it. The IAB agreed to do this, and the result is draft-iab-rfc3356bis, which will be published soon as both an RFC and an update to Supplement 3 of the ITU-T A Series Recommendations. The document itself describes processes that the organizations use to interact with one another, including attendance at face to face meetings, participation in mailing lists, and transmission of liaison statements, and exchange of information relating to new work items in each organization. This document makes no normative changes to either IETF or ITU-T standardization processes. I am at your disposal to answer any questions you might have about this document. Best Regards, Eliot Lear IETF liaison manager to the ITU-T Email: lear at cisco.com On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > What are people's thoughts about increased collaboration between ITU-T and > the IETF in terms of Sector Collaboration Guidelines? > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iab-rfc3356bis-05 > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Aug 21 16:45:39 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 22:45:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <67927596-73D3-4992-A34F-5365A89E9BC2@virtualized.org> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <67927596-73D3-4992-A34F-5365A89E9BC2@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <20120821224539.456a1f1d@quill5.bollow.ch> David Conrad wrote: > As mentioned previously, .IQ was dysfunctional and remained so until > a redelegation was done in 2005. The USG did not ask ICANN to > "terminate services" to .IQ. The folks who ran the TLD were arrested > (in Texas, US I believe) and put into jail for violating US law (not > a lawyer and don't know the details so won't argue whether that > arrest was appropriate), but this is unrelated to ICANN. According to Kieren McCarthy's article, the charges were "of dealing illegally with a senior Hamas operative, Mousa abu Marzook, and of illegally exporting computer equipment and technology to Libya and Syria - described by US officials as state sponsors of terrorism". So he was arrested for having business relationships with the Arabic world that were allegedly illegal in the US, but which probably pretty much everyone in the Arabic world would have considered quite legitimate. If this indeed effectively destroyed a ccTLD (which was active at that time) of a country in that region, then I'm not sure whether it matters in the grand scheme of things that the way in which this happened was not (as falsely alleged in the Chinese propaganda article) by means of a demand to ICANN, but by means of an arrest which I suspect would appear from the perpective of the people in Iraq as equally unjustifiable. I mean, if the ccTLD operator had been guilty of something where in all countries most people would agree that it is clearly a crime, then I'd be willing to consider the arrest and its consequences to be clearly not something that would undermine the trustworthiness of the US government as host country and supervisor of ICANN. As things are, the situation is IMO much less clear -- unless of course if as the IANA report asserts, the .IQ ccTLD was never active, or at least it was already inactive at the time of the arrest, than the situation would be nice and clear and the mess with the .IQ ccTLD clearly no fault of the US government. I think we all agree that when in China people are arrested for exercising human rights, it does not excuse the Chinese government if they say that these people were arrested for violating the laws of China. We must hold our Western governments to the same standard, and be equally careful about cases of criminal persecution that clearly have a political component. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Aug 21 17:09:57 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:09:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <67927596-73D3-4992-A34F-5365A89E9BC2@virtualized.org> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <67927596-73D3-4992-A34F-5365A89E9BC2@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <20120821230957.1db216ef@quill5.bollow.ch> David Conrad wrote: > As mentioned previously, .IQ was dysfunctional and remained so until > a redelegation was done in 2005. The USG did not ask ICANN to > "terminate services" to .IQ. The folks who ran the TLD were arrested > (in Texas, US I believe) and put into jail for violating US law (not > a lawyer and don't know the details so won't argue whether that > arrest was appropriate), but this is unrelated to ICANN. It might nevertheless be relevant to the question of the trustworthiness of the US as host country and overseer of ICANN and most root-server operators -- especially when viewed from the perspective of non-Western countries. From such an outside perspective, the results of a government invention matter much more than the specific procedural means. According to Kieren McCarthy's article [1], the charges were of "dealing illegally with a senior Hamas operative, Mousa abu Marzook, and of illegally exporting computer equipment and technology to Libya and Syria - described by US officials as state sponsors of terrorism." [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/04/09/iraq_its_domain/ I suspect that pretty much everyone in the Arabic world would have viewed those business relationships as quite legitimate (quite independently of the question of legality under US law). It furthermore seems clear that this arrest was not a routine matter of law enforcement, but rather a highly political case. Again according to Kieren McCarthy's article, US Attorney General John Ashcroft personally announced the arrest. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Aug 21 17:30:40 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 23:30:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <5033C531.3090200@panamo.eu> <5A2AA381-D15A-45F6-B671-A1BDE8B31A83@virtualized.org> <5033D950.9030600@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <20120821233040.6ca80b24@quill5.bollow.ch> David Conrad wrote: > My impression from stuff I've read on the Internet (so it must be > true! :-)) was that .IQ 2LDs were handed out as favors, not that .IQ > was a significant money maker. Considering Iraq's situation at the time, this would IMO have been an entirely reasonably way to operate the .iq ccTLD at that time: To give out 2LDs in response to reasonable requests from idividuals and organizations with some ties to Iraq. IMO this would certainly be more reasonable from the perspective of the interests of the people of Iraq than strongly marketing .IQ registrations to people and organizations that have no particular ties to Iraq. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Tue Aug 21 18:35:58 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 00:35:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <5033E729.2070903@digsys.bg> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <5033DC36.30809@gih.com> <5033E729.2070903@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <50340D4E.7030202@gih.com> Dear Daniel, On 21/08/2012 21:53, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > Having said that, those countries concerned should be prepared even > for non-malicious failures. Imagine some huge natural disaster hits > North America and wipes out the USA from the face of Earth. Yet, say, > China remains ok. Whose failure would be if the Chinese Internet > suddenly stops functioning? I don't see your point. The root is now mirrored in more places than I can count. http://www.root-servers.org/ The Chinese Internet would continue functioning. F, I J and L servers are mirrored in Beijing. A, F, I, J in Hong Kong. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Tue Aug 21 21:53:34 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:53:34 -1000 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <20120821224539.456a1f1d@quill5.bollow.ch> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <67927596-73D3-4992-A34F-5365A89E9BC2@virtualized.org> <20120821224539.456a1f1d@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, On Aug 21, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > According to Kieren McCarthy's article, the charges were "of dealing illegally with a senior Hamas operative, As mentioned, I'm not a lawyer and don't know the details, so won't comment other than to say that if you live or do business in a country (and are not subject to diplomatic immunity), you are generally bound by the laws of that country even if you don't agree that those laws or their interpretation are correct/appropriate. If you do not like this, your chances of being arrested are increased if you don't work/live in that country. > If this indeed effectively destroyed a ccTLD of a country in that region, then I'm not sure whether it matters in the grand scheme of things that the way in which this happened was not by means of a demand to ICANN, but by means of an arrest which Isuspect would appear from the perpective of the people in Iraq as equally unjustifiable. In the grand scheme of things perhaps not, but in the context of asserting that the USG directed ICANN to "terminate services" as evidence of US hegemonic efforts to maintain control of the Internet (or whatever propaganda is being pushed), I'd argue it does matter. Elashi was living/working in Texas and (arguably) violated US law. US law enforcement arrested him. The USG did not instruct ICANN to do anything regarding .IQ as far as I am aware. > As things are, the situation is IMO much less clear -- unless > of course if as the IANA report asserts, the .IQ ccTLD was never > active, or at least it was already inactive at the time of the arrest, > than the situation would be nice and clear and the mess with the .IQ > ccTLD clearly no fault of the US government. I still don't see why the activity of the domain matters. From IANA's perspective, a ccTLD is considered a sovereign resource and IANA staff will not take action unless/until the TLD administrators make a request and that request is established to be in the best interests of the Internet community within that country. This holds true regardless of the number of domains registered in the TLD (or even if the TLD is known to be misconfigured -- a source of some controversy). As far as I am aware, the USG has never violated this principle and demanded IANA take action. > I think we all agree that when in China people are arrested for > exercising human rights, it does not excuse the Chinese government if > they say that these people were arrested for violating the laws of > China. We must hold our Western governments to the same standard, and > be equally careful about cases of criminal persecution that clearly > have a political component. You are suggesting that TLD admins be granted the equivalent of diplomatic immunity if they are working/living in the US? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Aug 21 22:27:46 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 19:27:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act In-Reply-To: References: <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1345602466.50501.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Ronald, please have a look onto the following articles at "computerworld":       Google Analytics breaks Norwegian privacy laws, local agency said      http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/434164/google_analytics_breaks_norwegian_privacy_laws_local_agency_said/#closeme         'Google Australia must destroy Street View data: Privacy Commissioner'     http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/432980/google_australia_must_destroy_street_view_data_privacy_commissioner_/#closeme   “I do not require Google to retain the additional payload data and, unless there is a lawful purpose for its retention, Google should immediately destroy the data,” Pilgrim wrote. Thanks   Imran From: Roland Perry >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Sent: Monday, 20 August 2012, 10:36 >Subject: Re: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act > >In message , at 02:42:16 on Mon, 20 Aug 2012, Chaitanya Dhareshwar writes >> Never mind how it was illegal - basically that would basically tell them: >> >> 1. Network existance, security level, possibly the encryption type used, >> frequency used and SSID > >That the network existed, and its SSID (or I suspect its MAC address as SSIDs can be cloaked), were the things they [and others with similar projects] were seeking to determine. It's used for geolocation. Indeed, anyone with a wifi laptop or phone is potentially doing the same thing. > >The frequencies are not important, because there's only around a dozen, and the hotspots can change frequency easily (and sometimes automatically). It's pretty much transparent to the user. > >The security level/encryption type might be interesting for statistical purposes, but of little extra assistance to an attacker, who is going to have to drive his own car to outside the premises if he wants to "sniff" that wifi, at which point he can just as easily determine those parameters himself. > >And all of this was just a snapshot taken on one day perhaps three years ago (for the UK, anyway), and many things may have changed. I've moved my hotspot since then - first to a different premises two miles away, and now to a third premises a hundred miles away. > >> 2. If unencrypted, the IP range in use, possibly the gateway IP (via a 3-4 >> point tracert) > >Which is once again information anyone in the vicinity could determine, if the wifi was unsecured (another way to secure it is to only accept connections from specific MAC address equipment, but I wonder how often consumers turn that feature on). > >> 3. Also perhaps if they were sniffing maybe a bit of info about who's using >> it (unlikely given the way wifi works) > >Not who, but what was being sent for a very short period of time. But amass enough such short periods of time from enough consumers, and you are bound to have collected *something*. > >> Which gives us.... what? > >If the collection of the snippets of data was intentional, it might[1] have infringed the US's Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) when done in the US. Similar laws in other jurisdictions. > >[1] It appears to depend on whether the communications from a wifi point are protected under the Act, or whether they are public information on account of being broadcast by wireless. This is actually a *very important* and interesting bit of Internet Governance!! > >The US Department of Justice is apparently not going to prosecute (similar decisions were once made in the UK's "mobile phone [SMS] hacking" scandal until recently) but there may be a number of civil suits in the pipeline. > >> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Roland Perry < >> roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: >> >>> In message <1345283393.42074.**YahooMailNeo at web125102.mail.**ne1.yahoo.com<1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo at web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>>, >>> at 02:49:53 on Sat, 18 Aug 2012, Imran Ahmed Shah >>> writes >>> >>>> Does this action of "Information Collection" by Google really breach the >>>> Privacy Act, PIPA >>>> >>> >>> What Google did was to wiretap (and keep) small fragments of the traffic >>> on wifi hotpots as they drove past. >>> >>> That's probably an offence under long standing law in most countries (I >>> wouldn't want to start making a list of them off the cuff). >>> >>> For it to have been a real threat to the persons in question, they would >>> have had to refrain from switching on encryption[1] and to have been >>> sending/receiving some emails (or whatever) in exactly the few seconds the >>> Google Streetcar was listening to that particular hotspot. >>> >>> [1] Even the simplest type would have been sufficient, the fragments >>> captured are not enough to start any useful "cracking". > >-- Roland Perry > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Tue Aug 21 22:57:23 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 02:57:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <67927596-73D3-4992-A34F-5365A89E9BC2@virtualized.org> <20120821224539.456a1f1d@quill5.bollow.ch>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483BEEE6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> David, offlist, as I can't stand it... Elashi was not reeeeeeally abiding by RFC 1591 either, was he? Alx ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de David Conrad [drc at virtualized.org] Enviado el: martes, 21 de agosto de 2012 20:53 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world Norbert, On Aug 21, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > According to Kieren McCarthy's article, the charges were "of dealing illegally with a senior Hamas operative, As mentioned, I'm not a lawyer and don't know the details, so won't comment other than to say that if you live or do business in a country (and are not subject to diplomatic immunity), you are generally bound by the laws of that country even if you don't agree that those laws or their interpretation are correct/appropriate. If you do not like this, your chances of being arrested are increased if you don't work/live in that country. > If this indeed effectively destroyed a ccTLD of a country in that region, then I'm not sure whether it matters in the grand scheme of things that the way in which this happened was not by means of a demand to ICANN, but by means of an arrest which Isuspect would appear from the perpective of the people in Iraq as equally unjustifiable. In the grand scheme of things perhaps not, but in the context of asserting that the USG directed ICANN to "terminate services" as evidence of US hegemonic efforts to maintain control of the Internet (or whatever propaganda is being pushed), I'd argue it does matter. Elashi was living/working in Texas and (arguably) violated US law. US law enforcement arrested him. The USG did not instruct ICANN to do anything regarding .IQ as far as I am aware. > As things are, the situation is IMO much less clear -- unless > of course if as the IANA report asserts, the .IQ ccTLD was never > active, or at least it was already inactive at the time of the arrest, > than the situation would be nice and clear and the mess with the .IQ > ccTLD clearly no fault of the US government. I still don't see why the activity of the domain matters. From IANA's perspective, a ccTLD is considered a sovereign resource and IANA staff will not take action unless/until the TLD administrators make a request and that request is established to be in the best interests of the Internet community within that country. This holds true regardless of the number of domains registered in the TLD (or even if the TLD is known to be misconfigured -- a source of some controversy). As far as I am aware, the USG has never violated this principle and demanded IANA take action. > I think we all agree that when in China people are arrested for > exercising human rights, it does not excuse the Chinese government if > they say that these people were arrested for violating the laws of > China. We must hold our Western governments to the same standard, and > be equally careful about cases of criminal persecution that clearly > have a political component. You are suggesting that TLD admins be granted the equivalent of diplomatic immunity if they are working/living in the US? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Tue Aug 21 23:08:04 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 03:08:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483BEEE6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <67927596-73D3-4992-A34F-5365A89E9BC2@virtualized.org> <20120821224539.456a1f1d@quill5.bollow.ch>,,<6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483BEEE6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483BEF6B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Everybody, apologies, this message actually does not need to be offlist. I may be wrong though. Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [apisan at unam.mx] Enviado el: martes, 21 de agosto de 2012 21:57 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Conrad Asunto: RE: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world David, offlist, as I can't stand it... Elashi was not reeeeeeally abiding by RFC 1591 either, was he? Alx ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de David Conrad [drc at virtualized.org] Enviado el: martes, 21 de agosto de 2012 20:53 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world Norbert, On Aug 21, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > According to Kieren McCarthy's article, the charges were "of dealing illegally with a senior Hamas operative, As mentioned, I'm not a lawyer and don't know the details, so won't comment other than to say that if you live or do business in a country (and are not subject to diplomatic immunity), you are generally bound by the laws of that country even if you don't agree that those laws or their interpretation are correct/appropriate. If you do not like this, your chances of being arrested are increased if you don't work/live in that country. > If this indeed effectively destroyed a ccTLD of a country in that region, then I'm not sure whether it matters in the grand scheme of things that the way in which this happened was not by means of a demand to ICANN, but by means of an arrest which Isuspect would appear from the perpective of the people in Iraq as equally unjustifiable. In the grand scheme of things perhaps not, but in the context of asserting that the USG directed ICANN to "terminate services" as evidence of US hegemonic efforts to maintain control of the Internet (or whatever propaganda is being pushed), I'd argue it does matter. Elashi was living/working in Texas and (arguably) violated US law. US law enforcement arrested him. The USG did not instruct ICANN to do anything regarding .IQ as far as I am aware. > As things are, the situation is IMO much less clear -- unless > of course if as the IANA report asserts, the .IQ ccTLD was never > active, or at least it was already inactive at the time of the arrest, > than the situation would be nice and clear and the mess with the .IQ > ccTLD clearly no fault of the US government. I still don't see why the activity of the domain matters. From IANA's perspective, a ccTLD is considered a sovereign resource and IANA staff will not take action unless/until the TLD administrators make a request and that request is established to be in the best interests of the Internet community within that country. This holds true regardless of the number of domains registered in the TLD (or even if the TLD is known to be misconfigured -- a source of some controversy). As far as I am aware, the USG has never violated this principle and demanded IANA take action. > I think we all agree that when in China people are arrested for > exercising human rights, it does not excuse the Chinese government if > they say that these people were arrested for violating the laws of > China. We must hold our Western governments to the same standard, and > be equally careful about cases of criminal persecution that clearly > have a political component. You are suggesting that TLD admins be granted the equivalent of diplomatic immunity if they are working/living in the US? Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Wed Aug 22 02:14:23 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 20:14:23 -1000 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483BEEE6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <67927596-73D3-4992-A34F-5365A89E9BC2@virtualized.org> <20120821224539.456a1f1d@quill5.bollow.ch>, <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483BEEE6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <57088793-FAF9-441E-B55F-2DC32E85AD15@virtualized.org> Hi, On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:57 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > offlist, as I can't stand it... :-) A perfect example of http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html > Elashi was not reeeeeeally abiding by RFC 1591 either, was he? No, he wasn't. In theory, the administrative contact for ccTLDs (at least) is supposed to be in-country. However, as mentioned, ccTLDs are considered issues of national sovereignty so in general, IANA staff can merely ask nicely when somebody who is already the ccTLD admin breaks the rules. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 22 03:29:47 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:29:47 +0300 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <50340D4E.7030202@gih.com> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <5033DC36.30809@gih.com> <5033E729.2070903@digsys.bg> <50340D4E.7030202@gih.com> Message-ID: <50348A6B.7050205@digsys.bg> On 22.08.12 01:35, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Dear Daniel, > > On 21/08/2012 21:53, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> Having said that, those countries concerned should be prepared even >> for non-malicious failures. Imagine some huge natural disaster hits >> North America and wipes out the USA from the face of Earth. Yet, say, >> China remains ok. Whose failure would be if the Chinese Internet >> suddenly stops functioning? > I don't see your point. The root is now mirrored in more places than I > can count. > http://www.root-servers.org/ > > The Chinese Internet would continue functioning. F, I J and L servers > are mirrored in Beijing. A, F, I, J in Hong Kong. My point is that the Internet and in particular the DNS root server system functions despite anything the US Government (or any other country, for that matter) may chose to do, or not do. What "countries" could do, if they care, about the root DNS servers being available in their country is to ensure they have reasonable disaster recovery plans in place. Having local root server instances is one of these. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it Wed Aug 22 04:17:50 2012 From: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it (Ing. Stefano Trumpy) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:17:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <67927596-73D3-4992-A34F-5365A89E9BC2@virtualized.org> <20120821224539.456a1f1d@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: >Norbert, > >On Aug 21, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> According to Kieren McCarthy's article, the charges were "of >>dealing illegally with a senior Hamas operative, > >As mentioned, I'm not a lawyer and don't know the details, so won't >comment other than to say that if you live or do business in a >country (and are not subject to diplomatic immunity), you are >generally bound by the laws of that country even if you don't agree >that those laws or their interpretation are correct/appropriate. If >you do not like this, your chances of being arrested are increased >if you don't work/live in that country. > >> If this indeed effectively destroyed a ccTLD of a country in that >>region, then I'm not sure whether it matters in the grand scheme of >>things that the way in which this happened was not by means of a >>demand to ICANN, but by means of an arrest which Isuspect would >>appear from the perpective of the people in Iraq as equally >>unjustifiable. > >In the grand scheme of things perhaps not, but in the context of >asserting that the USG directed ICANN to "terminate services" as >evidence of US hegemonic efforts to maintain control of the Internet >(or whatever propaganda is being pushed), I'd argue it does matter. > >Elashi was living/working in Texas and (arguably) violated US law. >US law enforcement arrested him. The USG did not instruct ICANN to >do anything regarding .IQ as far as I am aware. I read with interest this thread; I have been admin contact for the first 13 years of ".it" and I know enough of IANA procedures having been involved in the delegation of ".ps" in 2000; now I represent Italian government in GAC. What created the possibility of the present voices about USG intervention is the unusual fact that the admin contact and responsibility of the ".iq" was not assigned to a resident organization in IRAQ but to that organization residing in Unites States. It is clear that the ccTLD admin contact has no diplomatic status in any country and that if that person infinges existing laws in the country where he resides, he could be put in jail with no international scandal, apart eventual human rights considerations. The ".iq" redelegation matured in 2005 finally assured the more appropriate delegation to an organization internal to the state of Iraq and responsible to the local internet community, as IANA reported. I remember Italian government assiting in 2005-2006 a delegation of IRAQ technicians that visited Italy in the frame of a bilateral cooperation for e-government, including experiences sharing in running a ccTLD. I remember here an official US position and I report the part referring to ccTLDs; from my experience, ICANN has never been instructed by USG in a way contraddicting the principle reported below. It is clear that only a single demonstated case that contraddicts that principle could justify strong criticism but this is not the case of ".iq". US PRINCIPLES ON THE INTERNET'S DOMAIN NAME AND ADDRESSING SYSTEM (June 2005) "Governments have legitimate interest in the management of their country code top level domains (ccTLD). The United States recognizes that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD. As such, the United States is committed to working with the international community to address these concerns, bearing in mind the fundamental need to ensure stability and security of the Internet's DNS." Stefano Trumpy > >> As things are, the situation is IMO much less clear -- unless >> of course if as the IANA report asserts, the .IQ ccTLD was never >> active, or at least it was already inactive at the time of the arrest, >> than the situation would be nice and clear and the mess with the .IQ >> ccTLD clearly no fault of the US government. > >I still don't see why the activity of the domain matters. From >IANA's perspective, a ccTLD is considered a sovereign resource and >IANA staff will not take action unless/until the TLD administrators >make a request and that request is established to be in the best >interests of the Internet community within that country. This holds >true regardless of the number of domains registered in the TLD (or >even if the TLD is known to be misconfigured -- a source of some >controversy). As far as I am aware, the USG has never violated this >principle and demanded IANA take action. > >> I think we all agree that when in China people are arrested for >> exercising human rights, it does not excuse the Chinese government if >> they say that these people were arrested for violating the laws of >> China. We must hold our Western governments to the same standard, and >> be equally careful about cases of criminal persecution that clearly >> have a political component. > >You are suggesting that TLD admins be granted the equivalent of >diplomatic immunity if they are working/living in the US? > >Regards, >-drc > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- _________________________________________________________ Ing. Stefano TRUMPY CNR - Istituto di Informatica e Telematica Phone: +39 050 3152634 Mobile: +39 348 8218618 E-mail: stefano.trumpy at iit.cnr.it http://www.iit.cnr.it/en/node/345 _________________________________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 22 04:56:05 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:56:05 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483ADDAB@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <1253782651.6752.1345625765785.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m22> Sala wrote :     The ITU stepping in is a valuable assistance if -and only if- it is based on suitable network design and implementation capabilities (and proven field experience) of its experts. There are precisely some doubts about these capabilities when you take a (professional) look on projects like Central African Backbone (cAB) ITU was responsible for, and the blamable "progress" of the panafrican network ... in "progress" since the seventies ! This failure is occurring although ITU's Development Bureau has been chaired since its stting-up (1986) by an African, except during 4 years.   Greetings   Jean-Louis Fullsack Former ITU project coordinator in Africa > Message du 06/08/12 22:08 > De : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Fahd A. Batayneh" > Copie à : "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" > Objet : Re: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access > > > > From my exposure to ITU activities, I can conclude that the ITU tend to tap countries that are low on ICT resources,  >   If one looks at the statistics on penetration rates via http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/index.html you will see that for most of the developing countries have extremely low penetration rates. In a separate thread on Ethiopia, I had attempted to show some of the variables that exist that one could call significant deterrents to rolling out infrastructure. You see the reality is that Telcos will only pump money into CAPEX projects if they know they will get a Return on Investment (RoI). A consistent trend for most Telcos involved in Broadband infrastructure is that they are realising that it takes at least 15 years to recover that RoI. > Also consider the IDI ranking which measures a host of things including accessibility, affordability etc, and you will find (not suprisingly) alot of developing countries at the bottom of the rung. Whilst there are numerous studies that show the linkages between broadband deployment/investment with economic growth, there are other factors that put a dampener on basic things like "access". I can only assume that Africa has numerous forums where access challenges would be discussed. I think that sometimes people forget that part of living in an "ecosystem" (apologies to those who despise the term) is that everything has its place. Just as when a species or genus becomes extinct it eventually affects the environment so too in the internet ecosystem. > The ITU only steps in when countries through their governments make a request for assistance. As an advocate for development, I think that this should be applauded. One of the Internet Governance policy areas identified in the WGIG 2005 includes high interconnection costs. At some point it would be interesting to see a review of the WGIG Report and its findings. --  > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji > Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >   > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 22 05:52:03 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:52:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] Host Website for the First Arab IGF meeting in Kuwait is launched and Online Registration is now open Message-ID: Dear Colleagues: The host website arabigf.kits.org.kw for the First Arab IGF meeting in Kuwait is launched and online registration is now open. We hope we will see you all in Kuwait. Best Regards, Qusai AlShatti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 22 06:26:04 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:26:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <67927596-73D3-4992-A34F-5365A89E9BC2@virtualized.org> <20120821224539.456a1f1d@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20120822122604.72175ea7@quill5.bollow.ch> David Conrad wrote: > Norbert, > > I think we all agree that when in China people are arrested for > > exercising human rights, it does not excuse the Chinese government > > if they say that these people were arrested for violating the laws > > of China. We must hold our Western governments to the same > > standard, and be equally careful about cases of criminal > > persecution that clearly have a political component. > > You are suggesting that TLD admins be granted the equivalent of > diplomatic immunity if they are working/living in the US? I'm not sure that I really want to go as far as suggesting that, but I'm also realizing that some of the thoughts I've been exploring and throwing around here recently might have that kind of demand as their logical conclusion. Right now the objective of my musings is simply to try to see issues also from non-Western sides which are foreign to me. I think that it's too simplistic to just say that the Chinese article is propaganda and contains factual errors, therefore its perspective can be entirely ignored. After all, I also don't think that it would be right to just ignore the perspective of the US government on ITU and multistakeholder Internet governance, even though from that direction there is also propaganda coming with its own factual errors. And I still suspect that the assertion in that IANA report about the .IQ ccTLD never having been active (with the convenient logical consequence that there is no need to even discuss whether continuity is offered to the 2LDs under the new ccTLD delegation arrangement) may also be a factual error. Back to the question of whether I might want to suggest that some kind of diplomatic immunity could make sense, if at all I'd probably want to make that kind of proposal only for the case of TLDs (and other CIR administrators, e.g. dns root server operators) based in a country that is not the US, and for visits to the US in direct connection with that CIR administrator role. The procedure could be that ICANN might issue a special letter of invitation to attend a particular meeting or other event organized by ICANN, and this letter of invitation would grant the recipient the right to be allowed to enter the US, attend the event, and leave again, without fear of persecution on the basis of any non US based activities of the invitee. Maybe the introduction of such a special kind of diplomatic immunity for "foreign critical Internet resource administrators", as part of an International treaty that also gives ICANN (including the IANA function) immunity from the kinds of potential US government demands that would internationally be seen as unreasonable, could make a significant contribution towards addressing international fears and concerns, both for fears and concerns that concern purely imaginary threats and for fears and concerns about actual risks. I think we all agree that "the US government might cause the Internet to suddenly stop working in China" is not a realistic concern at all, even if the People's Daily of China article seems to indicate that there is significant fear of that in China, and such fear is a reality in itself. On the other hand I wonder if the following is perhaps a realistic scenario: Would it be possible, in the absence of any kind of diplomatic immunity, for a TLD operator to be arrested during a short visit to the US on charges of aiding and abetting copyright infringement, when the offense consists in not taking action against 2LDs which are used in online activities that violate US copyright law (but not the national laws in the country where the TLD operator is based, which implement international copyright law differently than the US)? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 22 06:35:38 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:35:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message , at 17:06:27 on Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Roland Perry writes >>And how do you read the former Stockholm Chief District prosecutor >>Sven-Erik Alhem views,  who testified that the decision to extradite >>Assange is ?unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and >>disproportionate.?? As he could be questioned in the UK > >A different view from a different lawyer. A good article here, which explains the "where he can be interviewed" thing, plus the ongoing "zombie facts" issue which afflicts this case: -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 22 06:56:37 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:56:37 +0300 Subject: [governance] Apple Samsung Patent Trial: Closing Arguments Delivered Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19340229 Interesting how the trial has been going on for quite some time now. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 22 06:59:52 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:59:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Midata Project Plan for Compulsory Customer Data Message-ID: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-19331302 Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Aug 22 07:03:30 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:33:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yep, he's screwed. http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/ -C On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message , at 17:06:27 on > Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Roland Perry writes > >>And how do you read the former Stockholm Chief District prosecutor > >>Sven-Erik Alhem views, who testified that the decision to extradite > >>Assange is ?unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and > >>disproportionate.?? As he could be questioned in the UK > > > >A different view from a different lawyer. > > A good article here, which explains the "where he can be interviewed" > thing, plus the ongoing "zombie facts" issue which afflicts this case: > > myths-about-assange-extradition > > > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 22 07:20:06 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:20:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <57088793-FAF9-441E-B55F-2DC32E85AD15@virtualized.org> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <67927596-73D3-4992-A34F-5365A89E9BC2@virtualized.org> <20120821224539.456a1f1d@quill5.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483BEEE6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <57088793-FAF9-441E-B55F-2DC32E85AD15@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <20120822132006.4ca3ab1c@quill5.bollow.ch> David Conrad wrote: > On Aug 21, 2012, at 4:57 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > wrote: > > Elashi was not reeeeeeally abiding by RFC 1591 either, was he? > > No, he wasn't. In theory, the administrative contact for ccTLDs (at > least) is supposed to be in-country. However, as mentioned, ccTLDs > are considered issues of national sovereignty so in general, IANA > staff can merely ask nicely when somebody who is already the ccTLD > admin breaks the rules. FWIW, it looks to me like IANA originally delegated the .IQ ccTLD with full knowledge of the fact that the administrative contact wasn't endorsed by any national institution of Iraq, wasn't in-country, and had no intentions of moving there. I'm not writing this "in criticism of IANA": It would not be reasonable to criticize today's IANA (the IANA function of ICANN) for what Jon Postel (in his responsibility for the IANA of back then) decided, and in any case I'm willing to go pretty far in giving just about any decision of Jon Postel the benefit of the doubt, as there are strong reasons to believe that he acted with good intentions and that he was not a fool. Also the principle of ccTLDs being matters of national sovereignity is much more strongly established today than it was before the adoption of the Tunis Agenda as an international softlaw instrument. My point is just that in view of the above-mentioned probable circumstances of the original ccTLD delegation, I don't think that it is reasonable either to criticize Mr Elashi for not living in Iraq despite operating the .IQ ccTLD. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Wed Aug 22 08:56:14 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 14:56:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5034D6EE.7040208@panamo.eu> Distressing show of /The Society of the spectacle! /(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle) @+, Dominique Le 22/08/12 13:03, Chaitanya Dhareshwar a écrit : > Yep, he's screwed. > http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/ > > -C > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Roland Perry > > wrote: > > In message >, at 17:06:27 on > Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Roland Perry > writes > >>And how do you read the former Stockholm Chief District prosecutor > >>Sven-Erik Alhem views, who testified that the decision to extradite > >>Assange is ?unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and > >>disproportionate.?? As he could be questioned in the UK > > > >A different view from a different lawyer. > > A good article here, which explains the "where he can be interviewed" > thing, plus the ongoing "zombie facts" issue which afflicts this case: > > myths-about-assange-extradition > > > -- > Roland Perry > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From info at freshmail.de Wed Aug 22 09:39:16 2012 From: info at freshmail.de (Matthias Pfeifer Freshmail) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:39:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de><502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net><502EAB2C.3060201@cafonso.ca><502FA1AA.7030101@panamo.eu> Message-ID: >On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> Yes, Carlos, interesting points here: >> >> - applicants : 3/4 are US companies, unless you believe that Verisign is >> a >> small swiss ltd cie, and so on. >> - backoffice operators : 3/4 are a small bunch of US companies. Again >> Verisign : 250 TLDs. >> Details coming soon in a next mail. >> >> US are 10% of Internet users nowadays. And English language 25% of >> contents. >> Where are the bugs ? >> >Outreach? The bug was Rod Beckstrom. OK, not entirely, but probably >enough to matter. He did a poor job. >Adam So we need another 5 or more years for outreach? ----------------------------------- Matthias Pfeifer -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 22 09:52:50 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:52:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Roland, Thank you for "the still, small voice of calm". I read the article at the link and also followed several of the links within that article, including the one to the article by Felicity Gerrity discussing the legal definition of rape. I am forcefully reminded of a quotation from Robert Bolt's play "A Man for All Seasons" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/quotes *William Roper *: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! *Sir Thomas More *: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? *William Roper *: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! *Sir Thomas More *: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! The process of law is what should protect all of us. Of course, demonstrably, it did not manage to protect Sir Thomas More, but he only became vulnerable when the law and its processes were broken and abused. And the debate certainly clarifies the relevance of this thread to "Internet governance" because this is how the principles of internet governance are being established. We are reminded of the need to keep searching for the "hard" information underneath, rather than allow ourselves to be distracted by the froth and bubbles on the surface. Deirdre On 22 August 2012 06:35, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 17:06:27 on > Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Roland Perry writes > >>And how do you read the former Stockholm Chief District prosecutor > >>Sven-Erik Alhem views, who testified that the decision to extradite > >>Assange is ?unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and > >>disproportionate.?? As he could be questioned in the UK > > > >A different view from a different lawyer. > > A good article here, which explains the "where he can be interviewed" > thing, plus the ongoing "zombie facts" issue which afflicts this case: > > myths-about-assange-extradition> > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 22 10:46:18 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:46:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google Wi-Fi gaffe breached Privacy Act In-Reply-To: <1345602466.50501.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1345283393.42074.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1345602466.50501.YahooMailNeo@web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: In message <1345602466.50501.YahooMailNeo at web125103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>, at 19:27:46 on Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Imran Ahmed Shah writes >    Google Analytics breaks Norwegian privacy laws, local agency said  >    http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/434164/google_analytics_ >breaks_norwegian_privacy_laws_local_agency_said/#closeme >  >    'Google Australia must destroy Street View data: Privacy >Commissioner' >    http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/432980/google_australia_ >must_destroy_street_view_data_privacy_commissioner_/#closeme >  >“I do not require Google to retain the additional payload data and, >unless there is a lawful purpose for its retention, Google should >immediately destroy the data What's interesting about these two technologies is they don't [currently] seek permission from the public. As opposed to applications, and platforms like Android, where permissions can and are being routinely sought - although I'm sure almost everyone pays as much attention as they do to online T&C). You may have seen the fuss about cookies (in general) in Europe at the moment - unless "strictly necessary" (whatever that means) websites are supposed to seek permission, but as usual the law only applies to servers in the EU. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 22 10:58:51 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:58:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5034F3AB.1050400@gmail.com> Thanks this is interesting, but misses my point that I made in response to Adam's post. So I take the New Statesman and the Guardian's legal eagle (J Rozenberg, 10 Apr 2012) with a pinch of salt at best. I simply cannot fathom the conflation of the rape allegations with whistleblower protection and risk of torture (even those who are guilty can claim asylum). But we can agree to disagree. I however do prefer classical liberal views. None of these New Statesman's claims is important as far as a claim for asylum based on a well founded fear of persecution. Solitary confinement (as practised by the US in Super Max prisons and in particular for those who "challenge" the security establishment), and other cruel, inhumane of degrading treatment (like no clothes for Manning etc, see further James Ball (UK Guardian 29 Nov 2011)) are sufficient to sustain a claim for asylum. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in one the MOST dastardly of decisions (in process and substance, with undermining of even the 'separation of powers' doctrine - independence of the judiciary - undermined as intimated publicly by a senior legal British official) ruled favourably in extradition involving muslims Babar Ahmad, Syed Talha Ahsan and Adel Bary et al (I do not condone nor support any of the actions of these individuals, but this is a matter of precedent and sanctity of the law). Not even the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture was able to lead evidence on the treatment to be expected if extradition was granted. The court also relied upon the long democratic tradition of the US (hearing only flowery governmental representations) implying US Exceptionalism. What this means is the almost ANY European can be extradited to the US now without regard for the treatment he may receive. And what is clear is whether state action is valid in these circumstances, as against a grundnorm. The soldiers and mercenaries implicated (by Wikileaks) in the most heinous crimes as revealed by Wikileaks tend to get away with the 'few bad apples' justification with token judgements against them in the rare instances where action was taken. Sweden and Britain are implicated in extraordinary renditions, that Human Rights Watch rep said was ok. So, for me, some perspective is in order. Perhaps the dialogue in “A Man for Seasons” (by Robert Bolt) on the 'spurious' conviction of Sir Thomas More with his accuser is relevant: *William Roper:* So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! *Sir Thomas More:* Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? *William Roper:* Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! *Sir Thomas More:* Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake! But, we can agree to disagree. This is a fork in the road, where judgements and motives differ... On 2012/08/22 12:35 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 17:06:27 on > Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Roland Perry writes >>> And how do you read the former Stockholm Chief District prosecutor >>> Sven-Erik Alhem views, who testified that the decision to extradite >>> Assange is ?unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and >>> disproportionate.?? As he could be questioned in the UK >> A different view from a different lawyer. > A good article here, which explains the "where he can be interviewed" > thing, plus the ongoing "zombie facts" issue which afflicts this case: > > myths-about-assange-extradition> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 22 10:59:49 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 10:59:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <5034D6EE.7040208@panamo.eu> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> <5034D6EE.7040208@panamo.eu> Message-ID: Tangential perhaps to Internet governance but relevant to the current thread, this article Assange case: How is rape defined? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19333439 just appeared on the BBC site. Deirdre On 22 August 2012 08:56, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Distressing show of *The Society of the spectacle! *( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle) > > @+, Dominique > > > > Le 22/08/12 13:03, Chaitanya Dhareshwar a écrit : > > Yep, he's screwed. > http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/ > > > -C > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Roland Perry < > roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > >> In message , at 17:06:27 on >> Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Roland Perry writes >> >>And how do you read the former Stockholm Chief District prosecutor >> >>Sven-Erik Alhem views, who testified that the decision to extradite >> >>Assange is ?unreasonable and unprofessional, as well as unfair and >> >>disproportionate.?? As he could be questioned in the UK >> > >> >A different view from a different lawyer. >> >> A good article here, which explains the "where he can be interviewed" >> thing, plus the ongoing "zombie facts" issue which afflicts this case: >> >> > myths-about-assange-extradition >> > >> -- >> Roland Perry >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Wed Aug 22 11:44:38 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:44:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <50348A6B.7050205@digsys.bg> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <5033DC36.30809@gih.com> <5033E729.2070903@digsys.bg> <50340D4E.7030202@gih.com> <50348A6B.7050205@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <5034FE66.9030400@gih.com> Dear Daniel, thanks for your follow-up on this. On 22/08/2012 09:29, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > What "countries" could do, if they care, about the root DNS servers > being available in their country is to ensure they have reasonable > disaster recovery plans in place. Having local root server instances > is one of these. And that's exactly what many countries are doing -- and several Root operators are happy to facilitate this, hence the reason why the list of mirrors has grown so fast in recent years. Kindest regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Wed Aug 22 11:57:27 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:57:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <20120822132006.4ca3ab1c@quill5.bollow.ch> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <67927596-73D3-4992-A34F-5365A89E9BC2@virtualized.org> <20120821224539.456a1f1d@quill5.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483BEEE6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <57088793-FAF9-441E-B55F-2DC32E85AD15@virtualized.org> <20120822132006.4ca3ab1c@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <50350167.1040208@gih.com> On 22/08/2012 13:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > FWIW, it looks to me like IANA originally delegated the .IQ ccTLD with > full knowledge of the fact that the administrative contact wasn't > endorsed by any national institution of Iraq, wasn't in-country, and > had no intentions of moving there. > > I'm not writing this "in criticism of IANA": It would not be reasonable > to criticize today's IANA (the IANA function of ICANN) for what Jon > Postel (in his responsibility for the IANA of back then) decided, > and in any case I'm willing to go pretty far in giving just about > any decision of Jon Postel the benefit of the doubt, as there are > strong reasons to believe that he acted with good intentions and that > he was not a fool. Also the principle of ccTLDs being matters of > national sovereignity is much more strongly established today than it > was before the adoption of the Tunis Agenda as an international softlaw > instrument. > > My point is just that in view of the above-mentioned probable > circumstances of the original ccTLD delegation, I don't think that it > is reasonable either to criticize Mr Elashi for not living in Iraq > despite operating the .IQ ccTLD. > > ...and of course a lot of this is historical. While many countries today see their ccTLD as a resource of National Interest, this was not always the case. In fact, that was true of any Internet-related activity, including bringing the Internet to a country. In the early/mid nineties, the international Internet in many countries was built mainly by private enterprise and NGOs. Not Telcos. Not Governments. You'd ask the national TelCo about Internet and they'd reply that this was of no interest to them. You'd let a government's telecom ministry know that they should apply for a ccTLD based on the ISO_3166 list and they'd laugh at your face. Many ccTLDs ended up being created by default, assigned to individuals and private enterprise. When .BV was assigned, the long running quadruped joke of "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" turned to a biped penguin. Kind regards, Olivier -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Aug 22 12:10:15 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:10:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world In-Reply-To: <50350167.1040208@gih.com> References: <20120821104820.4bb7b3c1@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120821182453.4ad94c06@quill5.bollow.ch> <67927596-73D3-4992-A34F-5365A89E9BC2@virtualized.org> <20120821224539.456a1f1d@quill5.bollow.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483BEEE6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <57088793-FAF9-441E-B55F-2DC32E85AD15@virtualized.org> <20120822132006.4ca3ab1c@quill5.bollow.ch>,<50350167.1040208@gih.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B12CEC1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Just a comment on this specific aspect: FWIW, it looks to me like IANA originally delegated the .IQ ccTLD with > full knowledge of the fact that the administrative contact wasn't > endorsed by any national institution of Iraq, wasn't in-country, and > had no intentions of moving there. There were more than a few ccTLDs set up in dual national techies' bedrooms or offices in the early days. Generally in their and I am guessing Jon's mind as favors for their country of origin. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond [ocl at gih.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 11:57 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] People's Daily of China: US must hand over Internet control to the world On 22/08/2012 13:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > FWIW, it looks to me like IANA originally delegated the .IQ ccTLD with > full knowledge of the fact that the administrative contact wasn't > endorsed by any national institution of Iraq, wasn't in-country, and > had no intentions of moving there. > > I'm not writing this "in criticism of IANA": It would not be reasonable > to criticize today's IANA (the IANA function of ICANN) for what Jon > Postel (in his responsibility for the IANA of back then) decided, > and in any case I'm willing to go pretty far in giving just about > any decision of Jon Postel the benefit of the doubt, as there are > strong reasons to believe that he acted with good intentions and that > he was not a fool. Also the principle of ccTLDs being matters of > national sovereignity is much more strongly established today than it > was before the adoption of the Tunis Agenda as an international softlaw > instrument. > > My point is just that in view of the above-mentioned probable > circumstances of the original ccTLD delegation, I don't think that it > is reasonable either to criticize Mr Elashi for not living in Iraq > despite operating the .IQ ccTLD. > > ...and of course a lot of this is historical. While many countries today see their ccTLD as a resource of National Interest, this was not always the case. In fact, that was true of any Internet-related activity, including bringing the Internet to a country. In the early/mid nineties, the international Internet in many countries was built mainly by private enterprise and NGOs. Not Telcos. Not Governments. You'd ask the national TelCo about Internet and they'd reply that this was of no interest to them. You'd let a government's telecom ministry know that they should apply for a ccTLD based on the ISO_3166 list and they'd laugh at your face. Many ccTLDs ended up being created by default, assigned to individuals and private enterprise. When .BV was assigned, the long running quadruped joke of "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" turned to a biped penguin. Kind regards, Olivier -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Wed Aug 22 12:21:39 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 18:21:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD0E7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <502E5F16.1050408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50350713.4090900@gih.com> On 17/08/2012 21:33, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > > Just think of the scenario when Amazon owns .book, and mind you, > it is to be fully private. Unlike existing registries like .com > etc amazon will not even be obliged to sell second level domain > names under .book in the public market (protecting the > marketplace, huh!). Quite soon, amazon may change its name, or at > least its book division's name to .book... It will have a right > to, since it owns that particular symbol in a very special > way..... Remember, normal trademark etc law wont allow it to run > its business under the name 'book', because it will be considered > too generic a name, meaning it is pubic property (those good old > times when laws were made to protect the public!). But with > anexpedient routed through theICANN- that benefactor of the > powerful, Amazon can run its business under .book, the ownership > of which is 'established, or would certainly get established over > due course of use as everyone will know, of course .book amazon > (and vice versa), are you kidding or what! > > This is an excellent point. The At Large community that represent and > look out for the interests of ordinary internet users have been > robustly engaging in discussions and also receiving feedback and > comments from its members on this very same issue and also on > "Amazon's" application of .book. It will also be great if you could > post your comments to the At Large list as I think I have seen you > reply to one of the mailing lists there so that the views are > captured. Membership of At Large is open to all and you can find out > how to join as an Accredited At Large Structure (ALS). In the Asian > Australasian Pacific region, to join the At Large, has to be through > an ALS. It is one things to object here but it is far more impacting > to raise your concerns with ICANN through the appropriate mechanism > process available to the public to comment. I suspect that you may > have done this already and if you have, then please ignore this comment. > > Thanks Sala -- and I note a lot of ICANN bashing is always taking place outside of ICANN. Rather than venting about the failings of an organization, I invite everyone to start working using the tools that this organization is providing to improve it. Today, many women and men from around the world are working hard to improve ICANN by bringing the voice of the Internet user into the ICANN processes. Whether it's via the NCUC or via the ALAC, there are never enough volunteers to engage into all of what is going on simultaneously. ICANN works on a multi-stakeholder model. It is an operational multi-stakeholder model. It is our responsibility to make it work. Your responsiblity, IGC members. Everyone's responsibility. So when the US government writes to ICANN that it has not done enough outreach to let everyone comment, I take it as a failure not only of ICANN, but of each and everyone of us, who are in the know, to have informed our local communities. Because if ICANN does not work, then the multi-stakeholder model *does not work in practice* and if that's the case, we can just hand the Internet over to governments & the UN to run, go home & enjoy our lives, never needing to ever post again on the IGC Governance list. Kind regards, Olivier (in a personal capacity) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hakik at hakik.org Wed Aug 22 12:55:26 2012 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:55:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU signs deal to build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access In-Reply-To: <1253782651.6752.1345625765785.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m22> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483ADDAB@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1253782651.6752.1345625765785.JavaMail.www@wwinf1m22> Message-ID: At 09:56 22-08-2012, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >The ITU stepping in is a valuable assistance if >-and only if- it is based on suitable network >design and implementation capabilities (and >proven field experience) of its experts. There >are precisely some doubts about these >capabilities when you take a (professional) look >on projects like Central African Backbone (cAB) >ITU was responsible for, and the blamable >"progress" of the panafrican network ... in >"progress" since the seventies ! This failure is >occurring although ITU's Development Bureau has >been chaired since its stting-up (1986) by an African, except during 4 years. It may not be the case who runs the show, but in my opinion the "who" need clear understanding about the technicalities and appropriate policy issues that lacks in most of the government appointees at the national level. Further, government jobs are rotational, and hence as people changes, thus issues changes according to the biases or expectations. It is good that a few developing countries have established special units or entities with expertise in the related issues, or trying to build. Best regards, Hakikur > > >Greetings > > > >Jean-Louis Fullsack > >Former ITU project coordinator in Africa > > > > > Message du 06/08/12 22:08 > > De : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Fahd A. Batayneh" > > Copie à : "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" > > Objet : Re: [governance] ITU signs deal to > build 180 base stations in Africa to expand broadband access > > > > > > > > > From my exposure to ITU activities, I can > conclude that the ITU tend to tap countries that are low on ICT resources, > > > > >If one looks at the statistics on penetration >rates via >http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/index.html >you will see that for most of the developing >countries have extremely low penetration rates. >In a separate thread on Ethiopia, I had >attempted to show some of the variables that >exist that one could call significant deterrents >to rolling out infrastructure. You see the >reality is that Telcos will only pump money into >CAPEX projects if they know they will get a >Return on Investment (RoI). A consistent trend >for most Telcos involved in Broadband >infrastructure is that they are realising that >it takes at least 15 years to recover that RoI. > > > >Also consider the IDI ranking which measures a >host of things including accessibility, >affordability etc, and you will find (not >suprisingly) alot of developing countries at the >bottom of the rung. Whilst there are numerous >studies that show the linkages between broadband >deployment/investment with economic growth, >there are other factors that put a dampener on >basic things like "access". I can only assume >that Africa has numerous forums where access >challenges would be discussed. I think that >sometimes people forget that part of living in >an "ecosystem" (apologies to those who despise >the term) is that everything has its place. Just >as when a species or genus becomes extinct it >eventually affects the environment so too in the internet ecosystem. > > > >The ITU only steps in when countries through >their governments make a request for assistance. >As an advocate for development, I think that >this should be applauded. One of the Internet >Governance policy areas identified in the WGIG >2005 includes high interconnection costs. At >some point it would be interesting to see a >review of the WGIG Report and its findings. >-- > > >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > > > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 22 15:22:59 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 22:22:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] Twitter Promises to Cooperate After Indian Government Blocks Six Fake PMO Accounts Message-ID: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/twitter-promises-to-cooperate-after-government-blocks-six-fake-pmo-accounts/articleshow/15601890.cms Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 23 02:03:49 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:33:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> James Yes, ICANN has never claimed it is not subject to US law. It will be ridiculous to do so for any responsible organisation based in the US. Problem is, ICANN apologists claim so, especially when caught on the wrong foot in global discussions - like on this list - faced with legitimate criticism of how a global infrastructure can be managed as per legal and executive authority of one country. They first claim that ICANN is /de jure/ independent, but when pushed with facts, they try to say, ok, well, at least, it is /de facto/, independent of US laws. Now, this case, with an outcome that could go either way, shows that it is not even /de facto /independent. So, I was just asking those ICANN - US relationship apologists, what have they to say now. But they seme to ducking the question right now :). parminder On Tuesday 21 August 2012 10:05 PM, James S. Tyre wrote: > > To my knowledge, ICANN has never claimed (at least not in court) that > it isn’t subject to U.S. law or subject to review by U.S. courts. > Certainly it didn’t so here, its argument was a more nuanced argument > that U.S. antitrust law did not apply because ICANN was engaging in a > noncommercial activity (and antitrust law does not apply to such > activities). The court disagreed with ICANN, but that’s different > from a broad claim that ICANN is exempt from U.S. law. > > But let’s use the Wayback Machine to go back in time a decade. During > the only time when ICANN had elected Directors, one of the elected > directors was Karl Auerbach. Karl attempted to assert his absolute > rights as a Director of a California nonprofit public benefit > corporation (which is what ICANN is), but ICANN rebuffed him at every > step. So, eventually, Karl hired a lawyer (me) to sue ICANN. The > short story is that we won. The relevant part to your post is that, > even back then, ICANN did not claim to be exempt from either U.S. or > California law. It’s defense of the lawsuit was based on either grounds. > > That ICANN is subject to U.S. judicial review is neither new nor > controversial. > > -- > > James S. Tyre > > Law Offices of James S. Tyre > > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 > > Culver City, CA 90230-4969 > > 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) > > jstyre at jstyre.com > > Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation > > https://www.eff.org > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Monday, August 20, 2012 11:45 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell > Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs > > > This is a very important, and possibly a historic, news, which > exposing the meaninglessness of ICANN's claim of independence from the > US establishment. > > A US court has given the go ahead to the anti-trust filing against > ICANN decision instituting the .xxx gtld . There is every likelihood > that this decision of ICANN may be found as going against US laws. > What would ICANN do in that case? At the very least, it is quite > probable that ICANN may be asked to put certain new provisions in its > registry agreement regarding .xxx, as has been sought by the > plaintiff. What would be ICANN's response in that case? > > Remember that each of the new gltds will be open to similar review by > US courts. > > ICANN has lost a major battle regarding its claimed status as a global > organisation responsible only to the global community, a claim which > in any case had feet of clay.... > > And with it, also those who defend ICANN on the above ground have lost > a major battle. I hope such defendants on the list will respond to > this news and the paradox it poses. > > It is now clear that ICANN is subject to US judicial review (which of > course it always was), and that its decisions can be struck down by US > courts, in which case, ICANN has just no option other than to reverse > its decisions. For those who have expressed lack of clarity about the > meaning of oversight, this is oversight. Well, to me more precise, > this is judicial review which is a part of overall oversight. > > parminder > > On Tuesday 21 August 2012 06:37 AM, Robert Pollard wrote: > > Salanieta > > Thanks for these interesting links. I'm re-posting your message > with a new subject line, as the issue would seem to deserve a > separate thread from "new gTLDs". > > Although the suit may have some implications for new gTLDs, many > of the allegations re antitrust issues re the .xxx tld are based > on the the particular history of the establishment of .xxx and the > actions of ICM Registry, LLC in obtaining control of it > > Robert > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748 > > http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Aug 23 02:25:16 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 20:25:16 -1000 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Aug 22, 2012, at 8:03 PM, parminder wrote: > Problem is, ICANN apologists claim so, especially when caught on the wrong foot in global discussions - like on this list - faced with legitimate criticism of how a global infrastructure can be managed as per legal and executive authority of one country. I'm surprised anyone would make such a claim. Could you provide a URL? I'd like to understand the rationale. Thanks, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 02:36:06 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:36:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Online tools blocked in Syria. Its probably not what you think. In-Reply-To: References: <2E28DE6D-4EFD-499B-B4EB-397B28887333@gmail.com> <17313511-069B-4E35-80A6-B04DCA280B83@psiphon.ca> Message-ID: <000a01cd80f9$abed9aa0$03c8cfe0$@gmail.com> Another instance of extra-territoriality, national policy and the Internet. M From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of John Scott-Railton Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:50 PM To: Liberation Technologies Subject: Re: [liberationtech] Online tools blocked in Syria. Its probably not what you think. Hi Rafal (and Libtech) I'm a bit surprised. Is there a specific case where a license has been denied, or were services are no longer offered because of export restrictions? Thanks for the question. Some of these issues are articulated in the petition text, and James Ball writing in the Washington Post on the 16th wrote this much more clearly than I can: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/sanctions-aimed-at-syr ia-and-iran-are-hindering-opposition-activists-say/2012/08/14/c4c88998-e569- 11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html To answer your question, here are two of things you can't get right now in Syria: Targeted Advertising Blocked Problem: Inability to do targeted advertising for users registered in Syrian space. E.g. purchasing PSAs on security issues on Facebook. This makes it difficult to do effective messaging on key issues, or for other groups providing information to direct, say, social media users to their content. Current Ad-hoc Solutions: Information provided in higher-cost, more labor-intensive ways (e.g. trainings to small groups, other kinds of messaging that hit much smaller, informal pools of people etc). Mobile Apple App Store, Google Play both blocked Problem: Lack of access means inability to securely and straightforwardly access a full range of tools in app stores, including mobile security tools, connectivity solutions (e.g. VPNs) as well as news and information. Bypassing these requires jailbreaking phones. User Quote on Mobile in Conflict: " if an iphone user wants to stream a protest or shelling he needs to jailbreak his phone or find a proxy that they can use to download the app or jailbreak the iphone...then i send him a cracked copy of the apps...[then] he then needs to upload it onto the phone then he is able to use the vpn or streaming app" Current Ad-hoc Solutions: Unwieldy work arounds. Doesn't work for everyone, phones must be made more vulnerable by being jailbroken. There are many other issues, including access to Sourceforge, auto-updates for Java, Windows Activation and so on. As the petition frames it, the complexity of this issue stems from the roles played both by sanctions and export licensure, and by companies own reluctance to undertake the legal determination of whether their products are legal (e.g. under General License #5). The end result is that Syrians don't have access to important tools. Both government and private sector actors / tool developers have an imperative to address this, we think. On the government end, we think that encouraging better guidance and clarity and review of licensure for Syria is a natural step, and a stronger signal to the private sector. Recent efforts to review and ease sanctions on Iran are a good model to start with. Anyway, I'm interested what prompted this petition as our organization is about to embark on ramping up of a large-scale activity focused on Syria and digital safety. Good luck! Very best, John Many thanks Rafal Sent from my PsiPhone On 2012-08-21, at 2:18 AM, John Scott-Railton wrote: Hi All, You're likely aware of US export restrictions intended to limit the Assad Regime's access to monitoring and filtering gear. But there is another side of this coin: unintended and negative effects on Syrians' access to personal communications and security technologies. This inadvertently compliments the regime's own filtering efforts. A few hours ago, an online petition* started circulating, requesting that the Departments of Commerce and Treasury review and streamline export licensure, guidance and review to address the problem. The petition is hosted by Change.org , and led by Dlshad Othman, a Syrian opposition IT expert. Please consider signing, and spreading the petition link: www.change.org/syria I've written a quick summary. TL;DR for Libtech: -Some key software and online services, including security tools, aren't making their way to Syrians. - Even if the tools are exempted under the letter of the law -Syrian digital activists don't understand why this is happening, given official statements from the US that say these tools should be available. - Last week, the Washington Post laid out the problem: Washington Post Article -Sanctions are complicated, and the process of licensure is quite long. It can be resource consuming, even for big players. -Penalties for violations are severe -Companies' risk-averse compliance regimes are partly responsible for why many tools currently legal under the letter of current law, or whose legality could be quickly determined, have not been made available to Syrians. -Companies will benefit from clearer signals and guidance from Departments of Commerce and Treasury -A new general license is needed: it should give clearer and more explicit exemptions on personal communications and security technologi balancing legitimate concerns over cryptography and financial transactions with the need to protect the safety of at-risk populations - For specific licenses, a more streamlined process also needs to be implemented, giving clearer formal and informal guidance to companies, and a faster case-by-case licensing mechanism for companies and NGOs * (full disclosure, I'm involved) Best, John Scott-Railton John Scott-Railton www.johnscottrailton.com PGP key ID: 0x3e0ccb80778fe8d7 Fingerprint: FDBE BE29 A157 9881 34C7 8FA6 3E0C CB80 778F E8D7 -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 23 02:43:41 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:13:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <5032480C.3020607@panamo.eu> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> <50323D91.8020007@itforchange .net> <5032480C.3020607@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <5035D11D.8000204@itforchange.net> On Monday 20 August 2012 07:52 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > I recall the proposal of Viviane Reding in 2009, when she was > commissioner for Information Society and Media at the European Commission: > http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/696&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en > > Now she is vice-president and commissioner responsible for Justice, > Fundamental rights and Citizenship. > > Parminder, please, do you envision things in a similar way? Yes. India's CIRP proposal is very similar. Only better developed, and with clear multistakeholder input systems. With a few differences, India's propose a body inside the UN, and the European Commission proposal, one outside. India proposes 50 country members, and European Commission’s proposal 12. > John, please, what do you think about Mrs Reding's proposal? Yes, I would also like to know... You asked for alternatives on the table, and here are two. > > Psss! A new thread? I leave you take the initiative as you put the > subject on the table. Would leave it to John if he wants to take this discussion forward on the alternative of the table . (Also there is Carlos Afonso's proposal around 2005 which is still relevant, and is enclosed) parminder > > Best, > > @+, Dominique > > -- > Dominique Lacroix > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > Le 20/08/12 15:37, parminder a écrit : >> >> On Monday 20 August 2012 06:58 PM, John Curran wrote: >>> On Aug 20, 2012, at 9:14 AM, parminder >>> wrote: >>>> The alternative is clear; a group representing all countries does >>>> the CIR oversight which is at presently done by the US. And the >>>> process ensures that no one country or even a group of countries >>>> can capture decision making involved in the role...... >>> Excellent; please point me to the proposal which details >>> this alternative. >> >> I have made the proposal several times on this list for a multi >> country oversight board, that takes up the role of oversight >> exercised by the US at present..... India's CIRP proposal present >> this alternative at a higher level of articulation without the >> details... These things go in steps, over discussions. >> >>>> There is *no* doubt that oversight by such a multi-country group, >>>> with the involved principles and processes clearly defined, and the >>>> nature of oversight powers narrowly restricted, is a much much >>>> better system >>> Still TBD (to be determined...) - the assertion relies on information >>> not in evidence. >> What kind of 'evidence' a proposal for a new/ improved political >> institution/ system can possibly produce? >> >> parminder >> >> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> /John >>> >>> Disclaimer: My views alone. Reading this message while driving >>> may cause nausea or dizziness, as may reading this message while >>> motionless. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: carlos proposal 2005.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 148359 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Thu Aug 23 02:52:58 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 06:52:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com>,<5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483C1606@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Parminder, I just erased the third or fourth version of a brief, punctual reply to your counterfactual characterization of your counterparts. Suffice to say as Wolfgang Pauli did "it isn't even wrong." Maybe you'll prefer to answer David Conrad's clear, direct question - you only need a URL. Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Enviado el: jueves, 23 de agosto de 2012 01:03 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs James Yes, ICANN has never claimed it is not subject to US law. It will be ridiculous to do so for any responsible organisation based in the US. Problem is, ICANN apologists claim so, especially when caught on the wrong foot in global discussions - like on this list - faced with legitimate criticism of how a global infrastructure can be managed as per legal and executive authority of one country. They first claim that ICANN is de jure independent, but when pushed with facts, they try to say, ok, well, at least, it is de facto, independent of US laws. Now, this case, with an outcome that could go either way, shows that it is not even de facto independent. So, I was just asking those ICANN - US relationship apologists, what have they to say now. But they seme to ducking the question right now :). parminder On Tuesday 21 August 2012 10:05 PM, James S. Tyre wrote: To my knowledge, ICANN has never claimed (at least not in court) that it isn’t subject to U.S. law or subject to review by U.S. courts. Certainly it didn’t so here, its argument was a more nuanced argument that U.S. antitrust law did not apply because ICANN was engaging in a noncommercial activity (and antitrust law does not apply to such activities). The court disagreed with ICANN, but that’s different from a broad claim that ICANN is exempt from U.S. law. But let’s use the Wayback Machine to go back in time a decade. During the only time when ICANN had elected Directors, one of the elected directors was Karl Auerbach. Karl attempted to assert his absolute rights as a Director of a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (which is what ICANN is), but ICANN rebuffed him at every step. So, eventually, Karl hired a lawyer (me) to sue ICANN. The short story is that we won. The relevant part to your post is that, even back then, ICANN did not claim to be exempt from either U.S. or California law. It’s defense of the lawsuit was based on either grounds. That ICANN is subject to U.S. judicial review is neither new nor controversial. -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Monday, August 20, 2012 11:45 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs This is a very important, and possibly a historic, news, which exposing the meaninglessness of ICANN's claim of independence from the US establishment. A US court has given the go ahead to the anti-trust filing against ICANN decision instituting the .xxx gtld . There is every likelihood that this decision of ICANN may be found as going against US laws. What would ICANN do in that case? At the very least, it is quite probable that ICANN may be asked to put certain new provisions in its registry agreement regarding .xxx, as has been sought by the plaintiff. What would be ICANN's response in that case? Remember that each of the new gltds will be open to similar review by US courts. ICANN has lost a major battle regarding its claimed status as a global organisation responsible only to the global community, a claim which in any case had feet of clay.... And with it, also those who defend ICANN on the above ground have lost a major battle. I hope such defendants on the list will respond to this news and the paradox it poses. It is now clear that ICANN is subject to US judicial review (which of course it always was), and that its decisions can be struck down by US courts, in which case, ICANN has just no option other than to reverse its decisions. For those who have expressed lack of clarity about the meaning of oversight, this is oversight. Well, to me more precise, this is judicial review which is a part of overall oversight. parminder On Tuesday 21 August 2012 06:37 AM, Robert Pollard wrote: Salanieta Thanks for these interesting links. I'm re-posting your message with a new subject line, as the issue would seem to deserve a separate thread from "new gTLDs". Although the suit may have some implications for new gTLDs, many of the allegations re antitrust issues re the .xxx tld are based on the the particular history of the establishment of .xxx and the actions of ICM Registry, LLC in obtaining control of it Robert On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748 http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 02:55:18 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:55:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] Verizon Renews Criticism of Net Neutrality Regulations Message-ID: Verizon has renewed its criticisms of the Obama administration’s Net neutrality rules, saying its lawsuit seeking to overturn them will rein in an out-of-control federal agency. www.news.medubai.com/verizon-renews-criticism-of-net-neutrality-regulations/ Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 23 04:43:00 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:43:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> [Emphasis added...] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt The bizarre, unhealthy, blinding media contempt for Julian Assange It is possible to protect the rights of the complainants in Sweden and Assange's rights against political persecution, but a vindictive thirst for vengeance is preventing that * Glenn Greenwald * guardian.co.uk , Wednesday 22 August Julian Assange: the British press's public enemy No1. Photograph: Chris Helgren/Reuters *(updated below - Update II)* Earlier this week, British lawyer and legal correspondent for the New Statesman David Allen Green generated a fair amount of attention by announcing that he would use his objective legal expertise to bust what he called "legal myths about the Assange extradition." These myths, he said, are being irresponsibly spread by Assange defenders and "are like 'zombie facts' which stagger on even when shot down." In addition to his other credentials, Green – like virtually the entire British press – is a long-time and deeply devoted Assange-basher , and his purported myth-busting was predictably regurgitated by those who reflexively grasp onto anything that reflects poorly on western establishmentarians' public enemy No1. It's really worth examining what Green argued to understand the behavior in which Assange detractors engage to advance this collective vendetta, and also to see how frequently blatant ideological agendas masquerade as high-minded, objective legal expertise. But before getting to that, let us pause to reflect on a truly amazing and revealing fact, one that calls for formal study in several academic fields of discipline. Is it not remarkable that one of the very few individuals over the past decade to risk his welfare, liberty and even life to meaningfully challenge the secrecy regime on which the American national security state (and those of its obedient allies ) depends just so happens to have become – long before he sought asylum from Ecuador – the most intensely and personally despised figure among the American and British media class and the British "liberal" intelligentsia? In 2008 – two years before the release of the "collateral murder" video, the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, and the diplomatic cables – the Pentagon prepared a secret report which proclaimed WikiLeaks to be an enemy of the state and plotted ways to destroy its credibility and reputation. But in a stroke of amazing luck, Pentagon operatives never needed to do any of that, because the establishment media in the US and Britain harbor at least as much intense personal loathing for the group's founder as the US government does, and eagerly took the lead in targeting him. Many people like to posit the US national security state and western media outlets as adversarial forces, but here – as is so often the case – they have so harmoniously joined in common cause. Whatever else is true, establishment media outlets show unlimited personal animus toward the person who, as a panel of judges put it when they awarded him the the 2011 Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism, "has given the public more scoops than most journalists can imagine." Similarly, when the Australian version of the Pulitzers – the Walkley Foundation – awarded its highest distinction (for "Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism") to WikiLeaks in 2011, it cited the group's "courageous and controversial commitment to the finest traditions of journalism: justice through transparency," and observed: "So many eagerly took advantage of the secret cables to create /more scoops in a year than most journalists could imagine in a lifetime/." When it comes to the American media, I've long noted this revealing paradox. The person who (along with whomever is the heroic leaker ) enabled "more scoops in a year than most journalists could imagine in a lifetime" – and who was quickly branded an enemy by the Pentagon and a terrorist by high U.S. officials – is the most hated figure among establishment journalists, even though they are ostensibly devoted to precisely these values of transparency and exposing serious government wrongdoing. (This transparency was imposed not only on the US and its allies , but also some of the most oppressive regimes in the Arab world ). But the contempt is far more intense, and bizarrely personal, from the British press, much of which behaves with staggering levels of mutually-reinforcing vindictiveness and groupthink when it's time to scorn an outsider like Assange. On Tuesday, Guardian columnist Seumas Milne wrote a superb analysis of British media coverage of Assange, and observed that "the virulence of British media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now unrelenting." Milne noted that to the British press, Assange "is nothing but a 'monstrous narcissist', a bail-jumping 'sex pest' and an exhibitionist maniac" – venom spewed at someone "who has yet to be charged, let alone convicted, of anything." Indeed, the personalized nature of this contempt from self-styled sober journalists often borders on the creepy (when it's not wildly transgressing that border). Former New York Times' executive editor Bill Keller infamously quoted an email from a Times reporter claiming that Assange wore "filthy white socks that collapsed around his ankles" and "smelled as if he hadn't bathed in days." On the very same day WikiLeaks released over 400,000 classified documents showing genuinely horrific facts about massive civilian deaths in the Iraq war and US complicity in torture by Iraqi forces, the New York Times front-paged an article purporting to diagnose Assange with a variety of psychological afflictions and concealed, malicious motives, based on its own pop-psychology observations and those of Assange's enemies ("erratic and imperious behavior", "a nearly delusional grandeur", "he is not in his right mind", "pursuing a vendetta against the United States"). A columnist for the Independent, Joan Smith, recently watched Assange's interview of Ecuadorean president Rafeal Correa and offered up this wisdom : "He's put on weight, his face is puffy and he didn't bother to shave before his interview with Correa." And perhaps most psychologically twisted of all: a team of New York Times reporters and editors last week, in its lead article about Ecuador's decision to grant asylum, decided it would be appropriate to include a quote from one of Assange's most dedicated enemies claiming that when the WikiLeaks founder was a visitor in his apartment, he "refused to flush the toilet during his entire stay" (faced with a barrage of mockery and disgust over their reporting on Assange's alleged toilet habits, the NYT sheepishly deleted that passage without comment). *It is difficult to think of anyone this side of Saddam Hussein who triggers this level of personalized, deeply ingrained hatred from establishment journalists. Few who spew this vitriol would dare speak with the type of personalized scorn toward, say, George Bush or Tony Blair – who actually launched an aggressive war that resulted in the deaths of at least 100,000 innocent people and kidnapped people from around the globe with no due process and sent them to be tortured. The reaction Assange inspires among establishment media figures is really sui generis.* It is vital to note, as was just demonstrated, that this media contempt long pre-dates, and exists wholly independent of, the controversy surrounding the sex assault allegations in Sweden, and certainly long pre-dates his seeking of asylum from Ecuador. Indeed, given that he has not been convicted of anything, to assume Assange's guilt would be reprehensible – every bit as reprehensible as concluding that the allegations are a CIA ruse or that the complainants' allegations should be dismissed as frivolous or inherently untrustworthy. It would be genuinely nice to think that the same British government that refused to extradite the mass rapist Augusto Pinochet has suddenly developed a devoted passion for ensuring that alleged sex assault offenders are brought to justice – just as it would be nice to believe that the sudden interest in denouncing Ecuador's press freedom record was driven by some newly discovered and authentic concern in the west for civil liberties protections in South America. But as Milne put it last night with great understatement: "such posturing looks increasingly specious." As he rhetorically asked: *"Can anyone seriously believe the dispute would have gone global, or that the British government would have made its asinine threat to suspend the Ecuadorean embassy's diplomatic status and enter it by force, or that scores of police would have surrounded the building, swarming up and down the fire escape and guarding every window, if it was all about one man wanted for questioning over sex crime allegations in Stockholm?"* Like those who suddenly discover the imperatives of feminism when it comes time to justify the war in Afghanistan, or those who become overnight advocates of gay rights when it comes time to demonize the regime in Tehran, or those who took a very recent interest in Ecuadorean press freedoms, these sex assault allegations -- as serious and deserving of legal resolution as they are -- are being cynically exploited as a political weapon by many who have long despised Assange for reasons entirely independent of this case. * * * * * There are several obvious reasons why Assange provokes such unhinged media contempt. The most obvious among them is competition: the resentment generated by watching someone outside their profession generate more critical scoops in a year than all other media outlets combined (see this brilliant 2008 post , in the context of the Clintons, about how professional and ego-based competition produces personal hatred like nothing else can). *Other causes are more subtle though substantive. Many journalists (and liberals) like to wear the costume of outsider-insurgent, but are, at their core, devoted institutionalists, faithful believers in the goodness of their society's power centers, and thus resent those (like Assange) who actually and deliberately place themselves outside of it. By putting his own liberty and security at risk to oppose the world's most powerful factions, Assange has clearly demonstrated what happens to real adversarial dissidents and insurgents – they're persecuted, demonized, and threatened, not befriended by and invited to parties within the halls of imperial power – and he thus causes many journalists to stand revealed as posers, servants to power, and courtiers.* Then there's the ideological cause. *As one long-time British journalist told me this week when discussing the vitriol of the British press toward Assange: "Nothing delights British former lefties more than an opportunity to defend power while pretending it is a brave stance in defence of a left liberal principle." That's the warped mindset that led to so many of these self-styled liberal journalists to support the attack on Iraq and other acts of Western aggression in the name of liberal values. And it's why nothing triggers their rage like fundamental critiques of, and especially meaningful opposition to, the institutions of power to which they are unfailingly loyal.* * * * * * With that context established, let us return to David Allen Green. The attacks on those who have defended Assange's extradition and asylum arguments has depended on the disgusting slander that such advocates are indifferent to the allegations of sexual assault made against him or, worse, *are "rape apologists." * *The reality is exactly the opposite. I have spoken to countless Assange defenders over the last couple of years and not a single one – literally not one – is dismissive of the need for those allegations in Sweden to be taken seriously and to be legally and fairly resolved.* Typifying this view is Milne's column last night, which in the midst of scorning the attacks on Assange, embraced "the seriousness of the rape allegations made against Assange, for which he should clearly answer and, if charges are brought, stand trial." *That is the view of every Assange defender with a platform that I know of, including me (one can certainly find anonymous internet commenters, or the occasional named one, making actual, horrific rape apologist claims, but one can find stray advocates saying anything; imputing those views to Assange defenders generally would be like claiming that all Assange critics want to see him illegally shot in the head or encaged for life because some prominent American and other commentators have called for this ).* *Not only Assange defenders, but also his own lawyers and the Ecuadorean government, have worked relentlessly to ensure that /he faces those allegations in Sweden/. They have merely sought to do so in a way that protects him from extradition to the US to face espionage charges for his journalism – a threat that could send him to prison for life (likely in a torturous super-max facility), and a threat only the _wilfuly blind_ could deny is serious and real . * In their *New York Times op-ed this week , Michael Moore and Oliver Stone correctly argue that it is "the British and Swedish governments that stand in the way of [the sex assault] investigation, not Mr Assange." *That's because, they note, Assange has repeatedly offered to be questioned by Swedish authorities in London, or to travel /today/ to Sweden to face those allegations if he could be assured that his doing so would not result in his extradition to the US to face espionage charges. Time and again , "Correa said Ecuador never intended to stop Assange from facing justice in Sweden. 'What we've asked for is guarantees that he won't be extradited to a third country,' he said." *Both /Britain and Sweden have steadfastly refused even to discuss any agreement that could safeguard both the rights of the complainants and Assange's rights not to be imprisoned for basic journalism./* These facts – and they are facts – pose a lethal threat to the key false narrative that Assange and his defenders are motivated by a desire to evade his facing the sex assault allegations in Sweden. So these facts need to be impugned, and that's where David Allen Green and his "myth-busting" legal expertise comes into play. One myth Green purports to debunk is the notion that "the Swedes should interview Assange in London." This cannot be, Green argues, because "Assange is not wanted merely for questioning. He is wanted for arrest." He also echoes numerous other Assange critics by arguing that the "he-has-not-yet-been-charged" claim is a mere technical irrelevancy: the only reason this is true, he says, is because he must be in Sweden for that to happen. *But back in early 2011, Assange critics were telling a much different story. *Back then, they were arguing that Assange was wildly overstating the danger he faced from extradition to Sweden because the investigation there was at such a preliminary stage and he was merely wanted for questioning. Indeed, here's what the very same David Allen Green wrote on 28 February 2011 when explaining the status of the investigation to his readers [my emphasis]: "This extradition order does not necessarily mean, of course, that he will be extradited, /still less that he will be charged/, tried, or convicted. Assange may win an appeal of the extradition order, or Sweden may decide either not to continue or to /interview him while he remains in England/. However, unless some such external event intervenes, Assange will be shortly extradited to Sweden /to be questioned/ about an allegation of rape, two allegations of sexual molestation, and an allegation of unlawful coercion." Back when it suited Green, he emphasized that Assange has not been charged with any crime, that there is far from any certainty that he would be, and that extradition to Sweden is merely for him "to be questioned" on these allegations: exactly the "myths" and "zombie facts" which he now purports to bust. Moreover, Swedish law professor Marten Schultz, who strongly supports Assange's extradition to Sweden, has said the same [my emphasis]: "The UK supreme court's decision means /only that Assange will be transferred to Sweden for interrogation. /It does not mean that he will be tried, or /even charged/. It is entirely possible that he will be transferred to Sweden, questioned, and released if the Swedish authorities find that there are insufficient grounds for prosecution. It is impossible – as it should be – to predict how the case will unfold." Clearly, as Green himself used to acknowledge, Assange at this point is wanted for questioning in this case, and has not been charged. Once he's questioned, he might be charged, or the case might be dropped. That is what has made the Swedes' steadfast refusal to question him in England so mystifying, of such concern to Assange, and is the real reason that the investigation has thus far been obstructed. Indeed, Swedish legal expert Ove Bring has made clear , in the context of discussing Assange, that "under Swedish law it is possible to interrogate people abroad," but that Sweden is refusing to do so simply for reasons of "prestige" (he added: "If he goes to Sweden, is interrogated, then I expect the case would be dropped, as /the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime/"). Then there's the very strange argument Green makes about why extradition to the US would be more easily accomplished if he's in Britain rather than Sweden. I've previously set out the reasons and supporting evidence showing the reverse is true and won't repeat those here, but let's look at what Green says to support his claim: One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States; quite the reverse. Ask Gary McKinnon, or Richard O'Dwyer, or the NatWest Three. The US has been seeking McKinnon's extradition from Britain for a full seven years and counting ; O'Dwyer also remains in England and is the subject of a popular campaign to block his shipment to the U.S. ; the NatWest Three were able toresist extradition to the US for four full years . These cases disprove, rather than prove, that an extradition demand from the US would be "swiftly complied with" in Britain. In contrast to the secretive Swedish judicial system, there is substantial public debate along with transparent (and protracted) judicial proceedings in Britain over extradition. It is true, as Green notes, that the Swedish government cannot provide an iron-clad "guarantee" that Assange would not be extradited to the US. That's because it is Swedish courts, and not the government, that make the ultimate decision on extradition. But both the British and Swedish governments play an important role in any extradition proceeding: they take influential positions on whether extradition is legally warranted. Under Britain's extradition treaty, it must consent to the subsequent extradition of any individual it extradites (meaning its consent would be needed for Sweden to send Assange to the U.S.), while in Sweden, the government must formally opine on whether extradition should take place (some Swedes havemade the case that the government's position would be dispositive). *At the very least, there is ample room for negotiation. Both the British and Swedish governments could – and should – take the position that to prosecute Assange under espionage statutes for acts of journalism would be political crimes that are not subject to their extradition treaties with the U.S. or are otherwise not cognizable extradition offenses. Rather than explore any of those possible grounds for agreement, both governments have simply refused to negotiate either with Assange's lawyers or the Ecuadorean government over any proposals to safeguard his rights. That refusal on the part of those governments – and not any desire to obstruct the investigation or evade facing those allegations – is what led the Ecuadoreans to conclude that asylum was necessary to protect Assange from political persecution.* _*The complainants in Sweden have the absolute right to have their serious allegations against Assange investigated and legally resolved. But Assange has the equally compelling right under international law and treaties to be free of political persecution: which is exactly what prosecuting him (and perhaps imprisoning him for life) in the US for WikiLeaks' disclosures would be. *_ *It is vital that both sets of rights be safeguarded, not just one.* The only just solution is one that protects both. Assange's lawyers and the Ecuadorians have repeatedly pursued arrangements to vindicate all substantial rights at stake so that he can travel to Sweden – today – to face those allegations while being protected against unjust extradition to the US. It is the refusal of the British and Swedish authorities even to consider any such proposals that have brought this situation to the unfortunate standstill it is in. *It is incredibly telling that media attacks on Assange do not even pay lip service to, let alone evince any actual interest in, the profound threats to press freedom that would come if he were extradited to and tried in the United States.* In lieu of being informed about any of this, readers and viewers are bombarded with disturbing, and often quite disturbed, rants driven by unrestrained personal contempt. That contempt not only drowns out every important value at stake in this case, but also any regard for the basic facts. * * * */UPDATE/*: Numerous people objected that I too readily conceded the point that Swedish courts, rather than the Swedish government, are the ultimate decision-makers on extradition requests, and the Swedish government therefore cannot provide Assange with a guarantee that he will not be extradited to the U.S. This article by a lawyer -- who fervently believes that Assange should be extradited to Sweden -- makes the case very compellingly that the Swedish government most certainly can provide such a guarantee if it chose to [my emphasis]: Extradition procedures are typically of a mixed nature, where courts and governments share the final decision – it is not unknown for /governments to reject an extradition request in spite of court verdict allowing it/. . . . Article 12 [of Sweden's extradition law] adds that the government may put conditions on its decision to accept an extradition request. /The deciding body is thus the government/, with an input by the Prosecutor general and a veto right given to the Supreme Court in case where the requested person doesn't accept to be extradited. The article goes on to cite the Swedish extradition law to outline two possible outcomes where the target of an extradition request challenges its validity: (1) the Swedish supreme court rules that extradition is not legally permissible, in which case the Swedish government is not free to extradite; (2) the Swedish supreme court rules that extradition is legally permissible, in which case the Swedish government is free to decide that it will not extradite for policy or other prudential reasons. In other words, the Swedish judiciary has the right to /block/ an extradition request on legal grounds, but it lacks the power to/compel/ extradition; if the courts approve of the legal basis, the Swedish government still retains the authority to decide if extradition should take place. As indicated, even if it were true that Swedish government was an unable to offer Assange a so-called "iron-clad guarantee" against extradition, there is still grounds to negotiate in order to have him travel to Sweden to face these allegations; given that the Swedish government clearly has, at the very least, a significant role to play in the process, its advanced position against Assange's extradition to the U.S. on the basis of WikiLeaks' journalistic disclosures would be significant. But there is at least a strong argument to make, if not an irrefutable one, that the Swedish government is able to offer precisely the guarantee that both Assange and Ecuadorean authorities have sought in order to enable him immediately to travel to Sweden to face the sex assault allegations against him. Independently, the British government is also clearly in a position to contribute to those assurances, given the need for its consent if extradition to the U.S. from Sweden is to take place. If one wants to find a culprit for why these sex assault allegations are not being resolved the way they should be, the refusal of these two governments even to negotiate to secure Assange's clear rights against unjust extradition is the place to begin. * * * */UPDATE II/*: For even more compelling evidence that the Swedish government is the final decision-maker in extradition matters and does indeed have the power to guarantee Assange that he would not be extradited to the U.S. based on his journalism, see the citations in Point 3 of this excellent reply to Green . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 23 06:04:48 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:04:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Actually, Parminder you are confusing different things. If there was someone willing and able to challenge ICANN's decision to award .xxx on antitrust grounds in Europe, or in India, and ICM Registry were domiciled in Europe or India, respectively, then an adverse decision would make European or Indian law "applicable" to an ICANN decision. This is a problem, not with the US, but with nation-states' territorial jursidcition exerting control over the internet. Let me say that I think this antitrust challenge has no merit and will not go anywhere. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:36 AM To: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs Sala, You are getting me wrong... I am not faulting ICANN's decision.... I have no view on this particular decision of ICANN to have a .xxx gtld. I am speaking about applicability of the jurisdiction of US courts on all ICANN decisions. And since US courts apply US law, it is the applicability of US laws over all ICANN decisions, which is also called 'oversight'. And I dont like anything that calls itself a global system/ infrastructure to be subject to laws that I do not have an opportunity to participate in making. Simple democratic principle. No legislation without representation....... The argument that US has strongest anti-trust laws is quite beside the point.... But then if you have to pursue that line, US has some of the worst IP laws, but still when an IP issue vis a vis any ICANN decision comes up for judicial review, it will still be the same US courts and US law, and not Brazilian courts and law..... Dont you think this is undemocratic, and unjustified.... parminder On Tuesday 21 August 2012 12:53 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: My personal views are if anything I would say that the situation proves that the system works. It means that decisions can be subject to scrutiny. Having personally seen voluntary scrutiny take place within ICANN and now seeing decisions being checked by the legal system it shows that the organisation is answerable. If anything, the US is probably the strictest enforcer of antitrust laws in the world and standards for corporate governance rate as among the highest if not the highest. This should inspire confidence that decisions can be checked. For ICANN it means an internal self evaluation and ongoing assessment to ensure that they perform their obligations to the highest standards. Organisations all over the world, governments included continue to learn, grow and evolve that is part of life. You pick up and learn and move on. It does not mean that all your actions are going to be flawless - show me one perfect organisation and I will show you Utopia. Of course that does not mean that we do not strive for excellent standards. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:45 PM, parminder > wrote: This is a very important, and possibly a historic, news, which exposing the meaninglessness of ICANN's claim of independence from the US establishment. A US court has given the go ahead to the anti-trust filing against ICANN decision instituting the .xxx gtld . There is every likelihood that this decision of ICANN may be found as going against US laws. What would ICANN do in that case? At the very least, it is quite probable that ICANN may be asked to put certain new provisions in its registry agreement regarding .xxx, as has been sought by the plaintiff. What would be ICANN's response in that case? Remember that each of the new gltds will be open to similar review by US courts. ICANN has lost a major battle regarding its claimed status as a global organisation responsible only to the global community, a claim which in any case had feet of clay.... And with it, also those who defend ICANN on the above ground have lost a major battle. I hope such defendants on the list will respond to this news and the paradox it poses. It is now clear that ICANN is subject to US judicial review (which of course it always was), and that its decisions can be struck down by US courts, in which case, ICANN has just no option other than to reverse its decisions. For those who have expressed lack of clarity about the meaning of oversight, this is oversight. Well, to me more precise, this is judicial review which is a part of overall oversight. parminder On Tuesday 21 August 2012 06:37 AM, Robert Pollard wrote: Salanieta Thanks for these interesting links. I'm re-posting your message with a new subject line, as the issue would seem to deserve a separate thread from "new gTLDs". Although the suit may have some implications for new gTLDs, many of the allegations re antitrust issues re the .xxx tld are based on the the particular history of the establishment of .xxx and the actions of ICM Registry, LLC in obtaining control of it Robert On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748 http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 06:34:26 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 06:34:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> Message-ID: The Guardian article cited by Riaz in its third paragraph uses these words > one of the very few individuals over the past decade to risk his welfare, > liberty and even > life to > meaningfully challenge the secrecy regime on which the American national > security state (and those of its obedient allies) > depends to describe Julian Assange. Whatever happened to Bradley Manning? Deirdre On 23 August 2012 04:43, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > [Emphasis added...] > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt > > The bizarre, unhealthy, blinding media contempt for Julian Assange > > It is possible to protect the rights of the complainants in Sweden and > Assange's rights against political persecution, but a vindictive thirst for > vengeance is preventing that > > - Glenn Greenwald > - guardian.co.uk , **Wednesday 22 August** > > > Julian Assange: the British press's public enemy No1. Photograph: Chris > Helgren/Reuters > > *(updated below - Update II)* > > Earlier this week, British lawyer and legal correspondent for the New > Statesman David Allen Green generated a fair amount of attention by announcing > that he would use his objective legal expertiseto bust what he called "legal myths about the Assange extradition." These > myths, he said, are being irresponsibly spread by Assange defenders and > "are like 'zombie facts' which stagger on even when shot down." > > In addition to his other credentials, Green – like virtually the entire > British press – is a long-time and deeply devoted Assange-basher, > and his purported myth-busting was predictably regurgitatedby those who reflexively grasp onto anything that reflects poorly on > western establishmentarians' public enemy No1. It's really worth examining > what Green argued to understand the behavior in which Assange detractors > engage to advance this collective vendetta, and also to see how frequently > blatant ideological agendas masquerade as high-minded, objective legal > expertise. > > But before getting to that, let us pause to reflect on a truly amazing and > revealing fact, one that calls for formal study in several academic fields > of discipline. Is it not remarkable that one of the very few individuals > over the past decade to risk his welfare, liberty and evenlifeto meaningfully challenge the secrecy regime on which the American national > security state (and those of its obedient allies) > depends just so happens to have become – long before he sought asylum from > Ecuador – the most intensely and personally despised figure among the > American and British media class and the British "liberal" intelligentsia? > > In 2008 – two years before the release of the "collateral murder" video, > the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, and the diplomatic cables – the Pentagon prepared > a secret report which > proclaimed WikiLeaks to be an enemy of the state and plotted ways to > destroyits credibility and reputation. But in a stroke of amazing luck, Pentagon > operatives never needed to do any of that, because the establishment media > in the US and Britain harbor at least as much intense personal loathing for > the group's founder as the US government does, and eagerly took the lead in > targeting him. Many people like to posit the US national security state and > western media outlets as adversarial forces, but here – as is so often > the case– they have so harmoniously joined in common cause. > > Whatever else is true, establishment media outlets show unlimited personal > animus toward the person who, as a panel of judges put itwhen they awarded him the the 2011 Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism, > "has given the public more scoops than most journalists can imagine." > Similarly, when the Australian version of the Pulitzers – the Walkley > Foundation – awarded its highest distinction(for "Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism") to WikiLeaks in 2011, > it citedthe group's "courageous and controversial commitment to the finest > traditions of journalism: justice through transparency," and observed: "So > many eagerly took advantage of the secret cables to create *more scoops > in a year than most journalists could imagine in a lifetime*." > > When it comes to the American media, I've long notedthis revealing paradox. The person who (along with whomever is the > heroic leaker) > enabled "more scoops in a year than most journalists could imagine in a > lifetime" – and who was quickly branded an enemy by the Pentagon and a terrorist > by high U.S. officials– is the most hated figure among establishment journalists, even though > they are ostensibly devoted to precisely these values of transparency and > exposing serious government wrongdoing. (This transparency was imposed not > only on the US and its allies, > but also some of the most oppressive regimes in the Arab world). > > > But the contempt is far more intense, and bizarrely personal, from the > British press, much of which behaves with staggering levels of > mutually-reinforcing vindictiveness and groupthink when it's time to scorn > an outsider like Assange. On Tuesday, Guardian columnist Seumas Milne wrote a > superb analysisof British media coverage of Assange, and observed that "the virulence of > British media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now unrelenting." > Milne noted that to the British press, Assange "is nothing but a 'monstrous > narcissist', a bail-jumping 'sex pest' and an exhibitionist maniac" – venom > spewed at someone "who has yet to be charged, let alone convicted, of > anything." > > Indeed, the personalized nature of this contempt from self-styled sober > journalists often borders on the creepy (when it's not wildly transgressing > that border). Former New York Times' executive editor Bill Keller > infamously quoted an email from a Times reporter claimingthat Assange wore "filthy white socks that collapsed around his ankles" and > "smelled as if he hadn't bathed in days." On the very same day WikiLeaks > released over 400,000 classified documents showing genuinely horrific facts > about massive civilian deaths in the Iraq war and US complicity in torture > by Iraqi forces, the New York Times front-paged an articlepurporting to diagnose Assange with a variety of psychological afflictions > and concealed, malicious motives, based on its own pop-psychology > observations and those of Assange's enemies ("erratic and imperious > behavior", "a nearly delusional grandeur", "he is not in his right mind", > "pursuing a vendetta against the United States"). > > A columnist for the Independent, Joan Smith, recently watched Assange's > interview of Ecuadorean president Rafeal Correa and offered up this wisdom: > "He's put on weight, his face is puffy and he didn't bother to shave before > his interview with Correa." And perhaps most psychologically twisted of > all: a team of New York Times reporters and editors last week, in its lead > article about Ecuador's decision to grant asylum, decided it would be > appropriate to include a quotefrom one of Assange's most dedicated enemies claiming that when the > WikiLeaks founder was a visitor in his apartment, he "refused to flush the > toilet during his entire stay" (faced with a barrage of mockery and disgust > over their reporting on Assange's alleged toilet habits, the NYT sheepishly > deleted that passage without comment). > > *It is difficult to think of anyone this side of Saddam Hussein who > triggers this level of personalized, deeply ingrained hatred from > establishment journalists. Few who spew this vitriol would dare speak with > the type of personalized scorn toward, say, George Bush or Tony Blair – who > actually launched an aggressive war that resulted in the deaths of at least > 100,000 innocent people and kidnapped people from around the globe with no > due process and sent them to be tortured. The reaction Assange inspires > among establishment media figures is really sui generis.* > > It is vital to note, as was just demonstrated, that this media contempt > long pre-dates, and exists wholly independent of, the controversy > surrounding the sex assault allegations in Sweden, and certainly long > pre-dates his seeking of asylum from Ecuador. Indeed, given that he has not > been convicted of anything, to assume Assange's guilt would be > reprehensible – every bit as reprehensible as concluding that the > allegations are a CIA ruse or that the complainants' allegations should be > dismissed as frivolous or inherently untrustworthy. > > It would be genuinely nice to think that the same British government that refused > to extradite the mass > rapistAugusto Pinochet has suddenly developed a devoted passion for ensuring that > alleged sex assault offenders are brought to justice – just as it would be > nice to believe that the sudden interestin denouncing Ecuador's press freedom record was driven by some newly > discovered and authentic concern in the west for civil liberties > protections in South America. But as Milne put it last night with great > understatement: "such posturing looks increasingly specious." As he > rhetorically asked: > > *"Can anyone seriously believe the dispute would have gone global, or > that the British government would have made its asinine threat to suspend > the Ecuadorean embassy's diplomatic status and enter it by force, or that > scores of police would have surrounded the building, swarming up and down > the fire escape and guarding every window, if it was all about one man > wanted for questioning over sex crime allegations in Stockholm?"* > > Like those who suddenly discover the imperatives of feminism when it comes > time to justify the war in Afghanistan, or those who become overnight > advocates of gay rights when it comes time to demonize the regime in > Tehran, or those who took a very recent interest in Ecuadorean press > freedoms, these sex assault allegations -- as serious and deserving of > legal resolution as they are -- are being cynically exploited as a > political weapon by many who have long despised Assange for reasons > entirely independent of this case. > > * * * * * > > There are several obvious reasons why Assange provokes such unhinged media > contempt. The most obvious among them is competition: the resentment > generated by watching someone outside their profession generate more > critical scoops in a year than all other media outlets combined (see this > brilliant 2008 post, > in the context of the Clintons, about how professional and ego-based > competition produces personal hatred like nothing else can). > > *Other causes are more subtle though substantive. Many journalists (and > liberals) like to wear the costume of outsider-insurgent, but are, at their > core, devoted institutionalists, faithful believers in the goodness of > their society's power centers, and thus resent those (like Assange) who > actually and deliberately place themselves outside of it. By putting his > own liberty and security at risk to oppose the world's most powerful > factions, Assange has clearly demonstrated what happens to real adversarial > dissidents and insurgents – they're persecuted, demonized, and threatened, > not befriended by and invited to parties within the halls of imperial power > – and he thus causes many journalists to stand revealed as posers, servants > to power, and courtiers.* > > Then there's the ideological cause. *As one long-time British journalist > told me this week when discussing the vitriol of the British press toward > Assange: "Nothing delights British former lefties more than an opportunity > to defend power while pretending it is a brave stance in defence of a left > liberal principle." That's the warped mindset that led to so many of these > self-styled liberal journalists to support the attack on Iraqand other acts of Western aggression in the name of liberal values. And > it's why nothing triggers their rage like fundamental critiques of, and > especially meaningful opposition to, the institutions of power to which > they are unfailingly loyal.* > > * * * * * > > With that context established, let us return to David Allen Green. The > attacks on those who have defended Assange's extradition and asylum > arguments has depended on the disgusting slander that such advocates are > indifferent to the allegations of sexual assault made against him or, > worse, *are "rape apologists." * > > *The reality is exactly the opposite. I have spoken to countless Assange > defenders over the last couple of years and not a single one – literally > not one – is dismissive of the need for those allegations in Sweden to be > taken seriously and to be legally and fairly resolved.* Typifying this > view is Milne's column last night, which in the midst of scorning the > attacks on Assange, embraced "the seriousness of the rape allegations made > against Assange, for which he should clearly answer and, if charges are > brought, stand trial." > > *That is the view of every Assange defender with a platform that I know > of, including me (one can certainly find anonymous internet commenters, or > the occasional named one, making actual, horrific rape apologist claims, > but one can find stray advocates saying anything; imputing those views to > Assange defenders generally would be like claiming that all Assange critics > want to see him illegally shot in the head or encaged for life because some > prominent Americanand other > commentators have called > for this ).* > > *Not only Assange defenders, but also his own lawyers and the Ecuadorean > government, have worked relentlessly to ensure that he faces those > allegations in Sweden. They have merely sought to do so in a way that > protects him from extradition to the US to face espionage charges for his > journalism – a threat that could send him to prison for life (likely in a > torturous super-max facility), and a threat only the wilfuly blind could > deny is serious and real. > * > > In their *New York Times op-ed this week, > Michael Moore and Oliver Stone correctly argue that it is "the British and > Swedish governments that stand in the way of [the sex assault] > investigation, not Mr Assange." *That's because, they note, Assange has > repeatedly offered to be questioned by Swedish authorities in London, or to > travel *today* to Sweden to face those allegations if he could be assured > that his doing so would not result in his extradition to the US to face > espionage charges. > > Time and again, > "Correa said Ecuador never intended to stop Assange from facing justice in > Sweden. 'What we've asked for is guarantees that he won't be extradited to > a third country,' he said." *Both Britain and Sweden have steadfastly > refused even to discuss any agreement that could safeguard both the rights > of the complainants and Assange's rights not to be imprisoned for basic > journalism.* > > These facts – and they are facts – pose a lethal threat to the key false > narrative that Assange and his defenders are motivated by a desire to evade > his facing the sex assault allegations in Sweden. So these facts need to be > impugned, and that's where David Allen Green and his "myth-busting" legal > expertise comes into play. > > One myth Green purports to debunk is the notion that "the Swedes should > interview Assange in London." This cannot be, Green argues, because > "Assange is not wanted merely for questioning. He is wanted for arrest." He > also echoes numerous other Assange critics by arguing that the > "he-has-not-yet-been-charged" claim is a mere technical irrelevancy: the > only reason this is true, he says, is because he must be in Sweden for that > to happen. > > *But back in early 2011, Assange critics were telling a much different > story. *Back then, they were arguing that Assange was wildly overstating > the danger he faced from extradition to Sweden because the investigation > there was at such a preliminary stage and he was merely wanted for > questioning. Indeed, here's what the very same David Allen Green wrote on > 28 February 2011when explaining the status of the investigation to his readers [my > emphasis]: > > "This extradition order does not necessarily mean, of course, that he will > be extradited, *still less that he will be charged*, tried, or convicted. > Assange may win an appeal of the extradition order, or Sweden may decide > either not to continue or to *interview him while he remains in England*. > However, unless some such external event intervenes, Assange will be > shortly extradited to Sweden *to be questioned* about an allegation of > rape, two allegations of sexual molestation, and an allegation of unlawful > coercion." > > Back when it suited Green, he emphasized that Assange has not been charged > with any crime, that there is far from any certainty that he would be, and > that extradition to Sweden is merely for him "to be questioned" on these > allegations: exactly the "myths" and "zombie facts" which he now purports > to bust. Moreover, Swedish law professor Marten Schultz, who strongly > supports Assange's extradition to Sweden, has said the same[my emphasis]: > > "The UK supreme court's decision means *only that Assange will be > transferred to Sweden for interrogation. *It does not mean that he will > be tried, or *even charged*. It is entirely possible that he will be > transferred to Sweden, questioned, and released if the Swedish authorities > find that there are insufficient grounds for prosecution. It is impossible > – as it should be – to predict how the case will unfold." > > Clearly, as Green himself used to acknowledge, Assange at this point is > wanted for questioning in this case, and has not been charged. Once he's > questioned, he might be charged, or the case might be dropped. That is what > has made the Swedes' steadfast refusal to question him in England so > mystifying, of such concern to Assange, and is the real reason that the > investigation has thus far been obstructed. Indeed, Swedish legal expert > Ove Bring has made clear, > in the context of discussing Assange, that "under Swedish law it is > possible to interrogate people abroad," but that Sweden is refusing to do > so simply for reasons of "prestige" (he added: "If he goes to Sweden, is > interrogated, then I expect the case would be dropped, as *the evidence > is not enough to charge him with a crime*"). > > Then there's the very strange argument Green makes about why extradition > to the US would be more easily accomplished if he's in Britain rather than > Sweden. I've previously set outthe reasons and supporting evidence showing the reverse is true and won't > repeat those here, but let's look at what Green says to support his claim: > > One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom > would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United > States; quite the reverse. Ask Gary McKinnon, or Richard O'Dwyer, or the > NatWest Three. > > The US has been seeking McKinnon's extradition from Britain for a full > seven years and counting; > O'Dwyer also remains in England and is the subject of a popular campaign > to block his shipment to the U.S.; > the NatWest Three were able to resist extradition to the US for four full > years . These cases > disprove, rather than prove, that an extradition demand from the US would > be "swiftly complied with" in Britain. In contrast to the secretive Swedish > judicial system, there is substantial public debate along with transparent > (and protracted) judicial proceedings in Britain over extradition. > > It is true, as Green notes, that the Swedish government cannot provide an > iron-clad "guarantee" that Assange would not be extradited to the US. > That's because it is Swedish courts, and not the government, that make the > ultimate decision on extradition. But both the British and Swedish > governments play an important role in any extradition proceeding: they take > influential positions on whether extradition is legally warranted. Under > Britain's extradition treaty, it must consent to the subsequent extradition > of any individual it extradites (meaning its consent would be needed for > Sweden to send Assange to the U.S.), while in Sweden, the government must > formally opineon whether extradition should take place (some Swedes havemade the casethat the government's position would be dispositive). > > *At the very least, there is ample room for negotiation. Both the British > and Swedish governments could – and should – take the position that to > prosecute Assange under espionage statutes for acts of journalism would be > political crimes that are not subject to their extradition treaties with > the U.S. or are otherwise not cognizable extradition offenses. Rather than > explore any of those possible grounds for agreement, both governments have > simply refused to negotiate either with Assange's lawyers or the Ecuadorean > government over any proposals to safeguard his rights. That refusal on the > part of those governments – and not any desire to obstruct the > investigation or evade facing those allegations – is what led the > Ecuadoreans to conclude that asylum was necessary to protect Assange from > political persecution.* > > *The complainants in Sweden have the absolute right to have their serious > allegations against Assange investigated and legally resolved. But Assange > has the equally compelling right under international law and treaties to be > free of political persecution: which is exactly what prosecuting him (and > perhaps imprisoning him for life) in the US for WikiLeaks' disclosures > would be. * > > *It is vital that both sets of rights be safeguarded, not just one.* The > only just solution is one that protects both. Assange's lawyers and the > Ecuadorians have repeatedly pursued arrangements to vindicate all > substantial rights at stake so that he can travel to Sweden – today – to > face those allegations while being protected against unjust extradition to > the US. It is the refusal of the British and Swedish authorities even to > consider any such proposals that have brought this situation to the > unfortunate standstill it is in. > > *It is incredibly telling that media attacks on Assange do not even pay > lip service to, let alone evince any actual interest in, the profound > threats to press freedom that would come if he were extradited to and tried > in the United States.* In lieu of being informed about any of this, > readers and viewers are bombarded with disturbing, and often quite > disturbed, rants driven by unrestrained personal contempt. That contempt > not only drowns out every important value at stake in this case, but also > any regard for the basic facts. > > * * * > > *UPDATE*: Numerous people objected that I too readily conceded the point > that Swedish courts, rather than the Swedish government, are the ultimate > decision-makers on extradition requests, and the Swedish government > therefore cannot provide Assange with a guarantee that he will not be > extradited to the U.S. This articleby a lawyer -- who fervently believes that Assange should be extradited to > Sweden -- makes the case very compellingly that the Swedish government most > certainly can provide such a guarantee if it chose to [my emphasis]: > > Extradition procedures are typically of a mixed nature, where courts and > governments share the final decision – it is not unknown for *governments > to reject an extradition request in spite of court verdict allowing it*. > . . . > > Article 12 [of Sweden's extradition law] adds that the government may put > conditions on its decision to accept an extradition request. *The > deciding body is thus the government*, with an input by the Prosecutor > general and a veto right given to the Supreme Court in case where the > requested person doesn't accept to be extradited. > > The article goes on to cite the Swedish extradition law to outline two > possible outcomes where the target of an extradition request challenges its > validity: (1) the Swedish supreme court rules that extradition is not > legally permissible, in which case the Swedish government is not free to > extradite; (2) the Swedish supreme court rules that extradition is legally > permissible, in which case the Swedish government is free to decide that it > will not extradite for policy or other prudential reasons. In other words, > the Swedish judiciary has the right to *block* an extradition request on > legal grounds, but it lacks the power to* compel* extradition; if the > courts approve of the legal basis, the Swedish government still retains the > authority to decide if extradition should take place. > > As indicated, even if it were true that Swedish government was an unable > to offer Assange a so-called "iron-clad guarantee" against extradition, > there is still grounds to negotiate in order to have him travel to Sweden > to face these allegations; given that the Swedish government clearly has, > at the very least, a significant role to play in the process, its advanced > position against Assange's extradition to the U.S. on the basis of > WikiLeaks' journalistic disclosures would be significant. But there is at > least a strong argument to make, if not an irrefutable one, that the > Swedish government is able to offer precisely the guarantee that both > Assange and Ecuadorean authorities have sought in order to enable him > immediately to travel to Sweden to face the sex assault allegations against > him. Independently, the British government is also clearly in a position to > contribute to those assurances, given the need for its consent if > extradition to the U.S. from Sweden is to take place. > > If one wants to find a culprit for why these sex assault allegations are > not being resolved the way they should be, the refusal of these two > governments even to negotiate to secure Assange's clear rights against > unjust extradition is the place to begin. > > * * * > > *UPDATE II*: For even more compelling evidence that the Swedish > government is the final decision-maker in extradition matters and does > indeed have the power to guarantee Assange that he would not be extradited > to the U.S. based on his journalism, see the citations in Point 3 of this > excellent reply to Green . > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 06:43:49 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:13:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> Message-ID: The kid that leaked the war stuff? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > The Guardian article cited by Riaz in its third paragraph uses these words > >> one of the very few individuals over the past decade to risk his welfare, >> liberty and even >> life to >> meaningfully challenge the secrecy regime on which the American national >> security state (and those of its obedient allies) >> depends > > to describe Julian Assange. > Whatever happened to Bradley Manning? > Deirdre > > On 23 August 2012 04:43, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> [Emphasis added...] >> >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt >> >> The bizarre, unhealthy, blinding media contempt for Julian Assange >> >> It is possible to protect the rights of the complainants in Sweden and >> Assange's rights against political persecution, but a vindictive thirst for >> vengeance is preventing that >> >> - Glenn Greenwald >> - guardian.co.uk , **Wednesday 22 August* >> * >> >> >> Julian Assange: the British press's public enemy No1. Photograph: Chris >> Helgren/Reuters >> >> *(updated below - Update II)* >> >> Earlier this week, British lawyer and legal correspondent for the New >> Statesman David Allen Green generated a fair amount of attention by announcing >> that he would use his objective legal expertiseto bust what he called "legal myths about the Assange extradition." These >> myths, he said, are being irresponsibly spread by Assange defenders and >> "are like 'zombie facts' which stagger on even when shot down." >> >> In addition to his other credentials, Green – like virtually the entire >> British press – is a long-time and deeply devoted Assange-basher, >> and his purported myth-busting was predictably regurgitatedby those who reflexively grasp onto anything that reflects poorly on >> western establishmentarians' public enemy No1. It's really worth examining >> what Green argued to understand the behavior in which Assange detractors >> engage to advance this collective vendetta, and also to see how frequently >> blatant ideological agendas masquerade as high-minded, objective legal >> expertise. >> >> But before getting to that, let us pause to reflect on a truly amazing >> and revealing fact, one that calls for formal study in several academic >> fields of discipline. Is it not remarkable that one of the very few >> individuals over the past decade to risk his welfare, liberty and evenlifeto meaningfully challenge the secrecy regime on which the American national >> security state (and those of its obedient allies) >> depends just so happens to have become – long before he sought asylum from >> Ecuador – the most intensely and personally despised figure among the >> American and British media class and the British "liberal" intelligentsia? >> >> In 2008 – two years before the release of the "collateral murder" video, >> the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, and the diplomatic cables – the Pentagon prepared >> a secret report which >> proclaimed WikiLeaks to be an enemy of the state and plotted ways to >> destroyits credibility and reputation. But in a stroke of amazing luck, Pentagon >> operatives never needed to do any of that, because the establishment media >> in the US and Britain harbor at least as much intense personal loathing for >> the group's founder as the US government does, and eagerly took the lead in >> targeting him. Many people like to posit the US national security state and >> western media outlets as adversarial forces, but here – as is so often >> the case– they have so harmoniously joined in common cause. >> >> Whatever else is true, establishment media outlets show unlimited >> personal animus toward the person who, as a panel of judges put itwhen they awarded him the the 2011 Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism, >> "has given the public more scoops than most journalists can imagine." >> Similarly, when the Australian version of the Pulitzers – the Walkley >> Foundation – awarded its highest distinction(for "Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism") to WikiLeaks in 2011, >> it citedthe group's "courageous and controversial commitment to the finest >> traditions of journalism: justice through transparency," and observed: "So >> many eagerly took advantage of the secret cables to create *more scoops >> in a year than most journalists could imagine in a lifetime*." >> >> When it comes to the American media, I've long notedthis revealing paradox. The person who (along with whomever is the >> heroic leaker) >> enabled "more scoops in a year than most journalists could imagine in a >> lifetime" – and who was quickly branded an enemy by the Pentagon and a terrorist >> by high U.S. officials– is the most hated figure among establishment journalists, even though >> they are ostensibly devoted to precisely these values of transparency and >> exposing serious government wrongdoing. (This transparency was imposed not >> only on the US and its allies, >> but also some of the most oppressive regimes in the Arab world). >> >> >> But the contempt is far more intense, and bizarrely personal, from the >> British press, much of which behaves with staggering levels of >> mutually-reinforcing vindictiveness and groupthink when it's time to scorn >> an outsider like Assange. On Tuesday, Guardian columnist Seumas Milne wrote a >> superb analysisof British media coverage of Assange, and observed that "the virulence of >> British media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now unrelenting." >> Milne noted that to the British press, Assange "is nothing but a 'monstrous >> narcissist', a bail-jumping 'sex pest' and an exhibitionist maniac" – venom >> spewed at someone "who has yet to be charged, let alone convicted, of >> anything." >> >> Indeed, the personalized nature of this contempt from self-styled sober >> journalists often borders on the creepy (when it's not wildly transgressing >> that border). Former New York Times' executive editor Bill Keller >> infamously quoted an email from a Times reporter claimingthat Assange wore "filthy white socks that collapsed around his ankles" and >> "smelled as if he hadn't bathed in days." On the very same day WikiLeaks >> released over 400,000 classified documents showing genuinely horrific facts >> about massive civilian deaths in the Iraq war and US complicity in torture >> by Iraqi forces, the New York Times front-paged an articlepurporting to diagnose Assange with a variety of psychological afflictions >> and concealed, malicious motives, based on its own pop-psychology >> observations and those of Assange's enemies ("erratic and imperious >> behavior", "a nearly delusional grandeur", "he is not in his right mind", >> "pursuing a vendetta against the United States"). >> >> A columnist for the Independent, Joan Smith, recently watched Assange's >> interview of Ecuadorean president Rafeal Correa and offered up this >> wisdom: >> "He's put on weight, his face is puffy and he didn't bother to shave before >> his interview with Correa." And perhaps most psychologically twisted of >> all: a team of New York Times reporters and editors last week, in its lead >> article about Ecuador's decision to grant asylum, decided it would be >> appropriate to include a quotefrom one of Assange's most dedicated enemies claiming that when the >> WikiLeaks founder was a visitor in his apartment, he "refused to flush the >> toilet during his entire stay" (faced with a barrage of mockery and disgust >> over their reporting on Assange's alleged toilet habits, the NYT sheepishly >> deleted that passage without comment). >> >> *It is difficult to think of anyone this side of Saddam Hussein who >> triggers this level of personalized, deeply ingrained hatred from >> establishment journalists. Few who spew this vitriol would dare speak with >> the type of personalized scorn toward, say, George Bush or Tony Blair – who >> actually launched an aggressive war that resulted in the deaths of at least >> 100,000 innocent people and kidnapped people from around the globe with no >> due process and sent them to be tortured. The reaction Assange inspires >> among establishment media figures is really sui generis.* >> >> It is vital to note, as was just demonstrated, that this media contempt >> long pre-dates, and exists wholly independent of, the controversy >> surrounding the sex assault allegations in Sweden, and certainly long >> pre-dates his seeking of asylum from Ecuador. Indeed, given that he has not >> been convicted of anything, to assume Assange's guilt would be >> reprehensible – every bit as reprehensible as concluding that the >> allegations are a CIA ruse or that the complainants' allegations should be >> dismissed as frivolous or inherently untrustworthy. >> >> It would be genuinely nice to think that the same British government that refused >> to extraditethe mass >> rapistAugusto Pinochet has suddenly developed a devoted passion for ensuring that >> alleged sex assault offenders are brought to justice – just as it would be >> nice to believe that the sudden interestin denouncing Ecuador's press freedom record was driven by some newly >> discovered and authentic concern in the west for civil liberties >> protections in South America. But as Milne put it last night with great >> understatement: "such posturing looks increasingly specious." As he >> rhetorically asked: >> >> *"Can anyone seriously believe the dispute would have gone global, or >> that the British government would have made its asinine threat to suspend >> the Ecuadorean embassy's diplomatic status and enter it by force, or that >> scores of police would have surrounded the building, swarming up and down >> the fire escape and guarding every window, if it was all about one man >> wanted for questioning over sex crime allegations in Stockholm?"* >> >> Like those who suddenly discover the imperatives of feminism when it >> comes time to justify the war in Afghanistan, or those who become overnight >> advocates of gay rights when it comes time to demonize the regime in >> Tehran, or those who took a very recent interest in Ecuadorean press >> freedoms, these sex assault allegations -- as serious and deserving of >> legal resolution as they are -- are being cynically exploited as a >> political weapon by many who have long despised Assange for reasons >> entirely independent of this case. >> >> * * * * * >> >> There are several obvious reasons why Assange provokes such unhinged >> media contempt. The most obvious among them is competition: the resentment >> generated by watching someone outside their profession generate more >> critical scoops in a year than all other media outlets combined (see this >> brilliant 2008 post, >> in the context of the Clintons, about how professional and ego-based >> competition produces personal hatred like nothing else can). >> >> *Other causes are more subtle though substantive. Many journalists (and >> liberals) like to wear the costume of outsider-insurgent, but are, at their >> core, devoted institutionalists, faithful believers in the goodness of >> their society's power centers, and thus resent those (like Assange) who >> actually and deliberately place themselves outside of it. By putting his >> own liberty and security at risk to oppose the world's most powerful >> factions, Assange has clearly demonstrated what happens to real adversarial >> dissidents and insurgents – they're persecuted, demonized, and threatened, >> not befriended by and invited to parties within the halls of imperial power >> – and he thus causes many journalists to stand revealed as posers, servants >> to power, and courtiers.* >> >> Then there's the ideological cause. *As one long-time British journalist >> told me this week when discussing the vitriol of the British press toward >> Assange: "Nothing delights British former lefties more than an opportunity >> to defend power while pretending it is a brave stance in defence of a left >> liberal principle." That's the warped mindset that led to so many of these >> self-styled liberal journalists to support the attack on Iraqand other acts of Western aggression in the name of liberal values. And >> it's why nothing triggers their rage like fundamental critiques of, and >> especially meaningful opposition to, the institutions of power to which >> they are unfailingly loyal.* >> >> * * * * * >> >> With that context established, let us return to David Allen Green. The >> attacks on those who have defended Assange's extradition and asylum >> arguments has depended on the disgusting slander that such advocates are >> indifferent to the allegations of sexual assault made against him or, >> worse, *are "rape apologists." * >> >> *The reality is exactly the opposite. I have spoken to countless Assange >> defenders over the last couple of years and not a single one – literally >> not one – is dismissive of the need for those allegations in Sweden to be >> taken seriously and to be legally and fairly resolved.* Typifying this >> view is Milne's column last night, which in the midst of scorning the >> attacks on Assange, embraced "the seriousness of the rape allegations made >> against Assange, for which he should clearly answer and, if charges are >> brought, stand trial." >> >> *That is the view of every Assange defender with a platform that I know >> of, including me (one can certainly find anonymous internet commenters, or >> the occasional named one, making actual, horrific rape apologist claims, >> but one can find stray advocates saying anything; imputing those views to >> Assange defenders generally would be like claiming that all Assange critics >> want to see him illegally shot in the head or encaged for life because some >> prominent Americanand other >> commentators have called >> for this ).* >> >> *Not only Assange defenders, but also his own lawyers and the Ecuadorean >> government, have worked relentlessly to ensure that he faces those >> allegations in Sweden. They have merely sought to do so in a way that >> protects him from extradition to the US to face espionage charges for his >> journalism – a threat that could send him to prison for life (likely in a >> torturous super-max facility), and a threat only the wilfuly blind could >> deny is serious and real. >> * >> >> In their *New York Times op-ed this week, >> Michael Moore and Oliver Stone correctly argue that it is "the British and >> Swedish governments that stand in the way of [the sex assault] >> investigation, not Mr Assange." *That's because, they note, Assange has >> repeatedly offered to be questioned by Swedish authorities in London, or to >> travel *today* to Sweden to face those allegations if he could be >> assured that his doing so would not result in his extradition to the US to >> face espionage charges. >> >> Time and again, >> "Correa said Ecuador never intended to stop Assange from facing justice in >> Sweden. 'What we've asked for is guarantees that he won't be extradited to >> a third country,' he said." *Both Britain and Sweden have steadfastly >> refused even to discuss any agreement that could safeguard both the rights >> of the complainants and Assange's rights not to be imprisoned for basic >> journalism.* >> >> These facts – and they are facts – pose a lethal threat to the key false >> narrative that Assange and his defenders are motivated by a desire to evade >> his facing the sex assault allegations in Sweden. So these facts need to be >> impugned, and that's where David Allen Green and his "myth-busting" legal >> expertise comes into play. >> >> One myth Green purports to debunk is the notion that "the Swedes should >> interview Assange in London." This cannot be, Green argues, because >> "Assange is not wanted merely for questioning. He is wanted for arrest." He >> also echoes numerous other Assange critics by arguing that the >> "he-has-not-yet-been-charged" claim is a mere technical irrelevancy: the >> only reason this is true, he says, is because he must be in Sweden for that >> to happen. >> >> *But back in early 2011, Assange critics were telling a much different >> story. *Back then, they were arguing that Assange was wildly overstating >> the danger he faced from extradition to Sweden because the investigation >> there was at such a preliminary stage and he was merely wanted for >> questioning. Indeed, here's what the very same David Allen Green wrote >> on 28 February 2011when explaining the status of the investigation to his readers [my >> emphasis]: >> >> "This extradition order does not necessarily mean, of course, that he >> will be extradited, *still less that he will be charged*, tried, or >> convicted. Assange may win an appeal of the extradition order, or Sweden >> may decide either not to continue or to *interview him while he remains >> in England*. However, unless some such external event intervenes, >> Assange will be shortly extradited to Sweden *to be questioned* about an >> allegation of rape, two allegations of sexual molestation, and an >> allegation of unlawful coercion." >> >> Back when it suited Green, he emphasized that Assange has not been >> charged with any crime, that there is far from any certainty that he would >> be, and that extradition to Sweden is merely for him "to be questioned" on >> these allegations: exactly the "myths" and "zombie facts" which he now >> purports to bust. Moreover, Swedish law professor Marten Schultz, who >> strongly supports Assange's extradition to Sweden, has said the same[my emphasis]: >> >> "The UK supreme court's decision means *only that Assange will be >> transferred to Sweden for interrogation. *It does not mean that he will >> be tried, or *even charged*. It is entirely possible that he will be >> transferred to Sweden, questioned, and released if the Swedish authorities >> find that there are insufficient grounds for prosecution. It is impossible >> – as it should be – to predict how the case will unfold." >> >> Clearly, as Green himself used to acknowledge, Assange at this point is >> wanted for questioning in this case, and has not been charged. Once he's >> questioned, he might be charged, or the case might be dropped. That is what >> has made the Swedes' steadfast refusal to question him in England so >> mystifying, of such concern to Assange, and is the real reason that the >> investigation has thus far been obstructed. Indeed, Swedish legal expert >> Ove Bring has made clear, >> in the context of discussing Assange, that "under Swedish law it is >> possible to interrogate people abroad," but that Sweden is refusing to do >> so simply for reasons of "prestige" (he added: "If he goes to Sweden, is >> interrogated, then I expect the case would be dropped, as *the evidence >> is not enough to charge him with a crime*"). >> >> Then there's the very strange argument Green makes about why extradition >> to the US would be more easily accomplished if he's in Britain rather than >> Sweden. I've previously set outthe reasons and supporting evidence showing the reverse is true and won't >> repeat those here, but let's look at what Green says to support his claim: >> >> One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom >> would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United >> States; quite the reverse. Ask Gary McKinnon, or Richard O'Dwyer, or the >> NatWest Three. >> >> The US has been seeking McKinnon's extradition from Britain for a full >> seven years and counting; >> O'Dwyer also remains in England and is the subject of a popular campaign >> to block his shipment to the U.S.; >> the NatWest Three were able to resist extradition to the US for four >> full years . These cases >> disprove, rather than prove, that an extradition demand from the US would >> be "swiftly complied with" in Britain. In contrast to the secretive Swedish >> judicial system, there is substantial public debate along with transparent >> (and protracted) judicial proceedings in Britain over extradition. >> >> It is true, as Green notes, that the Swedish government cannot provide an >> iron-clad "guarantee" that Assange would not be extradited to the US. >> That's because it is Swedish courts, and not the government, that make the >> ultimate decision on extradition. But both the British and Swedish >> governments play an important role in any extradition proceeding: they take >> influential positions on whether extradition is legally warranted. Under >> Britain's extradition treaty, it must consent to the subsequent extradition >> of any individual it extradites (meaning its consent would be needed for >> Sweden to send Assange to the U.S.), while in Sweden, the government must >> formally opineon whether extradition should take place (some Swedes havemade the casethat the government's position would be dispositive). >> >> *At the very least, there is ample room for negotiation. Both the >> British and Swedish governments could – and should – take the position that >> to prosecute Assange under espionage statutes for acts of journalism would >> be political crimes that are not subject to their extradition treaties with >> the U.S. or are otherwise not cognizable extradition offenses. Rather than >> explore any of those possible grounds for agreement, both governments have >> simply refused to negotiate either with Assange's lawyers or the Ecuadorean >> government over any proposals to safeguard his rights. That refusal on the >> part of those governments – and not any desire to obstruct the >> investigation or evade facing those allegations – is what led the >> Ecuadoreans to conclude that asylum was necessary to protect Assange from >> political persecution.* >> >> *The complainants in Sweden have the absolute right to have their >> serious allegations against Assange investigated and legally resolved. But >> Assange has the equally compelling right under international law and >> treaties to be free of political persecution: which is exactly what >> prosecuting him (and perhaps imprisoning him for life) in the US for >> WikiLeaks' disclosures would be. * >> >> *It is vital that both sets of rights be safeguarded, not just one.* The >> only just solution is one that protects both. Assange's lawyers and the >> Ecuadorians have repeatedly pursued arrangements to vindicate all >> substantial rights at stake so that he can travel to Sweden – today – to >> face those allegations while being protected against unjust extradition to >> the US. It is the refusal of the British and Swedish authorities even to >> consider any such proposals that have brought this situation to the >> unfortunate standstill it is in. >> >> *It is incredibly telling that media attacks on Assange do not even pay >> lip service to, let alone evince any actual interest in, the profound >> threats to press freedom that would come if he were extradited to and tried >> in the United States.* In lieu of being informed about any of this, >> readers and viewers are bombarded with disturbing, and often quite >> disturbed, rants driven by unrestrained personal contempt. That contempt >> not only drowns out every important value at stake in this case, but also >> any regard for the basic facts. >> >> * * * >> >> *UPDATE*: Numerous people objected that I too readily conceded the point >> that Swedish courts, rather than the Swedish government, are the ultimate >> decision-makers on extradition requests, and the Swedish government >> therefore cannot provide Assange with a guarantee that he will not be >> extradited to the U.S. This articleby a lawyer -- who fervently believes that Assange should be extradited to >> Sweden -- makes the case very compellingly that the Swedish government most >> certainly can provide such a guarantee if it chose to [my emphasis]: >> >> Extradition procedures are typically of a mixed nature, where courts and >> governments share the final decision – it is not unknown for *governments >> to reject an extradition request in spite of court verdict allowing it*. >> . . . >> >> Article 12 [of Sweden's extradition law] adds that the government may put >> conditions on its decision to accept an extradition request. *The >> deciding body is thus the government*, with an input by the Prosecutor >> general and a veto right given to the Supreme Court in case where the >> requested person doesn't accept to be extradited. >> >> The article goes on to cite the Swedish extradition law to outline two >> possible outcomes where the target of an extradition request challenges its >> validity: (1) the Swedish supreme court rules that extradition is not >> legally permissible, in which case the Swedish government is not free to >> extradite; (2) the Swedish supreme court rules that extradition is legally >> permissible, in which case the Swedish government is free to decide that it >> will not extradite for policy or other prudential reasons. In other words, >> the Swedish judiciary has the right to *block* an extradition request on >> legal grounds, but it lacks the power to* compel* extradition; if the >> courts approve of the legal basis, the Swedish government still retains the >> authority to decide if extradition should take place. >> >> As indicated, even if it were true that Swedish government was an unable >> to offer Assange a so-called "iron-clad guarantee" against extradition, >> there is still grounds to negotiate in order to have him travel to Sweden >> to face these allegations; given that the Swedish government clearly has, >> at the very least, a significant role to play in the process, its advanced >> position against Assange's extradition to the U.S. on the basis of >> WikiLeaks' journalistic disclosures would be significant. But there is at >> least a strong argument to make, if not an irrefutable one, that the >> Swedish government is able to offer precisely the guarantee that both >> Assange and Ecuadorean authorities have sought in order to enable him >> immediately to travel to Sweden to face the sex assault allegations against >> him. Independently, the British government is also clearly in a position to >> contribute to those assurances, given the need for its consent if >> extradition to the U.S. from Sweden is to take place. >> >> If one wants to find a culprit for why these sex assault allegations are >> not being resolved the way they should be, the refusal of these two >> governments even to negotiate to secure Assange's clear rights against >> unjust extradition is the place to begin. >> >> * * * >> >> *UPDATE II*: For even more compelling evidence that the Swedish >> government is the final decision-maker in extradition matters and does >> indeed have the power to guarantee Assange that he would not be extradited >> to the U.S. based on his journalism, see the citations in Point 3 of this >> excellent reply to Green . >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 07:37:33 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:37:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <5032AE39.1020508@cafonso.ca> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> <5032AE39.1020508@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: and lets not forget unaltered schedule of drone attacks and thousands of Pakistani's losing lives because of all the you know what.........and people will sit and waste their time over Julian........and act as if they are concerned.....and lets blame the spread of instruments of chaos on the soviets.........and hollywood! On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > And right now I listen to CNN's anchor "horrified" because a Pakistani > child (11-year old) has been arrested for blasphemy. This is indeed > brutal, but I've never seen an American anchor horrified when the > Americans arrest kids for downloading music. > > E la nave va... > > --c.a. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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.asif at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 07:47:23 2012 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:47:23 +0500 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> <5032AE39.1020508@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Agree with Bajwa On 23 August 2012 16:37, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > and lets not forget unaltered schedule of drone attacks and thousands > of Pakistani's losing lives because of all the you know > what.........and people will sit and waste their time over > Julian........and act as if they are concerned.....and lets blame the > spread of instruments of chaos on the soviets.........and hollywood! > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > And right now I listen to CNN's anchor "horrified" because a Pakistani > > child (11-year old) has been arrested for blasphemy. This is indeed > > brutal, but I've never seen an American anchor horrified when the > > Americans arrest kids for downloading music. > > > > E la nave va... > > > > --c.a. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Follow me @* * **Before you print think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk Thu Aug 23 10:21:00 2012 From: jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk (jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:21:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2138177065-1345731664-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1259518285-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> The British press is uncontrolled and for the health of the polity - uncontrollable. It is certainly no tool of the State and as contemptuous of government or opposition (depending on which one you read) as of Assange. Surely you are not suggesting prior restraint or censorship? J. Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange -----Original Message----- From: Riaz K Tayob Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:43:00 To: Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Riaz K Tayob Subject: Re: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain [Emphasis added...] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt The bizarre, unhealthy, blinding media contempt for Julian Assange It is possible to protect the rights of the complainants in Sweden and Assange's rights against political persecution, but a vindictive thirst for vengeance is preventing that * Glenn Greenwald * guardian.co.uk , Wednesday 22 August Julian Assange: the British press's public enemy No1. Photograph: Chris Helgren/Reuters *(updated below - Update II)* Earlier this week, British lawyer and legal correspondent for the New Statesman David Allen Green generated a fair amount of attention by announcing that he would use his objective legal expertise to bust what he called "legal myths about the Assange extradition." These myths, he said, are being irresponsibly spread by Assange defenders and "are like 'zombie facts' which stagger on even when shot down." In addition to his other credentials, Green – like virtually the entire British press – is a long-time and deeply devoted Assange-basher , and his purported myth-busting was predictably regurgitated by those who reflexively grasp onto anything that reflects poorly on western establishmentarians' public enemy No1. It's really worth examining what Green argued to understand the behavior in which Assange detractors engage to advance this collective vendetta, and also to see how frequently blatant ideological agendas masquerade as high-minded, objective legal expertise. But before getting to that, let us pause to reflect on a truly amazing and revealing fact, one that calls for formal study in several academic fields of discipline. Is it not remarkable that one of the very few individuals over the past decade to risk his welfare, liberty and even life to meaningfully challenge the secrecy regime on which the American national security state (and those of its obedient allies ) depends just so happens to have become – long before he sought asylum from Ecuador – the most intensely and personally despised figure among the American and British media class and the British "liberal" intelligentsia? In 2008 – two years before the release of the "collateral murder" video, the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, and the diplomatic cables – the Pentagon prepared a secret report which proclaimed WikiLeaks to be an enemy of the state and plotted ways to destroy its credibility and reputation. But in a stroke of amazing luck, Pentagon operatives never needed to do any of that, because the establishment media in the US and Britain harbor at least as much intense personal loathing for the group's founder as the US government does, and eagerly took the lead in targeting him. Many people like to posit the US national security state and western media outlets as adversarial forces, but here – as is so often the case – they have so harmoniously joined in common cause. Whatever else is true, establishment media outlets show unlimited personal animus toward the person who, as a panel of judges put it when they awarded him the the 2011 Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism, "has given the public more scoops than most journalists can imagine." Similarly, when the Australian version of the Pulitzers – the Walkley Foundation – awarded its highest distinction (for "Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism") to WikiLeaks in 2011, it cited the group's "courageous and controversial commitment to the finest traditions of journalism: justice through transparency," and observed: "So many eagerly took advantage of the secret cables to create /more scoops in a year than most journalists could imagine in a lifetime/." When it comes to the American media, I've long noted this revealing paradox. The person who (along with whomever is the heroic leaker ) enabled "more scoops in a year than most journalists could imagine in a lifetime" – and who was quickly branded an enemy by the Pentagon and a terrorist by high U.S. officials – is the most hated figure among establishment journalists, even though they are ostensibly devoted to precisely these values of transparency and exposing serious government wrongdoing. (This transparency was imposed not only on the US and its allies , but also some of the most oppressive regimes in the Arab world ). But the contempt is far more intense, and bizarrely personal, from the British press, much of which behaves with staggering levels of mutually-reinforcing vindictiveness and groupthink when it's time to scorn an outsider like Assange. On Tuesday, Guardian columnist Seumas Milne wrote a superb analysis of British media coverage of Assange, and observed that "the virulence of British media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now unrelenting." Milne noted that to the British press, Assange "is nothing but a 'monstrous narcissist', a bail-jumping 'sex pest' and an exhibitionist maniac" – venom spewed at someone "who has yet to be charged, let alone convicted, of anything." Indeed, the personalized nature of this contempt from self-styled sober journalists often borders on the creepy (when it's not wildly transgressing that border). Former New York Times' executive editor Bill Keller infamously quoted an email from a Times reporter claiming that Assange wore "filthy white socks that collapsed around his ankles" and "smelled as if he hadn't bathed in days." On the very same day WikiLeaks released over 400,000 classified documents showing genuinely horrific facts about massive civilian deaths in the Iraq war and US complicity in torture by Iraqi forces, the New York Times front-paged an article purporting to diagnose Assange with a variety of psychological afflictions and concealed, malicious motives, based on its own pop-psychology observations and those of Assange's enemies ("erratic and imperious behavior", "a nearly delusional grandeur", "he is not in his right mind", "pursuing a vendetta against the United States"). A columnist for the Independent, Joan Smith, recently watched Assange's interview of Ecuadorean president Rafeal Correa and offered up this wisdom : "He's put on weight, his face is puffy and he didn't bother to shave before his interview with Correa." And perhaps most psychologically twisted of all: a team of New York Times reporters and editors last week, in its lead article about Ecuador's decision to grant asylum, decided it would be appropriate to include a quote from one of Assange's most dedicated enemies claiming that when the WikiLeaks founder was a visitor in his apartment, he "refused to flush the toilet during his entire stay" (faced with a barrage of mockery and disgust over their reporting on Assange's alleged toilet habits, the NYT sheepishly deleted that passage without comment). *It is difficult to think of anyone this side of Saddam Hussein who triggers this level of personalized, deeply ingrained hatred from establishment journalists. Few who spew this vitriol would dare speak with the type of personalized scorn toward, say, George Bush or Tony Blair – who actually launched an aggressive war that resulted in the deaths of at least 100,000 innocent people and kidnapped people from around the globe with no due process and sent them to be tortured. The reaction Assange inspires among establishment media figures is really sui generis.* It is vital to note, as was just demonstrated, that this media contempt long pre-dates, and exists wholly independent of, the controversy surrounding the sex assault allegations in Sweden, and certainly long pre-dates his seeking of asylum from Ecuador. Indeed, given that he has not been convicted of anything, to assume Assange's guilt would be reprehensible – every bit as reprehensible as concluding that the allegations are a CIA ruse or that the complainants' allegations should be dismissed as frivolous or inherently untrustworthy. It would be genuinely nice to think that the same British government that refused to extradite the mass rapist Augusto Pinochet has suddenly developed a devoted passion for ensuring that alleged sex assault offenders are brought to justice – just as it would be nice to believe that the sudden interest in denouncing Ecuador's press freedom record was driven by some newly discovered and authentic concern in the west for civil liberties protections in South America. But as Milne put it last night with great understatement: "such posturing looks increasingly specious." As he rhetorically asked: *"Can anyone seriously believe the dispute would have gone global, or that the British government would have made its asinine threat to suspend the Ecuadorean embassy's diplomatic status and enter it by force, or that scores of police would have surrounded the building, swarming up and down the fire escape and guarding every window, if it was all about one man wanted for questioning over sex crime allegations in Stockholm?"* Like those who suddenly discover the imperatives of feminism when it comes time to justify the war in Afghanistan, or those who become overnight advocates of gay rights when it comes time to demonize the regime in Tehran, or those who took a very recent interest in Ecuadorean press freedoms, these sex assault allegations -- as serious and deserving of legal resolution as they are -- are being cynically exploited as a political weapon by many who have long despised Assange for reasons entirely independent of this case. * * * * * There are several obvious reasons why Assange provokes such unhinged media contempt. The most obvious among them is competition: the resentment generated by watching someone outside their profession generate more critical scoops in a year than all other media outlets combined (see this brilliant 2008 post , in the context of the Clintons, about how professional and ego-based competition produces personal hatred like nothing else can). *Other causes are more subtle though substantive. Many journalists (and liberals) like to wear the costume of outsider-insurgent, but are, at their core, devoted institutionalists, faithful believers in the goodness of their society's power centers, and thus resent those (like Assange) who actually and deliberately place themselves outside of it. By putting his own liberty and security at risk to oppose the world's most powerful factions, Assange has clearly demonstrated what happens to real adversarial dissidents and insurgents – they're persecuted, demonized, and threatened, not befriended by and invited to parties within the halls of imperial power – and he thus causes many journalists to stand revealed as posers, servants to power, and courtiers.* Then there's the ideological cause. *As one long-time British journalist told me this week when discussing the vitriol of the British press toward Assange: "Nothing delights British former lefties more than an opportunity to defend power while pretending it is a brave stance in defence of a left liberal principle." That's the warped mindset that led to so many of these self-styled liberal journalists to support the attack on Iraq and other acts of Western aggression in the name of liberal values. And it's why nothing triggers their rage like fundamental critiques of, and especially meaningful opposition to, the institutions of power to which they are unfailingly loyal.* * * * * * With that context established, let us return to David Allen Green. The attacks on those who have defended Assange's extradition and asylum arguments has depended on the disgusting slander that such advocates are indifferent to the allegations of sexual assault made against him or, worse, *are "rape apologists." * *The reality is exactly the opposite. I have spoken to countless Assange defenders over the last couple of years and not a single one – literally not one – is dismissive of the need for those allegations in Sweden to be taken seriously and to be legally and fairly resolved.* Typifying this view is Milne's column last night, which in the midst of scorning the attacks on Assange, embraced "the seriousness of the rape allegations made against Assange, for which he should clearly answer and, if charges are brought, stand trial." *That is the view of every Assange defender with a platform that I know of, including me (one can certainly find anonymous internet commenters, or the occasional named one, making actual, horrific rape apologist claims, but one can find stray advocates saying anything; imputing those views to Assange defenders generally would be like claiming that all Assange critics want to see him illegally shot in the head or encaged for life because some prominent American and other commentators have called for this ).* *Not only Assange defenders, but also his own lawyers and the Ecuadorean government, have worked relentlessly to ensure that /he faces those allegations in Sweden/. They have merely sought to do so in a way that protects him from extradition to the US to face espionage charges for his journalism – a threat that could send him to prison for life (likely in a torturous super-max facility), and a threat only the _wilfuly blind_ could deny is serious and real . * In their *New York Times op-ed this week , Michael Moore and Oliver Stone correctly argue that it is "the British and Swedish governments that stand in the way of [the sex assault] investigation, not Mr Assange." *That's because, they note, Assange has repeatedly offered to be questioned by Swedish authorities in London, or to travel /today/ to Sweden to face those allegations if he could be assured that his doing so would not result in his extradition to the US to face espionage charges. Time and again , "Correa said Ecuador never intended to stop Assange from facing justice in Sweden. 'What we've asked for is guarantees that he won't be extradited to a third country,' he said." *Both /Britain and Sweden have steadfastly refused even to discuss any agreement that could safeguard both the rights of the complainants and Assange's rights not to be imprisoned for basic journalism./* These facts – and they are facts – pose a lethal threat to the key false narrative that Assange and his defenders are motivated by a desire to evade his facing the sex assault allegations in Sweden. So these facts need to be impugned, and that's where David Allen Green and his "myth-busting" legal expertise comes into play. One myth Green purports to debunk is the notion that "the Swedes should interview Assange in London." This cannot be, Green argues, because "Assange is not wanted merely for questioning. He is wanted for arrest." He also echoes numerous other Assange critics by arguing that the "he-has-not-yet-been-charged" claim is a mere technical irrelevancy: the only reason this is true, he says, is because he must be in Sweden for that to happen. *But back in early 2011, Assange critics were telling a much different story. *Back then, they were arguing that Assange was wildly overstating the danger he faced from extradition to Sweden because the investigation there was at such a preliminary stage and he was merely wanted for questioning. Indeed, here's what the very same David Allen Green wrote on 28 February 2011 when explaining the status of the investigation to his readers [my emphasis]: "This extradition order does not necessarily mean, of course, that he will be extradited, /still less that he will be charged/, tried, or convicted. Assange may win an appeal of the extradition order, or Sweden may decide either not to continue or to /interview him while he remains in England/. However, unless some such external event intervenes, Assange will be shortly extradited to Sweden /to be questioned/ about an allegation of rape, two allegations of sexual molestation, and an allegation of unlawful coercion." Back when it suited Green, he emphasized that Assange has not been charged with any crime, that there is far from any certainty that he would be, and that extradition to Sweden is merely for him "to be questioned" on these allegations: exactly the "myths" and "zombie facts" which he now purports to bust. Moreover, Swedish law professor Marten Schultz, who strongly supports Assange's extradition to Sweden, has said the same [my emphasis]: "The UK supreme court's decision means /only that Assange will be transferred to Sweden for interrogation. /It does not mean that he will be tried, or /even charged/. It is entirely possible that he will be transferred to Sweden, questioned, and released if the Swedish authorities find that there are insufficient grounds for prosecution. It is impossible – as it should be – to predict how the case will unfold." Clearly, as Green himself used to acknowledge, Assange at this point is wanted for questioning in this case, and has not been charged. Once he's questioned, he might be charged, or the case might be dropped. That is what has made the Swedes' steadfast refusal to question him in England so mystifying, of such concern to Assange, and is the real reason that the investigation has thus far been obstructed. Indeed, Swedish legal expert Ove Bring has made clear , in the context of discussing Assange, that "under Swedish law it is possible to interrogate people abroad," but that Sweden is refusing to do so simply for reasons of "prestige" (he added: "If he goes to Sweden, is interrogated, then I expect the case would be dropped, as /the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime/"). Then there's the very strange argument Green makes about why extradition to the US would be more easily accomplished if he's in Britain rather than Sweden. I've previously set out the reasons and supporting evidence showing the reverse is true and won't repeat those here, but let's look at what Green says to support his claim: One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United States; quite the reverse. Ask Gary McKinnon, or Richard O'Dwyer, or the NatWest Three. The US has been seeking McKinnon's extradition from Britain for a full seven years and counting ; O'Dwyer also remains in England and is the subject of a popular campaign to block his shipment to the U.S. ; the NatWest Three were able toresist extradition to the US for four full years . These cases disprove, rather than prove, that an extradition demand from the US would be "swiftly complied with" in Britain. In contrast to the secretive Swedish judicial system, there is substantial public debate along with transparent (and protracted) judicial proceedings in Britain over extradition. It is true, as Green notes, that the Swedish government cannot provide an iron-clad "guarantee" that Assange would not be extradited to the US. That's because it is Swedish courts, and not the government, that make the ultimate decision on extradition. But both the British and Swedish governments play an important role in any extradition proceeding: they take influential positions on whether extradition is legally warranted. Under Britain's extradition treaty, it must consent to the subsequent extradition of any individual it extradites (meaning its consent would be needed for Sweden to send Assange to the U.S.), while in Sweden, the government must formally opine on whether extradition should take place (some Swedes havemade the case that the government's position would be dispositive). *At the very least, there is ample room for negotiation. Both the British and Swedish governments could – and should – take the position that to prosecute Assange under espionage statutes for acts of journalism would be political crimes that are not subject to their extradition treaties with the U.S. or are otherwise not cognizable extradition offenses. Rather than explore any of those possible grounds for agreement, both governments have simply refused to negotiate either with Assange's lawyers or the Ecuadorean government over any proposals to safeguard his rights. That refusal on the part of those governments – and not any desire to obstruct the investigation or evade facing those allegations – is what led the Ecuadoreans to conclude that asylum was necessary to protect Assange from political persecution.* _*The complainants in Sweden have the absolute right to have their serious allegations against Assange investigated and legally resolved. But Assange has the equally compelling right under international law and treaties to be free of political persecution: which is exactly what prosecuting him (and perhaps imprisoning him for life) in the US for WikiLeaks' disclosures would be. *_ *It is vital that both sets of rights be safeguarded, not just one.* The only just solution is one that protects both. Assange's lawyers and the Ecuadorians have repeatedly pursued arrangements to vindicate all substantial rights at stake so that he can travel to Sweden – today – to face those allegations while being protected against unjust extradition to the US. It is the refusal of the British and Swedish authorities even to consider any such proposals that have brought this situation to the unfortunate standstill it is in. *It is incredibly telling that media attacks on Assange do not even pay lip service to, let alone evince any actual interest in, the profound threats to press freedom that would come if he were extradited to and tried in the United States.* In lieu of being informed about any of this, readers and viewers are bombarded with disturbing, and often quite disturbed, rants driven by unrestrained personal contempt. That contempt not only drowns out every important value at stake in this case, but also any regard for the basic facts. * * * */UPDATE/*: Numerous people objected that I too readily conceded the point that Swedish courts, rather than the Swedish government, are the ultimate decision-makers on extradition requests, and the Swedish government therefore cannot provide Assange with a guarantee that he will not be extradited to the U.S. This article by a lawyer -- who fervently believes that Assange should be extradited to Sweden -- makes the case very compellingly that the Swedish government most certainly can provide such a guarantee if it chose to [my emphasis]: Extradition procedures are typically of a mixed nature, where courts and governments share the final decision – it is not unknown for /governments to reject an extradition request in spite of court verdict allowing it/. . . . Article 12 [of Sweden's extradition law] adds that the government may put conditions on its decision to accept an extradition request. /The deciding body is thus the government/, with an input by the Prosecutor general and a veto right given to the Supreme Court in case where the requested person doesn't accept to be extradited. The article goes on to cite the Swedish extradition law to outline two possible outcomes where the target of an extradition request challenges its validity: (1) the Swedish supreme court rules that extradition is not legally permissible, in which case the Swedish government is not free to extradite; (2) the Swedish supreme court rules that extradition is legally permissible, in which case the Swedish government is free to decide that it will not extradite for policy or other prudential reasons. In other words, the Swedish judiciary has the right to /block/ an extradition request on legal grounds, but it lacks the power to/compel/ extradition; if the courts approve of the legal basis, the Swedish government still retains the authority to decide if extradition should take place. As indicated, even if it were true that Swedish government was an unable to offer Assange a so-called "iron-clad guarantee" against extradition, there is still grounds to negotiate in order to have him travel to Sweden to face these allegations; given that the Swedish government clearly has, at the very least, a significant role to play in the process, its advanced position against Assange's extradition to the U.S. on the basis of WikiLeaks' journalistic disclosures would be significant. But there is at least a strong argument to make, if not an irrefutable one, that the Swedish government is able to offer precisely the guarantee that both Assange and Ecuadorean authorities have sought in order to enable him immediately to travel to Sweden to face the sex assault allegations against him. Independently, the British government is also clearly in a position to contribute to those assurances, given the need for its consent if extradition to the U.S. from Sweden is to take place. If one wants to find a culprit for why these sex assault allegations are not being resolved the way they should be, the refusal of these two governments even to negotiate to secure Assange's clear rights against unjust extradition is the place to begin. * * * */UPDATE II/*: For even more compelling evidence that the Swedish government is the final decision-maker in extradition matters and does indeed have the power to guarantee Assange that he would not be extradited to the U.S. based on his journalism, see the citations in Point 3 of this excellent reply to Green . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cveraq at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 10:26:15 2012 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 09:26:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> <5032AE39.1020508@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <33A46D12-ED0B-40C0-9158-EB1B2C4C088D@gmail.com> Every problem has a dimension and also has a relative importance. If not let others to make the priorities for us. Carlos Vera Enviado desde mi iPhone El 23/08/2012, a las 6:37, Fouad Bajwa escribió: > and lets not forget unaltered schedule of drone attacks and thousands > of Pakistani's losing lives because of all the you know > what.........and people will sit and waste their time over > Julian........and act as if they are concerned.....and lets blame the > spread of instruments of chaos on the soviets.........and hollywood! > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> And right now I listen to CNN's anchor "horrified" because a Pakistani >> child (11-year old) has been arrested for blasphemy. This is indeed >> brutal, but I've never seen an American anchor horrified when the >> Americans arrest kids for downloading music. >> >> E la nave va... >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Thu Aug 23 11:13:36 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:13:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <2138177065-1345731664-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1259518285-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> <2138177065-1345731664-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1259518285-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <503648A0.1060202@panamo.eu> Jonathan, If a civil society group considers changing actions of business and governements, perhaps it could also consider influencing some British tabloids? For example by promoting such values as public decency, or secret protection for trials about intimate matters? I guess we, in Western countries, are scaring some peoples in the world and losing any moral consideration. Kind regards, @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 23/08/12 16:21, jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk a écrit : > The British press is uncontrolled and for the health of the polity - > uncontrollable. It is certainly no tool of the State and as > contemptuous of government or opposition (depending on which one you > read) as of Assange. > > Surely you are not suggesting prior restraint or censorship? > > J. > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: * Riaz K Tayob > *Sender: * governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > *Date: *Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:43:00 +0200 > *To: * > *ReplyTo: * governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Riaz K Tayob > > *Subject: *Re: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador > 'willing to co-operate' with Britain > > [Emphasis added...] > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt [snip] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 23 11:21:49 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:21:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ** ** > > Actually, Parminder you are confusing different things. **** > > ** ** > > If there was someone willing and able to challenge ICANN’s decision to > award .xxx on antitrust grounds in Europe, or in India, and ICM Registry > were domiciled in Europe or India, respectively, then an adverse decision > would make European or Indian law “applicable” to an ICANN decision. **** > > ** ** > > This is a problem, not with the US, but with nation-states’ territorial > jursidcition exerting control over the internet. > +1 > **** > > ** ** > > Let me say that I think this antitrust challenge has no merit and will not > go anywhere.**** > > ** > that sums it up nicely. -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 23 11:24:54 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:24:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <5035D11D.8000204@itforchange.net> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> <5032480C.3020607@panamo.eu> <5035D11D.8000204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:43 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 20 August 2012 07:52 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > > I recall the proposal of Viviane Reding in 2009, when she was commissioner > for Information Society and Media at the European Commission: > > http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/696&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en > > Now she is vice-president and commissioner responsible for Justice, > Fundamental rights and Citizenship. > > Parminder, please, do you envision things in a similar way? > > > Yes. India's CIRP proposalis very similar. Only better developed, and with clear multistakeholder > input systems. With a few differences, India's propose a body inside the > UN, and the European Commission proposal, one outside. India proposes 50 > country members, and European Commission’s proposal 12. > > John, please, what do you think about Mrs Reding's proposal? > > > Yes, I would also like to know... You asked for alternatives on the table, > and here are two. > There are more than 2. A free-floating ICANN independent of nation state oversight is far preferable to a something where CS gives up its current active role in decision making to gov'ts. Why would we want to do that? -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Thu Aug 23 11:37:00 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:37:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> <5032480C.3020607@panamo.eu> <5035D11D.8000204@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50364E1C.4090602@panamo.eu> Dear McTim, I would not like to hurt anyone on this list, but, beside considerations of legitimacy, I fear that placing Broadway in Ukraine in a 1930 items database is not yet completely a proof of readiness to govern the world. Is it? (http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/290) Best, -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 23/08/12 17:24, McTim a écrit : > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:43 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Monday 20 August 2012 07:52 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: >> I recall the proposal of Viviane Reding in 2009, when she was >> commissioner for Information Society and Media at the European >> Commission: >> http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/696&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en >> >> Now she is vice-president and commissioner responsible for >> Justice, Fundamental rights and Citizenship. >> >> Parminder, please, do you envision things in a similar way? > > Yes. India's CIRP proposal > > is very similar. Only better developed, and with clear > multistakeholder input systems. With a few differences, India's > propose a body inside the UN, and the European Commission > proposal, one outside. India proposes 50 country members, and > European Commission’s proposal 12. > >> John, please, what do you think about Mrs Reding's proposal? > > Yes, I would also like to know... You asked for alternatives on > the table, and here are two. > > > > There are more than 2. A free-floating ICANN independent of nation > state oversight is far preferable to a something where CS gives up > its current active role in decision making to gov'ts. > > Why would we want to do that? > > > -- > 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 23 11:56:07 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:56:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <50364E1C.4090602@panamo.eu> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> <5032480C.3020607@panamo.eu> <5035D11D.8000204@itforchange.net> <50364E1C.4090602@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Dear McTim, > > I would not like to hurt anyone on this list > 's ok, I have thick skin ;-) > , but, beside considerations of legitimacy > Are you saying that a policy making environment where individuals can participate and represent their own views is not as legitimate as one in which they are "represented" (for some value of that word) by their elected (or not) gov't? > , I fear that placing Broadway in Ukraine in a 1930 items database is not > yet completely a proof of readiness to govern the world. Is it? > I can't parse this. Who is asking to govern the world? What I seek is self-governance of the net by the net, with CS in a prominent role in a MS environment. -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Aug 23 12:16:06 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:16:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B130250@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Recalling I am not a lawyer but play one on the Internet: Amending Milton's statement: If there was someone willing and able to challenge ICANN’s decision to award .xxx on antitrust grounds in Europe, or in India, (or anywhere) then an adverse decision in a U.S., (Belgian or Australian court) (c)ould make European or Indian law “applicable” to an ICANN decision. (Not that I am encouraging lawsuits. But with offices in Brussels and Sydney listed as ICANN contact locations, not to mention staffers elsewhere, then ICANN is subject to other national legal regimes already. Certainly the EU has not been shy about enforcing competition policy actions on US HQ'd companies, in European courts. Even if in theory US courts and Department of Justice should get first crack at ICANN when anti-competitive actions are alleged.) Let me say that I think this antitrust challenge has no merit and will not go anywhere. (Of course, not only the present case, but the merits under any legal regime of a hypothetical suit is beyond my forecasting powers. But not Milton's. ; ) +2 Lee This is a problem, not with the US, but with nation-states’ territorial jurisdiction exerting control over the internet. +2 Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:21 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Cc: parminder; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Subject: Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: Actually, Parminder you are confusing different things. If there was someone willing and able to challenge ICANN’s decision to award .xxx on antitrust grounds in Europe, or in India, and ICM Registry were domiciled in Europe or India, respectively, then an adverse decision would make European or Indian law “applicable” to an ICANN decision. This is a problem, not with the US, but with nation-states’ territorial jursidcition exerting control over the internet. +1 Let me say that I think this antitrust challenge has no merit and will not go anywhere. that sums it up nicely. -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 23 12:29:08 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 18:29:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <50364E1C.4090602@panamo.eu> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> <5032480C.3020607@panamo.eu> <5035D11D.8000204@itforchange.net> <50364E1C.4090602@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <03b001cd814c$75d14900$6173db00$@gmail.com> What was that about the US judicial system http://www.newser.com/story/152658/judge-tax-hike-needed-to-fight-un-in-us-r evolution.html?utm_source=9at9 &utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120823 (Just wait until the discover the Internet in Texas Tiny URL http://tinyurl.com/craqscm M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dominique Lacroix Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 5:37 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: McTim; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally Dear McTim, I would not like to hurt anyone on this list, but, beside considerations of legitimacy, I fear that placing Broadway in Ukraine in a 1930 items database is not yet completely a proof of readiness to govern the world. Is it? (http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicatio ndetails/290) Best, -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 23/08/12 17:24, McTim a écrit : On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:43 AM, parminder wrote: On Monday 20 August 2012 07:52 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: I recall the proposal of Viviane Reding in 2009, when she was commissioner for Information Society and Media at the European Commission: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/696 &format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en Now she is vice-president and commissioner responsible for Justice, Fundamental rights and Citizenship. Parminder, please, do you envision things in a similar way? Yes. India's CIRP proposal is very similar. Only better developed, and with clear multistakeholder input systems. With a few differences, India's propose a body inside the UN, and the European Commission proposal, one outside. India proposes 50 country members, and European Commission’s proposal 12. John, please, what do you think about Mrs Reding's proposal? Yes, I would also like to know... You asked for alternatives on the table, and here are two. There are more than 2. A free-floating ICANN independent of nation state oversight is far preferable to a something where CS gives up its current active role in decision making to gov'ts. Why would we want to do that? -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Aug 23 12:47:09 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:47:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally In-Reply-To: <03b001cd814c$75d14900$6173db00$@gmail.com> References: <502DDA65.4030407@mail.ngo.za> <5030CAEC.8030100@panamo.eu> <00873CA0-93FC-474B-A5D0-ECC781078E36@gmail.com> <50311A8A.6020000@panamo.eu> <8CF4C6CD1659564-10B8-359D3@Webmail-m120.sysops.aol.com> <5031ECE5.7060200@gmail.com> <5032381E.8030006@itforchange.net> <5032480C.3020607@panamo.eu> <5035D11D.8000204@itforchange.net> <50364E1C.4090602@panamo.eu>,<03b001cd814c$75d14900$6173db00$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1302B5@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Michael, Speaking as a Texan (by birth): just be glad ICANNites mainly hang in L.A. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 12:29 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Dominique Lacroix' Cc: 'McTim'; 'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally What was that about the US judicial system… http://www.newser.com/story/152658/judge-tax-hike-needed-to-fight-un-in-us-revolution.html?utm_source=9at9&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20120823 (Just wait until the discover the Internet in Texas… Tiny URL http://tinyurl.com/craqscm M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dominique Lacroix Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 5:37 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: McTim; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally Dear McTim, I would not like to hurt anyone on this list, but, beside considerations of legitimacy, I fear that placing Broadway in Ukraine in a 1930 items database is not yet completely a proof of readiness to govern the world. Is it? (http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/290) Best, -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 23/08/12 17:24, McTim a écrit : On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:43 AM, parminder > wrote: On Monday 20 August 2012 07:52 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: I recall the proposal of Viviane Reding in 2009, when she was commissioner for Information Society and Media at the European Commission: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/696&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en Now she is vice-president and commissioner responsible for Justice, Fundamental rights and Citizenship. Parminder, please, do you envision things in a similar way? Yes. India's CIRP proposal is very similar. Only better developed, and with clear multistakeholder input systems. With a few differences, India's propose a body inside the UN, and the European Commission proposal, one outside. India proposes 50 country members, and European Commission’s proposal 12. John, please, what do you think about Mrs Reding's proposal? Yes, I would also like to know... You asked for alternatives on the table, and here are two. There are more than 2. A free-floating ICANN independent of nation state oversight is far preferable to a something where CS gives up its current active role in decision making to gov'ts. Why would we want to do that? -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 23 13:18:19 2012 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:18:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <503648A0.1060202@panamo.eu> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> <2138177065-1345731664-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1259518285-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> <503648A0.1060202@panamo.eu> Message-ID: At 17:13 23/08/2012, Dominique Lacroix wrote: >I guess we, in Western countries, are scaring some peoples in the >world and losing any moral consideration. I am not sure the Assange's case is matter of Internet Governance. I only observe that if the Civil Society had spent as much time on the DNS RFCs as on the UK Tabloids, the vanity vTLD project would be long forgot. jfc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 23 06:57:09 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:57:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50360C85.9030608@gmail.com> He is being 'tortured' or subject to cruel and inhumane/degrading, punishment according to a submission by about 50 MEPs... and the article does state 'one of the few'... I think the lines on this issue are well drawn... so it suffices to state that there is a difference regarding the use of American/Northern Exceptionalism... On 2012/08/23 12:34 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > The Guardian article cited by Riaz in its third paragraph uses these > words > > one of the very few individuals over the past decade to risk his > welfare, liberty and even > life > to > meaningfully challenge the secrecy regime on which the American > national security state (and those of its obedient allies > ) > depends > > to describe Julian Assange. > Whatever happened to Bradley Manning? > Deirdre > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 23 11:56:09 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:56:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <2138177065-1345731664-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1259518285-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> <2138177065-1345731664-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1259518285-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <50365299.6090201@gmail.com> You are correct, I am not suggesting censorship - but interesting that you ask. What I am merely asking for on this list is respect and tolerance for difference. While there are many things that are much better handled in the North (including finance and freedom of expression, well up to very recently) there is a need for constant vigilence like on illegal wars (where the remarkable consensus of opinion of this "free" press was duped by a bunch of liars doped up on false evidence) or on the financial crisis (where those who challenged the "fundamentals" were silenced, treated like clowns or subject to namecalling - Doctors Doom - Roubini, Baker etc)... Now it is all very well to be contrite afterwards, after "consent has been manufactured" (in the Chomskian/Herman sense) and damage done, in civil society the ticket of entry ought to be reason... so toleration of difference is not too much to ask for, and that claims by one side cannot be sustained merely by the calling of silencing of "the other" as has been attempted on this list... What ought to be clear is that for some in the "South" and perhaps some in the "North" is that American or Northern Exceptionalism is not "legitimate" no matter how "effective." On 2012/08/23 04:21 PM, jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk wrote: > The British press is uncontrolled and for the health of the polity - > uncontrollable. It is certainly no tool of the State and as > contemptuous of government or opposition (depending on which one you > read) as of Assange. > > Surely you are not suggesting prior restraint or censorship? > > J. > Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: * Riaz K Tayob > *Sender: * governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > *Date: *Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:43:00 +0200 > *To: * > *ReplyTo: * governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Riaz K Tayob > > *Subject: *Re: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador > 'willing to co-operate' with Britain > > [Emphasis added...] > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt > > > The bizarre, unhealthy, blinding media contempt for Julian Assange > > It is possible to protect the rights of the complainants in Sweden and > Assange's rights against political persecution, but a vindictive > thirst for vengeance is preventing that > > * > Glenn Greenwald > * guardian.co.uk , Wednesday 22 August > > > Julian Assange: the British press's public enemy No1. Photograph: > Chris Helgren/Reuters > > *(updated below - Update II)* > > Earlier this week, British lawyer and legal correspondent for the New > Statesman David Allen Green generated a fair amount of attention by > announcing that he would use his objective legal expertise > > to bust what he called "legal myths about the Assange extradition." > These myths, he said, are being irresponsibly spread by Assange > defenders and "are like 'zombie facts' which stagger on even when shot > down." > > In addition to his other credentials, Green – like virtually the > entire British press – is a long-time and deeply devoted > Assange-basher > , > and his purported myth-busting was predictably regurgitated > by those who reflexively grasp onto > anything that reflects poorly on western establishmentarians' public > enemy No1. It's really worth examining what Green argued to understand > the behavior in which Assange detractors engage to advance this > collective vendetta, and also to see how frequently blatant > ideological agendas masquerade as high-minded, objective legal expertise. > > But before getting to that, let us pause to reflect on a truly amazing > and revealing fact, one that calls for formal study in several > academic fields of discipline. Is it not remarkable that one of the > very few individuals over the past decade to risk his welfare, liberty > and even > life > > to meaningfully challenge the secrecy regime on which the American > national security state (and those of its obedient allies > ) > depends just so happens to have become – long before he sought asylum > from Ecuador – the most intensely and personally despised figure among > the American and British media class and the British "liberal" > intelligentsia? > > In 2008 – two years before the release of the "collateral murder" > video, the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, and the diplomatic cables – > the Pentagon prepared a secret report > which proclaimed > WikiLeaks to be an enemy of the state and plotted ways to destroy > > its credibility and reputation. But in a stroke of amazing luck, > Pentagon operatives never needed to do any of that, because the > establishment media in the US and Britain harbor at least as much > intense personal loathing for the group's founder as the US government > does, and eagerly took the lead in targeting him. Many people like to > posit the US national security state and western media outlets as > adversarial forces, but here – as is so often the case > > – they have so harmoniously joined in common cause. > > Whatever else is true, establishment media outlets show unlimited > personal animus toward the person who, as a panel of judges put it > > when they awarded him the the 2011 Martha Gellhorn prize for > journalism, "has given the public more scoops than most journalists > can imagine." Similarly, when the Australian version of the Pulitzers > – the Walkley Foundation – awarded its highest distinction > (for "Most Outstanding > Contribution to Journalism") to WikiLeaks in 2011, it cited > > the group's "courageous and controversial commitment to the finest > traditions of journalism: justice through transparency," and observed: > "So many eagerly took advantage of the secret cables to create /more > scoops in a year than most journalists could imagine in a lifetime/." > > When it comes to the American media, I've long noted > this revealing > paradox. The person who (along with whomever is the heroic leaker > ) > enabled "more scoops in a year than most journalists could imagine in > a lifetime" – and who was quickly branded an enemy by the Pentagon and > a terrorist by high U.S. officials > > – is the most hated figure among establishment journalists, even > though they are ostensibly devoted to precisely these values of > transparency and exposing serious government wrongdoing. (This > transparency was imposed not only on the US and its allies > , but also some of the > most oppressive regimes in the Arab world > ). > > > But the contempt is far more intense, and bizarrely personal, from the > British press, much of which behaves with staggering levels of > mutually-reinforcing vindictiveness and groupthink when it's time to > scorn an outsider like Assange. On Tuesday, Guardian columnist Seumas > Milne wrote a superb analysis > > of British media coverage of Assange, and observed that "the virulence > of British media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now > unrelenting." Milne noted that to the British press, Assange "is > nothing but a 'monstrous narcissist', a bail-jumping 'sex pest' and an > exhibitionist maniac" – venom spewed at someone "who has yet to be > charged, let alone convicted, of anything." > > Indeed, the personalized nature of this contempt from self-styled > sober journalists often borders on the creepy (when it's not wildly > transgressing that border). Former New York Times' executive editor > Bill Keller infamously quoted an email from a Times reporter claiming > > that Assange wore "filthy white socks that collapsed around his > ankles" and "smelled as if he hadn't bathed in days." On the very same > day WikiLeaks released over 400,000 classified documents showing > genuinely horrific facts about massive civilian deaths in the Iraq war > and US complicity in torture by Iraqi forces, the New York Times > front-paged an article > purporting > to diagnose Assange with a variety of psychological afflictions and > concealed, malicious motives, based on its own pop-psychology > observations and those of Assange's enemies ("erratic and imperious > behavior", "a nearly delusional grandeur", "he is not in his right > mind", "pursuing a vendetta against the United States"). > > A columnist for the Independent, Joan Smith, recently watched > Assange's interview of Ecuadorean president Rafeal Correa and offered > up this wisdom > : > "He's put on weight, his face is puffy and he didn't bother to shave > before his interview with Correa." And perhaps most psychologically > twisted of all: a team of New York Times reporters and editors last > week, in its lead article about Ecuador's decision to grant asylum, > decided it would be appropriate to include a quote > > from one of Assange's most dedicated enemies claiming that when the > WikiLeaks founder was a visitor in his apartment, he "refused to flush > the toilet during his entire stay" (faced with a barrage of mockery > and disgust over their reporting on Assange's alleged toilet habits, > the NYT sheepishly deleted that passage without comment). > > *It is difficult to think of anyone this side of Saddam Hussein who > triggers this level of personalized, deeply ingrained hatred from > establishment journalists. Few who spew this vitriol would dare speak > with the type of personalized scorn toward, say, George Bush or Tony > Blair – who actually launched an aggressive war that resulted in the > deaths of at least 100,000 innocent people and kidnapped people from > around the globe with no due process and sent them to be tortured. The > reaction Assange inspires among establishment media figures is really > sui generis.* > > It is vital to note, as was just demonstrated, that this media > contempt long pre-dates, and exists wholly independent of, the > controversy surrounding the sex assault allegations in Sweden, and > certainly long pre-dates his seeking of asylum from Ecuador. Indeed, > given that he has not been convicted of anything, to assume Assange's > guilt would be reprehensible – every bit as reprehensible as > concluding that the allegations are a CIA ruse or that the > complainants' allegations should be dismissed as frivolous or > inherently untrustworthy. > > It would be genuinely nice to think that the same British government > that refused to extradite > the mass > rapist > > Augusto Pinochet has suddenly developed a devoted passion for ensuring > that alleged sex assault offenders are brought to justice – just as it > would be nice to believe that the sudden interest > > in denouncing Ecuador's press freedom record was driven by some newly > discovered and authentic concern in the west for civil liberties > protections in South America. But as Milne put it last night with > great understatement: "such posturing looks increasingly specious." As > he rhetorically asked: > > *"Can anyone seriously believe the dispute would have gone global, > or that the British government would have made its asinine threat > to suspend the Ecuadorean embassy's diplomatic status and enter it > by force, or that scores of police would have surrounded the > building, swarming up and down the fire escape and guarding every > window, if it was all about one man wanted for questioning over > sex crime allegations in Stockholm?"* > > Like those who suddenly discover the imperatives of feminism when it > comes time to justify the war in Afghanistan, or those who become > overnight advocates of gay rights when it comes time to demonize the > regime in Tehran, or those who took a very recent interest in > Ecuadorean press freedoms, these sex assault allegations -- as serious > and deserving of legal resolution as they are -- are being cynically > exploited as a political weapon by many who have long despised Assange > for reasons entirely independent of this case. > > * * * * * > > There are several obvious reasons why Assange provokes such unhinged > media contempt. The most obvious among them is competition: the > resentment generated by watching someone outside their profession > generate more critical scoops in a year than all other media outlets > combined (see this brilliant 2008 post > , in the > context of the Clintons, about how professional and ego-based > competition produces personal hatred like nothing else can). > > *Other causes are more subtle though substantive. Many journalists > (and liberals) like to wear the costume of outsider-insurgent, but > are, at their core, devoted institutionalists, faithful believers in > the goodness of their society's power centers, and thus resent those > (like Assange) who actually and deliberately place themselves outside > of it. By putting his own liberty and security at risk to oppose the > world's most powerful factions, Assange has clearly demonstrated what > happens to real adversarial dissidents and insurgents – they're > persecuted, demonized, and threatened, not befriended by and invited > to parties within the halls of imperial power – and he thus causes > many journalists to stand revealed as posers, servants to power, and > courtiers.* > > Then there's the ideological cause. *As one long-time British > journalist told me this week when discussing the vitriol of the > British press toward Assange: "Nothing delights British former lefties > more than an opportunity to defend power while pretending it is a > brave stance in defence of a left liberal principle." That's the > warped mindset that led to so many of these self-styled liberal > journalists to support the attack on Iraq > and other acts of > Western aggression in the name of liberal values. And it's why nothing > triggers their rage like fundamental critiques of, and especially > meaningful opposition to, the institutions of power to which they are > unfailingly loyal.* > > * * * * * > > With that context established, let us return to David Allen Green. The > attacks on those who have defended Assange's extradition and asylum > arguments has depended on the disgusting slander that such advocates > are indifferent to the allegations of sexual assault made against him > or, worse, *are "rape apologists." * > > *The reality is exactly the opposite. I have spoken to countless > Assange defenders over the last couple of years and not a single one – > literally not one – is dismissive of the need for those allegations in > Sweden to be taken seriously and to be legally and fairly resolved.* > Typifying this view is Milne's column last night, which in the midst > of scorning the attacks on Assange, embraced "the seriousness of the > rape allegations made against Assange, for which he should clearly > answer and, if charges are brought, stand trial." > > *That is the view of every Assange defender with a platform that I > know of, including me (one can certainly find anonymous internet > commenters, or the occasional named one, making actual, horrific rape > apologist claims, but one can find stray advocates saying anything; > imputing those views to Assange defenders generally would be like > claiming that all Assange critics want to see him illegally shot in > the head or encaged for life because some prominent American > > and other commentators > have > called for this ).* > > *Not only Assange defenders, but also his own lawyers and the > Ecuadorean government, have worked relentlessly to ensure that /he > faces those allegations in Sweden/. They have merely sought to do so > in a way that protects him from extradition to the US to face > espionage charges for his journalism – a threat that could send him to > prison for life (likely in a torturous super-max facility), and a > threat only the _wilfuly blind_ could deny is serious and real > . > * > > In their *New York Times op-ed this week > , > Michael Moore and Oliver Stone correctly argue that it is "the British > and Swedish governments that stand in the way of [the sex assault] > investigation, not Mr Assange." *That's because, they note, Assange > has repeatedly offered to be questioned by Swedish authorities in > London, or to travel /today/ to Sweden to face those allegations if he > could be assured that his doing so would not result in his extradition > to the US to face espionage charges. > > Time and again > , > "Correa said Ecuador never intended to stop Assange from facing > justice in Sweden. 'What we've asked for is guarantees that he won't > be extradited to a third country,' he said." *Both /Britain and Sweden > have steadfastly refused even to discuss any agreement that could > safeguard both the rights of the complainants and Assange's rights not > to be imprisoned for basic journalism./* > > These facts – and they are facts – pose a lethal threat to the key > false narrative that Assange and his defenders are motivated by a > desire to evade his facing the sex assault allegations in Sweden. So > these facts need to be impugned, and that's where David Allen Green > and his "myth-busting" legal expertise comes into play. > > One myth Green purports to debunk is the notion that "the Swedes > should interview Assange in London." This cannot be, Green argues, > because "Assange is not wanted merely for questioning. He is wanted > for arrest." He also echoes numerous other Assange critics by arguing > that the "he-has-not-yet-been-charged" claim is a mere technical > irrelevancy: the only reason this is true, he says, is because he must > be in Sweden for that to happen. > > *But back in early 2011, Assange critics were telling a much different > story. *Back then, they were arguing that Assange was wildly > overstating the danger he faced from extradition to Sweden because the > investigation there was at such a preliminary stage and he was merely > wanted for questioning. Indeed, here's what the very same David Allen > Green wrote on 28 February 2011 > > when explaining the status of the investigation to his readers [my > emphasis]: > > "This extradition order does not necessarily mean, of course, that > he will be extradited, /still less that he will be charged/, > tried, or convicted. Assange may win an appeal of the extradition > order, or Sweden may decide either not to continue or to > /interview him while he remains in England/. However, unless some > such external event intervenes, Assange will be shortly extradited > to Sweden /to be questioned/ about an allegation of rape, two > allegations of sexual molestation, and an allegation of unlawful > coercion." > > Back when it suited Green, he emphasized that Assange has not been > charged with any crime, that there is far from any certainty that he > would be, and that extradition to Sweden is merely for him "to be > questioned" on these allegations: exactly the "myths" and "zombie > facts" which he now purports to bust. Moreover, Swedish law professor > Marten Schultz, who strongly supports Assange's extradition to Sweden, > has said the same > [my > emphasis]: > > "The UK supreme court's decision means /only that Assange will be > transferred to Sweden for interrogation. /It does not mean that he > will be tried, or /even charged/. It is entirely possible that he > will be transferred to Sweden, questioned, and released if the > Swedish authorities find that there are insufficient grounds for > prosecution. It is impossible – as it should be – to predict how > the case will unfold." > > Clearly, as Green himself used to acknowledge, Assange at this point > is wanted for questioning in this case, and has not been charged. Once > he's questioned, he might be charged, or the case might be dropped. > That is what has made the Swedes' steadfast refusal to question him in > England so mystifying, of such concern to Assange, and is the real > reason that the investigation has thus far been obstructed. Indeed, > Swedish legal expert Ove Bring has made clear > , > in the context of discussing Assange, that "under Swedish law it is > possible to interrogate people abroad," but that Sweden is refusing to > do so simply for reasons of "prestige" (he added: "If he goes to > Sweden, is interrogated, then I expect the case would be dropped, as > /the evidence is not enough to charge him with a crime/"). > > Then there's the very strange argument Green makes about why > extradition to the US would be more easily accomplished if he's in > Britain rather than Sweden. I've previously set out > > the reasons and supporting evidence showing the reverse is true and > won't repeat those here, but let's look at what Green says to support > his claim: > > One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United > Kingdom would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from > the United States; quite the reverse. Ask Gary McKinnon, or > Richard O'Dwyer, or the NatWest Three. > > The US has been seeking McKinnon's extradition from Britain for a full > seven years and counting > ; > O'Dwyer also remains in England and is the subject of a popular > campaign to block his shipment to the U.S. > ; > the NatWest Three were able toresist extradition to the US for four > full years . These > cases disprove, rather than prove, that an extradition demand from the > US would be "swiftly complied with" in Britain. In contrast to the > secretive Swedish judicial system, there is substantial public debate > along with transparent (and protracted) judicial proceedings in > Britain over extradition. > > It is true, as Green notes, that the Swedish government cannot provide > an iron-clad "guarantee" that Assange would not be extradited to the > US. That's because it is Swedish courts, and not the government, that > make the ultimate decision on extradition. But both the British and > Swedish governments play an important role in any extradition > proceeding: they take influential positions on whether extradition is > legally warranted. Under Britain's extradition treaty, it must consent > to the subsequent extradition of any individual it extradites (meaning > its consent would be needed for Sweden to send Assange to the U.S.), > while in Sweden, the government must formally opine > > on whether extradition should take place (some Swedes havemade the > case > > that the government's position would be dispositive). > > *At the very least, there is ample room for negotiation. Both the > British and Swedish governments could – and should – take the position > that to prosecute Assange under espionage statutes for acts of > journalism would be political crimes that are not subject to their > extradition treaties with the U.S. or are otherwise not cognizable > extradition offenses. Rather than explore any of those possible > grounds for agreement, both governments have simply refused to > negotiate either with Assange's lawyers or the Ecuadorean government > over any proposals to safeguard his rights. That refusal on the part > of those governments – and not any desire to obstruct the > investigation or evade facing those allegations – is what led the > Ecuadoreans to conclude that asylum was necessary to protect Assange > from political persecution.* > > _*The complainants in Sweden have the absolute right to have their > serious allegations against Assange investigated and legally resolved. > But Assange has the equally compelling right under international law > and treaties to be free of political persecution: which is exactly > what prosecuting him (and perhaps imprisoning him for life) in the US > for WikiLeaks' disclosures would be. *_ > > *It is vital that both sets of rights be safeguarded, not just one.* > The only just solution is one that protects both. Assange's lawyers > and the Ecuadorians have repeatedly pursued arrangements to vindicate > all substantial rights at stake so that he can travel to Sweden – > today – to face those allegations while being protected against unjust > extradition to the US. It is the refusal of the British and Swedish > authorities even to consider any such proposals that have brought this > situation to the unfortunate standstill it is in. > > *It is incredibly telling that media attacks on Assange do not even > pay lip service to, let alone evince any actual interest in, the > profound threats to press freedom that would come if he were > extradited to and tried in the United States.* In lieu of being > informed about any of this, readers and viewers are bombarded with > disturbing, and often quite disturbed, rants driven by unrestrained > personal contempt. That contempt not only drowns out every important > value at stake in this case, but also any regard for the basic facts. > > * * * > > */UPDATE/*: Numerous people objected that I too readily conceded the > point that Swedish courts, rather than the Swedish government, are the > ultimate decision-makers on extradition requests, and the Swedish > government therefore cannot provide Assange with a guarantee that he > will not be extradited to the U.S. This article > > by a lawyer -- who fervently believes that Assange should be > extradited to Sweden -- makes the case very compellingly that the > Swedish government most certainly can provide such a guarantee if it > chose to [my emphasis]: > > Extradition procedures are typically of a mixed nature, where > courts and governments share the final decision – it is not > unknown for /governments to reject an extradition request in spite > of court verdict allowing it/. . . . > > Article 12 [of Sweden's extradition law] adds that the government > may put conditions on its decision to accept an extradition > request. /The deciding body is thus the government/, with an input > by the Prosecutor general and a veto right given to the Supreme > Court in case where the requested person doesn't accept to be > extradited. > > The article goes on to cite the Swedish extradition law to outline two > possible outcomes where the target of an extradition request > challenges its validity: (1) the Swedish supreme court rules that > extradition is not legally permissible, in which case the Swedish > government is not free to extradite; (2) the Swedish supreme court > rules that extradition is legally permissible, in which case the > Swedish government is free to decide that it will not extradite for > policy or other prudential reasons. In other words, the Swedish > judiciary has the right to /block/ an extradition request on legal > grounds, but it lacks the power to/compel/ extradition; if the courts > approve of the legal basis, the Swedish government still retains the > authority to decide if extradition should take place. > > As indicated, even if it were true that Swedish government was an > unable to offer Assange a so-called "iron-clad guarantee" against > extradition, there is still grounds to negotiate in order to have him > travel to Sweden to face these allegations; given that the Swedish > government clearly has, at the very least, a significant role to play > in the process, its advanced position against Assange's extradition to > the U.S. on the basis of WikiLeaks' journalistic disclosures would be > significant. But there is at least a strong argument to make, if not > an irrefutable one, that the Swedish government is able to offer > precisely the guarantee that both Assange and Ecuadorean authorities > have sought in order to enable him immediately to travel to Sweden to > face the sex assault allegations against him. Independently, the > British government is also clearly in a position to contribute to > those assurances, given the need for its consent if extradition to the > U.S. from Sweden is to take place. > > If one wants to find a culprit for why these sex assault allegations > are not being resolved the way they should be, the refusal of these > two governments even to negotiate to secure Assange's clear rights > against unjust extradition is the place to begin. > > * * * > > */UPDATE II/*: For even more compelling evidence that the Swedish > government is the final decision-maker in extradition matters and does > indeed have the power to guarantee Assange that he would not be > extradited to the U.S. based on his journalism, see the citations in > Point 3 of this excellent reply to Green > . > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 23 15:31:26 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 15:31:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <2138177065-1345731664-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1259518285-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> <2138177065-1345731664-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1259518285-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:21 AM, wrote: > The British press is uncontrolled and for the health of the polity - > uncontrollable. [...] > This assertion ignores a huge amount of historical facts in the interest of asserting the mythical independence of the press when it comes to matters perceived as of fundamental importance to the national security complex in a given nation, whether the UK, the USA, or others. These facts all support that the national security agencies and their closest supporters spend huge amounts of money and time influencing/"educating"/infiltrating/"incentivizing" the press corps to suit their interests. They are quite adept at doing so, such that criticism of the Iraq wars prior to their planned beginning was either extremely muted or non-existent. Then after the beginning of wars, "support the troops" is enough to guarantee the continuance of a war for a good long time. It is a war of a different sort against Assange and Manning, but a war nonetheless. When I was a Governor of a state bar association, (to give but one minor but personal example), even though we were at the lower levels of elected "lawmakers" and opinion leaders, we were invited for a personal tour on the US nuclear submarine named the USS Alabama. No civilian had toured this sub for years, but we got a special invite. The tour was of course interesting - how could being within feet of enough firepower to exceed the tonnage of bombs dropped in all wars to date not be "interesting" in an awful way? Does anyone think that such tours as these for press and opinion leaders are NOT also a careful and effective way to greatly influence public opinion? This tour did not fundamentally change my views, but it could not help but "moderate" them to some extent as one gets to know a bit on the personal level about the military officials in the command chain for this nuclear submarine - the very one featured in the movie "Red October" as I recall. I still have my signed glossy pictures of the sub and its commander. I was only in this elected position for two years. Those in the press or other parts of government who work in shaping or influencing public opinion on a more sustained level get many more opportunities to be lobbied by those in the national security complex than the couple I had in my two years. I think it can't help but be effective, and this is just the milder tip of the iceberg in terms of how national security effectively controls the press. A few years back, in Harper's magazine I believe, some generals discussed the hypothetical possibility of a military coup in the US because the military's needs or interests were not being provided for at some future point. The consensus as I recall is that *these generals couldn't imagine any realistic scenario where the military wasn't provided for,* at least if they took the opportunity to make their case to the press and to officials. In other words, if the national security state wants something, whether it's money or stories against Assange, they are extremely likely to get it, and indeed they have a difficult time even imagining being turned down based on their career experience of success in doing exactly these kinds of things. Paul Lehto, J.D. > ------------------------------ > *From: * Riaz K Tayob > *Sender: * governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > *Date: *Thu, 23 Aug 2012 10:43:00 +0200 > *To: * > *ReplyTo: * governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Riaz K Tayob < > riaz.tayob at gmail.com> > *Subject: *Re: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing > to co-operate' with Britain > > [Emphasis added...] > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/22/julian-assange-media-contempt > > The bizarre, unhealthy, blinding media contempt for Julian Assange > > It is possible to protect the rights of the complainants in Sweden and > Assange's rights against political persecution, but a vindictive thirst for > vengeance is preventing that > > - Glenn Greenwald > - guardian.co.uk , **Wednesday 22 August** > > > Julian Assange: the British press's public enemy No1. Photograph: Chris > Helgren/Reuters > > *(updated below - Update II)* > > Earlier this week, British lawyer and legal correspondent for the New > Statesman David Allen Green generated a fair amount of attention by announcing > that he would use his objective legal expertiseto bust what he called "legal myths about the Assange extradition." These > myths, he said, are being irresponsibly spread by Assange defenders and > "are like 'zombie facts' which stagger on even when shot down." > > In addition to his other credentials, Green – like virtually the entire > British press – is a long-time and deeply devoted Assange-basher, > and his purported myth-busting was predictably regurgitatedby those who reflexively grasp onto anything that reflects poorly on > western establishmentarians' public enemy No1. It's really worth examining > what Green argued to understand the behavior in which Assange detractors > engage to advance this collective vendetta, and also to see how frequently > blatant ideological agendas masquerade as high-minded, objective legal > expertise. > > But before getting to that, let us pause to reflect on a truly amazing and > revealing fact, one that calls for formal study in several academic fields > of discipline. Is it not remarkable that one of the very few individuals > over the past decade to risk his welfare, liberty and evenlifeto meaningfully challenge the secrecy regime on which the American national > security state (and those of its obedient allies) > depends just so happens to have become – long before he sought asylum from > Ecuador – the most intensely and personally despised figure among the > American and British media class and the British "liberal" intelligentsia? > > In 2008 – two years before the release of the "collateral murder" video, > the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, and the diplomatic cables – the Pentagon prepared > a secret report which > proclaimed WikiLeaks to be an enemy of the state and plotted ways to > destroyits credibility and reputation. But in a stroke of amazing luck, Pentagon > operatives never needed to do any of that, because the establishment media > in the US and Britain harbor at least as much intense personal loathing for > the group's founder as the US government does, and eagerly took the lead in > targeting him. Many people like to posit the US national security state and > western media outlets as adversarial forces, but here – as is so often > the case– they have so harmoniously joined in common cause. > > Whatever else is true, establishment media outlets show unlimited personal > animus toward the person who, as a panel of judges put itwhen they awarded him the the 2011 Martha Gellhorn prize for journalism, > "has given the public more scoops than most journalists can imagine." > Similarly, when the Australian version of the Pulitzers – the Walkley > Foundation – awarded its highest distinction(for "Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism") to WikiLeaks in 2011, > it citedthe group's "courageous and controversial commitment to the finest > traditions of journalism: justice through transparency," and observed: "So > many eagerly took advantage of the secret cables to create *more scoops > in a year than most journalists could imagine in a lifetime*." > > When it comes to the American media, I've long notedthis revealing paradox. The person who (along with whomever is the > heroic leaker) > enabled "more scoops in a year than most journalists could imagine in a > lifetime" – and who was quickly branded an enemy by the Pentagon and a terrorist > by high U.S. officials– is the most hated figure among establishment journalists, even though > they are ostensibly devoted to precisely these values of transparency and > exposing serious government wrongdoing. (This transparency was imposed not > only on the US and its allies, > but also some of the most oppressive regimes in the Arab world). > > > But the contempt is far more intense, and bizarrely personal, from the > British press, much of which behaves with staggering levels of > mutually-reinforcing vindictiveness and groupthink when it's time to scorn > an outsider like Assange. On Tuesday, Guardian columnist Seumas Milne wrote a > superb analysisof British media coverage of Assange, and observed that "the virulence of > British media hostility towards the WikiLeaks founder is now unrelenting." > Milne noted that to the British press, Assange "is nothing but a 'monstrous > narcissist', a bail-jumping 'sex pest' and an exhibitionist maniac" – venom > spewed at someone "who has yet to be charged, let alone convicted, of > anything." > > Indeed, the personalized nature of this contempt from self-styled sober > journalists often borders on the creepy (when it's not wildly transgressing > that border). Former New York Times' executive editor Bill Keller > infamously quoted an email from a Times reporter claimingthat Assange wore "filthy white socks that collapsed around his ankles" and > "smelled as if he hadn't bathed in days." On the very same day WikiLeaks > released over 400,000 classified documents showing genuinely horrific facts > about massive civilian deaths in the Iraq war and US complicity in torture > by Iraqi forces, the New York Times front-paged an articlepurporting to diagnose Assange with a variety of psychological afflictions > and concealed, malicious motives, based on its own pop-psychology > observations and those of Assange's enemies ("erratic and imperious > behavior", "a nearly delusional grandeur", "he is not in his right mind", > "pursuing a vendetta against the United States"). > > A columnist for the Independent, Joan Smith, recently watched Assange's > interview of Ecuadorean president Rafeal Correa and offered up this wisdom: > "He's put on weight, his face is puffy and he didn't bother to shave before > his interview with Correa." And perhaps most psychologically twisted of > all: a team of New York Times reporters and editors last week, in its lead > article about Ecuador's decision to grant asylum, decided it would be > appropriate to include a quotefrom one of Assange's most dedicated enemies claiming that when the > WikiLeaks founder was a visitor in his apartment, he "refused to flush the > toilet during his entire stay" (faced with a barrage of mockery and disgust > over their reporting on Assange's alleged toilet habits, the NYT sheepishly > deleted that passage without comment). > > *It is difficult to think of anyone this side of Saddam Hussein who > triggers this level of personalized, deeply ingrained hatred from > establishment journalists. Few who spew this vitriol would dare speak with > the type of personalized scorn toward, say, George Bush or Tony Blair – who > actually launched an aggressive war that resulted in the deaths of at least > 100,000 innocent people and kidnapped people from around the globe with no > due process and sent them to be tortured. The reaction Assange inspires > among establishment media figures is really sui generis.* > > It is vital to note, as was just demonstrated, that this media contempt > long pre-dates, and exists wholly independent of, the controversy > surrounding the sex assault allegations in Sweden, and certainly long > pre-dates his seeking of asylum from Ecuador. Indeed, given that he has not > been convicted of anything, to assume Assange's guilt would be > reprehensible – every bit as reprehensible as concluding that the > allegations are a CIA ruse or that the complainants' allegations should be > dismissed as frivolous or inherently untrustworthy. > > It would be genuinely nice to think that the same British government that refused > to extradite the mass > rapistAugusto Pinochet has suddenly developed a devoted passion for ensuring that > alleged sex assault offenders are brought to justice – just as it would be > nice to believe that the sudden interestin denouncing Ecuador's press freedom record was driven by some newly > discovered and authentic concern in the west for civil liberties > protections in South America. But as Milne put it last night with great > understatement: "such posturing looks increasingly specious." As he > rhetorically asked: > > *"Can anyone seriously believe the dispute would have gone global, or > that the British government would have made its asinine threat to suspend > the Ecuadorean embassy's diplomatic status and enter it by force, or that > scores of police would have surrounded the building, swarming up and down > the fire escape and guarding every window, if it was all about one man > wanted for questioning over sex crime allegations in Stockholm?"* > > Like those who suddenly discover the imperatives of feminism when it comes > time to justify the war in Afghanistan, or those who become overnight > advocates of gay rights when it comes time to demonize the regime in > Tehran, or those who took a very recent interest in Ecuadorean press > freedoms, these sex assault allegations -- as serious and deserving of > legal resolution as they are -- are being cynically exploited as a > political weapon by many who have long despised Assange for reasons > entirely independent of this case. > > * * * * * > > There are several obvious reasons why Assange provokes such unhinged media > contempt. The most obvious among them is competition: the resentment > generated by watching someone outside their profession generate more > critical scoops in a year than all other media outlets combined (see this > brilliant 2008 post, > in the context of the Clintons, about how professional and ego-based > competition produces personal hatred like nothing else can). > > *Other causes are more subtle though substantive. Many journalists (and > liberals) like to wear the costume of outsider-insurgent, but are, at their > core, devoted institutionalists, faithful believers in the goodness of > their society's power centers, and thus resent those (like Assange) who > actually and deliberately place themselves outside of it. By putting his > own liberty and security at risk to oppose the world's most powerful > factions, Assange has clearly demonstrated what happens to real adversarial > dissidents and insurgents – they're persecuted, demonized, and threatened, > not befriended by and invited to parties within the halls of imperial power > – and he thus causes many journalists to stand revealed as posers, servants > to power, and courtiers.* > > Then there's the ideological cause. *As one long-time British journalist > told me this week when discussing the vitriol of the British press toward > Assange: "Nothing delights British former lefties more than an opportunity > to defend power while pretending it is a brave stance in defence of a left > liberal principle." That's the warped mindset that led to so many of these > self-styled liberal journalists to support the attack on Iraqand other acts of Western aggression in the name of liberal values. And > it's why nothing triggers their rage like fundamental critiques of, and > especially meaningful opposition to, the institutions of power to which > they are unfailingly loyal.* > > * * * * * > > With that context established, let us return to David Allen Green. The > attacks on those who have defended Assange's extradition and asylum > arguments has depended on the disgusting slander that such advocates are > indifferent to the allegations of sexual assault made against him or, > worse, *are "rape apologists." * > > *The reality is exactly the opposite. I have spoken to countless Assange > defenders over the last couple of years and not a single one – literally > not one – is dismissive of the need for those allegations in Sweden to be > taken seriously and to be legally and fairly resolved.* Typifying this > view is Milne's column last night, which in the midst of scorning the > attacks on Assange, embraced "the seriousness of the rape allegations made > against Assange, for which he should clearly answer and, if charges are > brought, stand trial." > > *That is the view of every Assange defender with a platform that I know > of, including me (one can certainly find anonymous internet commenters, or > the occasional named one, making actual, horrific rape apologist claims, > but one can find stray advocates saying anything; imputing those views to > Assange defenders generally would be like claiming that all Assange critics > want to see him illegally shot in the head or encaged for life because some > prominent Americanand other > commentators have called > for this ).* > > *Not only Assange defenders, but also his own lawyers and the Ecuadorean > government, have worked relentlessly to ensure that he faces those > allegations in Sweden. They have merely sought to do so in a way that > protects him from extradition to the US to face espionage charges for his > journalism – a threat that could send him to prison for life (likely in a > torturous super-max facility), and a threat only the wilfuly blind could > deny is serious and real. > * > > In their *New York Times op-ed this week, > Michael Moore and Oliver Stone correctly argue that it is "the British and > Swedish governments that stand in the way of [the sex assault] > investigation, not Mr Assange." *That's because, they note, Assange has > repeatedly offered to be questioned by Swedish authorities in London, or to > travel *today* to Sweden to face those allegations if he could be assured > that his doing so would not result in his extradition to the US to face > espionage charges. > > Time and again, > "Correa said Ecuador never intended to stop Assange from facing justice in > Sweden. 'What we've asked for is guarantees that he won't be extradited to > a third country,' he said." *Both Britain and Sweden have steadfastly > refused even to discuss any agreement that could safeguard both the rights > of the complainants and Assange's rights not to be imprisoned for basic > journalism.* > > These facts – and they are facts – pose a lethal threat to the key false > narrative that Assange and his defenders are motivated by a desire to evade > his facing the sex assault allegations in Sweden. So these facts need to be > impugned, and that's where David Allen Green and his "myth-busting" legal > expertise comes into play. > > One myth Green purports to debunk is the notion that "the Swedes should > interview Assange in London." This cannot be, Green argues, because > "Assange is not wanted merely for questioning. He is wanted for arrest." He > also echoes numerous other Assange critics by arguing that the > "he-has-not-yet-been-charged" claim is a mere technical irrelevancy: the > only reason this is true, he says, is because he must be in Sweden for that > to happen. > > *But back in early 2011, Assange critics were telling a much different > story. *Back then, they were arguing that Assange was wildly overstating > the danger he faced from extradition to Sweden because the investigation > there was at such a preliminary stage and he was merely wanted for > questioning. Indeed, here's what the very same David Allen Green wrote on > 28 February 2011when explaining the status of the investigation to his readers [my > emphasis]: > > "This extradition order does not necessarily mean, of course, that he will > be extradited, *still less that he will be charged*, tried, or convicted. > Assange may win an appeal of the extradition order, or Sweden may decide > either not to continue or to *interview him while he remains in England*. > However, unless some such external event intervenes, Assange will be > shortly extradited to Sweden *to be questioned* about an allegation of > rape, two allegations of sexual molestation, and an allegation of unlawful > coercion." > > Back when it suited Green, he emphasized that Assange has not been charged > with any crime, that there is far from any certainty that he would be, and > that extradition to Sweden is merely for him "to be questioned" on these > allegations: exactly the "myths" and "zombie facts" which he now purports > to bust. Moreover, Swedish law professor Marten Schultz, who strongly > supports Assange's extradition to Sweden, has said the same[my emphasis]: > > "The UK supreme court's decision means *only that Assange will be > transferred to Sweden for interrogation. *It does not mean that he will > be tried, or *even charged*. It is entirely possible that he will be > transferred to Sweden, questioned, and released if the Swedish authorities > find that there are insufficient grounds for prosecution. It is impossible > – as it should be – to predict how the case will unfold." > > Clearly, as Green himself used to acknowledge, Assange at this point is > wanted for questioning in this case, and has not been charged. Once he's > questioned, he might be charged, or the case might be dropped. That is what > has made the Swedes' steadfast refusal to question him in England so > mystifying, of such concern to Assange, and is the real reason that the > investigation has thus far been obstructed. Indeed, Swedish legal expert > Ove Bring has made clear, > in the context of discussing Assange, that "under Swedish law it is > possible to interrogate people abroad," but that Sweden is refusing to do > so simply for reasons of "prestige" (he added: "If he goes to Sweden, is > interrogated, then I expect the case would be dropped, as *the evidence > is not enough to charge him with a crime*"). > > Then there's the very strange argument Green makes about why extradition > to the US would be more easily accomplished if he's in Britain rather than > Sweden. I've previously set outthe reasons and supporting evidence showing the reverse is true and won't > repeat those here, but let's look at what Green says to support his claim: > > One can add that there is no evidence whatsoever that the United Kingdom > would not swiftly comply with any extradition request from the United > States; quite the reverse. Ask Gary McKinnon, or Richard O'Dwyer, or the > NatWest Three. > > The US has been seeking McKinnon's extradition from Britain for a full > seven years and counting; > O'Dwyer also remains in England and is the subject of a popular campaign > to block his shipment to the U.S.; > the NatWest Three were able to resist extradition to the US for four full > years . These cases > disprove, rather than prove, that an extradition demand from the US would > be "swiftly complied with" in Britain. In contrast to the secretive Swedish > judicial system, there is substantial public debate along with transparent > (and protracted) judicial proceedings in Britain over extradition. > > It is true, as Green notes, that the Swedish government cannot provide an > iron-clad "guarantee" that Assange would not be extradited to the US. > That's because it is Swedish courts, and not the government, that make the > ultimate decision on extradition. But both the British and Swedish > governments play an important role in any extradition proceeding: they take > influential positions on whether extradition is legally warranted. Under > Britain's extradition treaty, it must consent to the subsequent extradition > of any individual it extradites (meaning its consent would be needed for > Sweden to send Assange to the U.S.), while in Sweden, the government must > formally opineon whether extradition should take place (some Swedes havemade the casethat the government's position would be dispositive). > > *At the very least, there is ample room for negotiation. Both the British > and Swedish governments could – and should – take the position that to > prosecute Assange under espionage statutes for acts of journalism would be > political crimes that are not subject to their extradition treaties with > the U.S. or are otherwise not cognizable extradition offenses. Rather than > explore any of those possible grounds for agreement, both governments have > simply refused to negotiate either with Assange's lawyers or the Ecuadorean > government over any proposals to safeguard his rights. That refusal on the > part of those governments – and not any desire to obstruct the > investigation or evade facing those allegations – is what led the > Ecuadoreans to conclude that asylum was necessary to protect Assange from > political persecution.* > > *The complainants in Sweden have the absolute right to have their serious > allegations against Assange investigated and legally resolved. But Assange > has the equally compelling right under international law and treaties to be > free of political persecution: which is exactly what prosecuting him (and > perhaps imprisoning him for life) in the US for WikiLeaks' disclosures > would be. * > > *It is vital that both sets of rights be safeguarded, not just one.* The > only just solution is one that protects both. Assange's lawyers and the > Ecuadorians have repeatedly pursued arrangements to vindicate all > substantial rights at stake so that he can travel to Sweden – today – to > face those allegations while being protected against unjust extradition to > the US. It is the refusal of the British and Swedish authorities even to > consider any such proposals that have brought this situation to the > unfortunate standstill it is in. > > *It is incredibly telling that media attacks on Assange do not even pay > lip service to, let alone evince any actual interest in, the profound > threats to press freedom that would come if he were extradited to and tried > in the United States.* In lieu of being informed about any of this, > readers and viewers are bombarded with disturbing, and often quite > disturbed, rants driven by unrestrained personal contempt. That contempt > not only drowns out every important value at stake in this case, but also > any regard for the basic facts. > > * * * > > *UPDATE*: Numerous people objected that I too readily conceded the point > that Swedish courts, rather than the Swedish government, are the ultimate > decision-makers on extradition requests, and the Swedish government > therefore cannot provide Assange with a guarantee that he will not be > extradited to the U.S. This articleby a lawyer -- who fervently believes that Assange should be extradited to > Sweden -- makes the case very compellingly that the Swedish government most > certainly can provide such a guarantee if it chose to [my emphasis]: > > Extradition procedures are typically of a mixed nature, where courts and > governments share the final decision – it is not unknown for *governments > to reject an extradition request in spite of court verdict allowing it*. > . . . > > Article 12 [of Sweden's extradition law] adds that the government may put > conditions on its decision to accept an extradition request. *The > deciding body is thus the government*, with an input by the Prosecutor > general and a veto right given to the Supreme Court in case where the > requested person doesn't accept to be extradited. > > The article goes on to cite the Swedish extradition law to outline two > possible outcomes where the target of an extradition request challenges its > validity: (1) the Swedish supreme court rules that extradition is not > legally permissible, in which case the Swedish government is not free to > extradite; (2) the Swedish supreme court rules that extradition is legally > permissible, in which case the Swedish government is free to decide that it > will not extradite for policy or other prudential reasons. In other words, > the Swedish judiciary has the right to *block* an extradition request on > legal grounds, but it lacks the power to* compel* extradition; if the > courts approve of the legal basis, the Swedish government still retains the > authority to decide if extradition should take place. > > As indicated, even if it were true that Swedish government was an unable > to offer Assange a so-called "iron-clad guarantee" against extradition, > there is still grounds to negotiate in order to have him travel to Sweden > to face these allegations; given that the Swedish government clearly has, > at the very least, a significant role to play in the process, its advanced > position against Assange's extradition to the U.S. on the basis of > WikiLeaks' journalistic disclosures would be significant. But there is at > least a strong argument to make, if not an irrefutable one, that the > Swedish government is able to offer precisely the guarantee that both > Assange and Ecuadorean authorities have sought in order to enable him > immediately to travel to Sweden to face the sex assault allegations against > him. Independently, the British government is also clearly in a position to > contribute to those assurances, given the need for its consent if > extradition to the U.S. from Sweden is to take place. > > If one wants to find a culprit for why these sex assault allegations are > not being resolved the way they should be, the refusal of these two > governments even to negotiate to secure Assange's clear rights against > unjust extradition is the place to begin. > > * * * > > *UPDATE II*: For even more compelling evidence that the Swedish > government is the final decision-maker in extradition matters and does > indeed have the power to guarantee Assange that he would not be extradited > to the U.S. based on his journalism, see the citations in Point 3 of this > excellent reply to Green . > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4965 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 23 15:46:31 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 07:46:31 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ISOC] NEWS RELEASE: African Union (AU) Selects the Internet Society to Support Establishment of Internet Exchange Points across Africa In-Reply-To: <1345734990.48837046@apps.rackspace.com> References: <1345734990.48837046@apps.rackspace.com> Message-ID: Dear All, For the benefit of those who do not subscribe to ISOC, these are some developments in Africa. Sala ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:16 AM Subject: [ISOC] NEWS RELEASE: African Union (AU) Selects the Internet Society to Support Establishment of Internet Exchange Points across Africa To: isoc-members-announce at elists.isoc.org African Union (AU) Selects the Internet Society to Support Establishment of Internet Exchange Points across Africa Project includes 60 capacity building workshops in 30 countries [Johannesburg, South Africa --23 August 2012] – The Internet Society today announced that it has been selected by the African Union (AU) to conduct community mobilization and technical aspects workshops to support the establishment of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in AU Member States as part of the African Internet Exchange System (AXIS) project. The AXIS project aims at keeping Africa’s Internet traffic local to the continent by providing capacity building and technical assistance to facilitate the establishment of National Internet Exchange Points and Regional Internet Exchange Points in Africa. The project is funded by the Euro-Africa Infrastructure Fund and the Government of Luxembourg. The Internet Society is committed to organizing 60 community mobilization and technical aspects workshops in 30 African countries. To this effect, the Internet Society will also contribute its own resources for the implementation of this component of the AXIS project. Currently, much of Africa’s Internet traffic is routed through Internet exchange points external to the African continent. As countries establish their own IXPs, Internet traffic will be routed locally, creating a downward pressure on costs and stimulating growth in and distribution of local Internet content. Through the AXIS project, the interests of the AU and the Internet Society, working with other African Internet organizations such as AfriNIC, AfNOG, and AftLD, will be realized in this collaborative effort to assist in the development of a more locally operated and, hence, more robust and economically accessible pan-African Internet. Moctar Yedaly, Head of Information Society Division, African Union Commission, commented,“Africa is paying overseas carriers to exchange ‘local’ (continental) traffic. This is both a costly as well as an inefficient way of handling inter-country exchange of Internet traffic. Independent analysis has shown that Africa pays over US$600 Million to developed countries every year for inter-African traffic exchange that is carried outside the continent. We are therefore pleased that the African Internet Exchange System project will address this challenge by facilitating optimization of Internet traffic to support intra-continental traffic flows in Africa.” Dawit Bekele, Internet Society Regional Bureau Director for Africa, stated, “We are very excited to be selected by the African Union to support the growth of IXPs throughout Africa. We believe the AXIS project is extremely important to the continued health of the Internet ecosystem in Africa, and building the technical infrastructure and training the people to sustain it are fundamental to extending the Internet in Africa. Partnering with the African Union on the AXIS project is central to the Internet Society’s mission to ensure the open development, evolution, and use of the Internet for the benefit of people everywhere.” The Internet Society has provided technical training in Africa since the early 1990s, and supports the development of human and technical capacity to build reliable and sustainable Internet infrastructure in Africa and around the world. The organization’s African Bureau was started in 2006. With 24 Chapters, the Internet Society African Bureau works to promote capacity building and the responsible development of the Internet throughout Africa. Its principle focus is improving interconnection and traffic exchange within the continent through the implementation of IXPs, network training, and capacity building. Link: http://www.internetsociety.org/news/african-unionau-selects-internet-society-support-establishment-internet-exchange-points-across _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 24 01:47:55 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:47:55 +1200 Subject: [governance] Economic, Energy, Agricultural and Trade Issues: Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic Statecraft In-Reply-To: <1345750641970.1115667.101309238.bulletin.usstatebpa@subscriptions.fcg.gov> References: <1345750641970.1115667.101309238.bulletin.usstatebpa@subscriptions.fcg.gov> Message-ID: Dear All, It was not all that long ago when we were alerted to the trials and difficulties that colleagues in Syria and Iran were going through. The creation of elite armies to hunt down dissidents and the restrictive supply of bandwidth to cause a lack of access have been challenging for civil society activists and civilians. Kind Regards, Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic Statecraft 08/23/2012 03:04 PM EDT Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic Statecraft Remarks Jose W. Fernandez Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs San Francisco, CA July 25, 2012 ------------------------------ *Introduction* Good evening. Thank you for the introduction. I’m delighted to be in San Francisco and at the World Affairs Council. I am here to talk about sanctions. Now, I didn’t come into the State Department to get involved in sanctions. I came to support development, promoting American values, and helping U.S. business to compete abroad and create jobs here. But if Clausewitz wrote that “war is diplomacy carried out by other means,” my time at that State Department has taught me that sanctions too are a form of diplomacy. And this is nothing new. Throughout world history, effective diplomacy and statecraft more often than not, required a nation to use its commercial and economic leverage to achieve political and strategic goals. Within this narrow focus, the use of sanctions to exploit that leverage is virtually as old as diplomacy itself. Indeed one of the earliest recorded uses of economic sanctions was by ancient Athens. Pericles ordered all trade between Athens and Megra banned in retaliation for Megra’s support of Sparta. In more recent decades, sanctions were used against a number of countries, such as South Africa for apartheid and Serbia for its actions during the break-up of Yugoslavia. The fact of the matter is that, while there are many carrots that can be offered to countries – development assistance or increased access to markets – economic sanctions is one of the few sticks…short of war. For the United States, the sticks we use today have evolved from the historic policies of the 20th century that shut out Castro’s Cuba from the global economy, and halted Iranian Oil in 1979 after the takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran. These days, our approach is more calibrated. Instead of imposing only wholesale embargos on all of a nation’s trade, our deeper understanding of the many complex relationships, transactions and interactions that make up a nation’s economy enables us to craft sanctions regimes that can focus on certain sectors and actors, which more effectively achieve our goal while avoiding collateral damage. Those targeted measures are what we call “smart sanctions,” and that’s what I would like to talk about: how smart sanctions can be an effective foreign policy tool, and how smart implementation of sanctions promotes American economic prosperity and national security. We start with the reality that there are many foreign policy priorities that will compete with sanctions: negotiating new trade agreements with Korea and Colombia, managing relationships with strategic allies such as Pakistan and Russia, and supporting the transitions in North Africa. So where do sanctions fit within our priorities? *Smart Sanctions* When we discuss smart sanctions, the first question is: “What is our goal?” What are we trying to achieve? Sanctions are generally invoked for one of three purposes: 1) to change a government’s or private actor’s unacceptable behavior; 2) to constrain such behavior going forward; and/or 3) to expose behavior through censure. The goal is to raise the economic cost of unacceptable behavior and denying the resources that make it possible. Given these goals, what are our available tools? Well, as we ratchet up pressure, sanctions increase and change. At the most basic level, we withhold U.S. government cooperation, such as by prohibiting development assistance. But, this only gets us so far, because most of the bad actors in this world don’t get a lot of assistance. As we move to a higher level, we look to freeze the assets of individuals and governments and restrict their access to the U.S. market or prevent them from receiving visas. Finally, we might also ban exports or imports from countries for certain activities, as in the case of Iran for refusing to address the international community’s concerns about its nuclear program. An even more aggressive approach involves the use of “secondary sanctions.” These measures act against companies in third countries who do business with a U.S.-sanctioned target, thereby indirectly supporting the behavior of the bad actor. Ultimately, making that institution choose between doing business with a rogue country or operating in the United States. But at the same time that we consider the optimum sanctions for a given objective, an important element for consideration is how to ensure that sanctions are structured to achieve the desired outcome, while minimizing collateral damage to U.S. and other interests. This unwanted collateral damage includes investments, economic and trade relations that we want to maintain, and protecting innocent citizens in the targeted country. For example, in Iran, the door is still open for the sale of agriculture products and medicine. Approval was given for NGOs working to empower Iranian women, support heart surgery for children, for consultants on a telecom fiber optic ring, for a lawyer’s association providing legal training, and for a media company that filmed an Iranian election. So our smart sanctions are targeted. Effective diplomatic leadership is also crucial to effective sanctions. Sanctions are more likely to have an impact when many countries participate. The more global leaders are on board in imposing sanctions, the more powerful the message that certain behavior is unacceptable in today’s world. So, let’s look at a few recent cases – Iran, Syria, Burma, and Libya – and review our sanctions policy. *1) **Iran* Iran’s destabilizing actions speak for themselves: refusal to address international concerns about its nuclear program; defiance of UN Security Council resolutions; support for terrorism, and efforts to stir regional unrest, all present a grave threat to international peace and security. Iran remains one of our top foreign policy and international security priorities. Smart sanctions have played a prominent role in the success of the Administration’s dual-track policy of pressure and engagement to compel Tehran to address the concerns of the international community over its nuclear program. In fact, senior Iranian officials, including President Ahmadinejad have acknowledged the negative impact of sanctions. The macroeconomic indicators tell the story: the Iranian rial has lost nearly half of its value in nine months, oil exports and revenues are down significantly, and inflation is rampant throughout the economy. The Administration’s recent actions on sanctions include: - An Executive Order targeting development of Iran’s upstream oil and gas industry and petrochemical sector. This order expands existing sanctions by authorizing asset freezes on persons who knowingly support Iran’s ability to develop its petroleum and petrochemical sector, which is one of Iran’s primary sources of funding for public projects like uranium enrichment. - President Obama also enacted legislation targeting the Central Bank and Iran’s oil revenues. Section 1245 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) places sanctions on foreign financial institutions for significant transactions related to the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and designated Iranian financial institutions. As a measure of the successful implementation of the legislation, some 20 countries have qualified for banking exceptions under the NDAA because they significantly reduced their purchase of Iranian crude oil. In addition, the 27-member European Union implemented a full embargo on Iranian crude oil effective July 1. The possibility of sanctions has persuaded many firms to discontinue their business with Iran - Total, Shell, Statoil (Norway), Edison International (Italy), and many, many others. In fact, an Iranian official recently admitted that sanctions have led, according to their estimates, to a 20-30 percent reduction in sales of Iranian crude oil. This translates into almost $8 billion in lost revenue every quarter. Our efforts aren’t limited to oil: as a result of U.S. and multilateral sanctions, major shipping lines have ceased servicing Iranian ports. The Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), Iran’s major shipping line, and the National Iranian Tanker Company, Iran’s tanker fleet, have had increasing difficulty in receiving flagging, insurance, and other shipping services from reputable providers. This further decreases Iran’s ability to gain revenue. As we continue to seek progress on the negotiating front, we will maintain unrelenting pressure on Tehran. We know the pressure we are bringing to bear has been vital to getting Iran to the negotiating table. We all have a stake in resolving the international community’s concerns about Iran’s nuclear program through diplomacy if we can, and so we will continue our work with countries around the world to keep pressure on Tehran. *2) **Syria* Although Iran sanctions continue to produce results, Syria requires a different approach. Indeed, as the death toll rises above 17,000, the Syria crisis becomes graver every minute. There are food shortages. There is a lack of safe access to adequate medical services. Syrian families are fleeing the country and registering in refugee camps in neighboring countries. It is a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian crisis. Our goal in Syria is to support a democratic transition that reflects the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. The United States looks to its sanctions toolbox to isolate Asad and deprive him of financial resources that allow him to continue attacking the Syrian people. Even before the current outbreak of violence in February 2011, the United States had several sanctions programs against Syria as a result of Syrian support for terrorism. More recently, we applied U.S. sanctions through a series of Executive Orders, issued by President Obama, targeting individuals who use information technology to commit human rights abuses, senior officials of the Syrian government, and supporters of the regime such as some Syrian businessmen. The United States joined with likeminded countries in a multilateral group known as the “Friends of the Syrian People.” Through this group, we work with other countries to harmonize implementation of national sanctions regimes and coordinate efforts for implementing a multi-lateral sanctions regime. The work of this group is especially important given some countries have effectively blocked a UN Security Council resolution calling for international sanctions. In the group, we synchronize the individuals and entities targeted by the sanctions, and discuss ways to strengthen sanctions by identifying measures that will impact the Assad regime while permitting legitimate trade to continue to flow. So far, U.S. and international sanctions have had a significant effect on Assad’s reserves, and are making it difficult for the regime to finance its brutality. But what happens when sanctions are successful? How quickly do you unwind? *3) **Burma* Recent positive developments in Burma, that were unimaginable just last year, led the Administration to implement an innovative approach that eases certain sanctions and incentivizes further political and economic reform. Within the past year, over 500 political prisoners have been released, and the government and several armed ethnic groups (some of whom have been fighting against the government since 1948) have reached preliminary ceasefire agreements. Pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi re-registered her party and stood for office in recent parliamentary by-elections. She, along with 42 other candidates from her party, was elected to Parliament in early April. The Burmese parliament has also taken several steps towards reform, including passing new legislation to protect the freedom of assembly and the right of workers to form labor unions. The government is also taking steps to bring increased transparency to the national budget. Burma became subject to U.S. sanctions in the 1990s. Those sanctions were not universally emulated by many of our traditional allies. But, our sanctions are credited with helping to persuade Burma’s leadership to reconsider its long-term interests and move toward democratic reform. And now the country is becoming a case study in how difficult it is to be “smart” about easing sanctions. Our sanctions were initially developed before we gave serious consideration to the structure of sanctions and they were not built with an exit strategy in mind. That’s made it more difficult to address the developments of the last year, and it’s been a valuable lesson for crafting future sanctions regimes. With regard to Burma, even though many of our international partners moved to fully suspend their sanctions, we opted for a different route: We are easing our sanctions, but in a calibrated manner. Even after our most recent easing, we remain vigilant about the protection of human rights, corruption, and the role of the military in the Burmese economy. Our approach aims to support democratic reform while aiding in the development of an economic and business environment that provides benefits to all of Burma’s people. In forming our easing policy, we were also mindful of the desire for American companies to contribute to improved human rights, worker rights, environmental protection, and transparency in Burma, including the need to improve the transparency of the Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), Burma’s state-owned oil company. We sought to do so while working for a broad easing across sectors. And we did something that hadn’t been done before in a license context: we integrated novel reporting requirements into the new investment license. These requirements, which will have a public transparency component, cover issues such as due diligence in protecting human rights and worker rights, and transparency in land acquisition and payments to the Burmese government, including state-owned enterprises. In addition, companies working with MOGE must report their investment within 60 days. The purpose of the public reporting is to promote greater transparency and encourage civil society to partner with our companies toward responsible investment. We want American companies to take advantage of the new opportunities. We think that by allowing them to invest in Burma provides an opportunity to share American values, transparency, and model corporate governance in the country. Another key element of this policy can be found in the general license. While permitting new investment and financial services, we do not authorize new investment with the Burmese Ministry of Defense, state or non-state armed groups (which includes the military), or entities owned by them. U.S. persons are also still prohibited from dealing with blocked persons, including listed Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs), as well as any entities 50 percent or more owned by an SDN. It’s also important to keep in mind that the core authorities underlying our sanctions remain in place. They weren’t terminated, just suspended. This means that back sliding by the Burmese government, or other potential spoilers, on democracy, human rights, etc., can be countered with the appropriate measures. We took the suspension route because while we are encouraged by the positive steps that President Thein Sein and his government have taken toward a more civilian led and democratic government, concerns still remain. These concerns include the continued detention of hundreds of political prisoners, ongoing conflict in ethnic areas, and Burma’s military relationship with North Korea. Going forward, we hope our calibrated approach results in increased democratic values and economic opportunities, and diminish human rights abuses. But, again, we have also maintained flexibility to further ease, or re-impose, restrictions as necessary. So stay tuned on Burma. We are. So, let’s look at one of our recent successes? *4) **Libya* After suffering from more than four decades of erratic and abusive rule by Muammar Qadhafi, the people of Libya rose up on early 2011. As the Libyan grassroots opposition grew in strength, Qadhafi recognized that his grip on power was threatened. He responded by unleashing the Libyan military on his own citizens. Working closely with our allies around the world, the United States moved rapidly to support the Libyan people. Our efforts included launching a major economic sanctions program specifically geared to target Qadhafi and his cronies. The program sought to deprive Qadhafi of the resources necessary to sustain his assault, to preserve Libya’s wealth for its people, and to signal to Qadhafi and his allies that they were isolated and their days were numbered. These efforts were on both domestic and multilateral fronts. Domestically, the U.S. government reached out to U.S. financial institutions to identify assets controlled by the Libyan government, Qadhafi, his family, and their cronies, in anticipation of a new sanctions program, and here we have a pleasant surprise: freezing Libyan assets had a far greater impact than first expected. For example, just one financial institution held assets of over $29 billion; another held almost $500 million in a single portfolio. Freezing these assets substantially constrained Qadhafi’s campaign. But we do not act alone: just as the United States reacted with unprecedented speed, so too did the international community. The day after President Obama signed the Executive Order to freeze over $30 billion in Libyan assets, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions targeting the individuals most responsible for the violence. As the conflict intensified, the Security Council expanded its approach, imposing further sanctions on key financial and economic institutions, such as the Libyan Central Bank, the National Oil Corporation, and a number of Libyan sovereign wealth funds. Unilateral and multilateral sanctions, reinforced with intense diplomatic and military efforts, hastened the demise of the Qadhafi regime. Targeted sanctions appeared to motivate Libyan leaders to defect, like the Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa. Broad private sector support in implementing sanctions removed the resources Qadhafi needed to supply his military and pay his mercenaries, and safeguarded the wealth of the Libyan people from Qadhafi and his cronies. Ultimately, this allowed Libya’s people to courageously liberate themselves and begin a new, democratic era. Our goal then became to lead a rapid transition to ease sanctions and help Libya re-open for business. Last April, I traveled with representatives from twenty U. S. companies to Tripoli. We followed up on U.S. commitments to deepen economic and commercial relations with Libya in the aftermath of Qadhafi. While there, I was met with overwhelming goodwill for the U.S. and appreciation for U.S. leadership in the international operation to protect Libyan civilians against Qadhafi’s regime, and in following through with ensuring the new Libya was on a path to rebound. *Conclusion* Iran, Syria, Burma, and Libya remind us there is no one-size-fits-all sanctions strategy. Sanctions tools have to be flexible enough to adapt to rapidly changing conditions. From each application of sanctions, we learn a new lesson. What we learned from unwinding the Libya sanctions, we applied to Burma, and will help us as events unfold in Syria. We’ve seen success in Libya, changes in Burma, and acknowledgement of an impact in Iran. While the results may take months or years to be apparent, we know economic sanctions work. They can be a powerful tool in diplomacy – a stick whose use we are constantly evaluating and working to improve, and to keep smart. Thank you. *The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department. External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.* ------------------------------ -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 24 02:01:11 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:01:11 +1200 Subject: [governance] -- IDN Variant TLD Program Update Message-ID: Dear All, It is pleasing to see the global volunteers comprising of experts that are making a difference to enable people to access the Internet in their native scripts. Their work is important as they will be defining the Label Generation Ruleset Process for the DNS root zone Some of these volunteers are in the IGC and frequent contributors to the list. For more info, see below: Sala ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN News Alert Date: Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 3:09 PM Subject: ICANN News Alert -- IDN Variant TLD Program Update To: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com ** [image: ICANN] IDN Variant TLD Program Update 23 August 2012 The IDN Variant TLD Program has the following two updates: 1. *Volunteer Team formed to assist the development of the Label Generation Ruleset Process for the Domain Name System (DNS) Root Zone* ICANN is pleased to announce the formation of a global volunteer team, comprised of community experts, who will work with ICANN on the project to define the Label Generation Ruleset Process for the DNS root zone. This project is part of the IDN Variant TLD Program (see below) that is intended to lead to the delegation of IDN Variant TLDs. Delegation of these types of IDN TLDs is expected to broaden global participation in the domain name system, but must be accomplished in a way that ensures good user experience. This particular project will develop the process to define allowed code points, corresponding exchangeable variant code points, and related allowed states for IDN Variant TLDs. The project requires significant technical expertise and the individual members of the volunteer team (listed below) possess capabilities in IDNA, Domain Name System, Linguistics, Unicode and Policy Development. The volunteer team will undertake the work through periodic teleconference calls and two face-to-face meetings. The first meeting will be on 29-30 August 2012 in Los Angeles, United States. The second two-day working session is planned during the ICANN meeting in Toronto, Canada. There will be an open public session in the Toronto meeting at which ICANN staff and volunteer team representatives will present an update on the progress and answer questions. The volunteer team is comprised of the following members from 18 countries and territories: Fahd A. Batayneh Chris Dillon Neha Gupta Sarmad Hussain Akshat Joshi Daniel Kalchev Yoav Keren Dmitry Kohmanyuk Mahesh Kulkarni Nadya Morozova Panagiotis Papaspiliopoulos Alireza Saleh Vaggelis Segredakis James Seng Vladimir Shadrunov Syed Iftikhar H. Shah Will Shorter Alexei Sozonov Mirjana Tasic Joseph Yee Yoshiro Yoneya Zhoucai (Joe) Zhang Linlin Zhou Team Observers: Rinalia Abdul Rahim Edmon Chung Raymond Doctor 2. *Updated IDN Variant TLD Program posted* ICANN has updated the IDN Variant TLD Program Planthat describes the projects that are intended to lead to the delegation of IDN variant TLDs. The plan defines the processes that must be in place to enable the delegation and management of IDN Variant TLDs. Two previous versions of the plan have been posted for public commentand discussed with the community during the ICANN meeting in Costa Rica in March 2012. This latest version reflects the latest public input. The Program follows on from the IDN Variant Issues Project that completed its work with the publication of the final Integrated Issues Reporton 20 February 2012. Interested members of the community can receive updates and participate in the discussion of the variant work by subscribing to the vip at icann.orgmailing list ( https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/vip) or by visiting the Community Wiki at: https://community.icann.org/display/VIP/ This message was sent to salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by [image: iContact - Try It Free!] Manage Your Subscription -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Aug 24 09:10:59 2012 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:10:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] -- IDN Variant TLD Program Update In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 08:01 24/08/2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Interested members of the community can receive updates and >participate in the discussion of the variant work by subscribing to >the vip at icann.org mailing list >(https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/vip) >or by visiting the Community Wiki at: >https://community.icann.org/display/VIP/ > I can only confirm the political interest to be active on this inactive list (not a single mail since July 1st), to show ICANN that the Civil Society is not only formed of ASCII natives. We have worked enough on IDNA2008 to make IDNs supported correctly by the Internet - the final result is undoubtedly the result of the consensus with IUCG (iucg at ietf.org, http://iucg.org/wiki the internet users contributing group at the IETF). However, the result was obtained only on the Internet side and advised on the users' side. Now we need to work-it out seriously on our side. For example, the French language orthotypography, which was used as a typical example of a technical problem, is not supported. For the time being IDNS is supported: 0. By a wrong conception of the user's side architecture (i.e. IDN-in-Applications) permitting the same IDN to resolve different IPs depending on the application on the same PC. 1. temporarily by the browsers designers, WhatWG and W3C. 2. on going work at the IETF (we should have observers at different WG such as IMA (mail addresses), PRECIS (integration in protocols) 3. limited defensive work at ICANN on Variants as the strings that speakers of a language consider as equivalent, defensive meaning "to avoid confusion" 4. still no agreement has been discussed with the WIPO on the "babel-names" (name of which the punycode after xn-- is a protected word which will print in ASCII). 5. There is still no algorithmic solution to protect registration against homographic (phishing) registrations. 6. There is still not a proper global DNS syntax (IUTF is working on a IETF Draft to document the Integrated Use Digital Name Space). At the beginning of the WG/IDNAbis which revised IDNA2003 into IDNA2008 I asked Vint Cerf (the WG chair) what was the purpose of IDNA2008 he targeted, to address the users' needs or the network's need. After they responded the later, I committed to document the ML-DNS atop IDNA2008 on the user's side to support the users' needs. Much to our surprise we found we could eventually reach the IDNA2008 consensus because the Internet architecture is much more open than expected and does not prevent the respect of every language (this is introduced in RFC 5895). However, a full support of the linguistic and orthotypographical diversity calls for much more work and a full support of the presentation layer that IDNA2008 only partly implements. This work has been identified as outside of the IETF scope by the IESG and IAB (clarification through an appeal procedure). The work engaged by the IUCG has therefore been transferred to the IUTF (http://iutf.org/wiki) and as a part of the Intelligent Use Interface (IUI) architectural framework and of the Internet+ as the IUI network. This has the advantage to work on a single digital name syntax for the whole digital ecosystem (WDE), including the Internet, that can be immediately used in a transparent manner to the ICANN/NTIA namespace and possibly the InterWiki namespace within the Wiki3-0 project. Further to the problem of defining the IUTF, discussing the basis for the Internet+, the Open Wiki future and now the openuse issue, all this should start being discussed and tested this winter IF there is support enough .... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Aug 24 12:42:43 2012 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:42:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] -- IDN Variant TLD Program Update Message-ID: To follow on my last mail, this is the today dialog on the VIP list: At 11:54 24/08/2012, JFC Morfin wrote: >http://www.icann.org/en/resources/idn/idn-variant-tld-updated-plan-23aug12-en.pdf >Just wanted to know if this list was still active as the one for the >concerns above or should I subscribe somewhere else? >Best >jfc At 17:21 24/08/2012, Francisco Arias wrote: >Dear colleagues, >The below announcement may be of interest for you. We plan to post >periodic updates to this list, but also note that the rootLGR mailing >list, though closed-posting, has its archives open at: >http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rootlgr/ >Regards, >_ >Francisco Arias >gTLD Registry Technical Liaison >ICANN > > >ICANN News Alert > >http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-23aug12-en.htm I therfore went to the closed/open http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rootlgr/ mailing list and subscribed. We will see the result. At least ICANN could copy the "selected voluntaries" debate to the VIP mailing list. For your information this is the initial mail sent to the selected voluntaries (my comment at the End). >Francisco Arias >francisco.arias >at icann.org >Wed Aug 8 22:17:18 UTC 2012 > >Dear colleagues, > >Welcome to the "Label Generation Ruleset Process for the Root" mailing >list. My most sincere thank you to all for agreeing to participate in this >process, particularly the volunteers and observers. Note that only >subscribers can post to this mailing list, however the archives are open >and public; anyone can see them at: > >http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rootlgr/ > >Andrew Sullivan will be the main writer of the process with help from >Michael Everson, Asmus Freytag and, of course all the rest of the >participants in this group. Additionally, we have John Klensin as an >expert reviewer; he will not be a subscriber in this mailing list but >reviews will be requested from him from time to time as deem necessary. >You can see a profile for our project's subject-matter-experts consultants >at: > >https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrewjsullivan >https://www.linkedin.com/pub/asmus-freytag/1/351/624 >https://www.linkedin.com/in/evertype >https://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-klensin/0/1a2/49b > > >See below a full list of the participants in this mailing list. > >Volunteers: >Akshat Joshi >Alexei Sozonov >Alireza Saleh >Chris Dillon >Daniel Kalchev >Dmitry Kohmanyuk >Fahd A. Batayneh >James Seng >Joseph Yee >Linlin Zhou >Mahesh Kulkarni >Mirjana Tasic >Nadya Morozova >Neha Gupta >Panagiotis Papaspiliopoulos >Sarmad Hussain >Syed Iftikhar H. Shah >Vaggelis Segredakis >Vladimir Shadrunov >Will Shorter >Yoav Keren >Yoshiro Yoneya >Zhoucai (Joe) Zhang > >Observers: >Edmon Chung >Raymond Doctor >Rinalia Abdul Rahim > >Consultants and ICANN staff: >Andrew Sullivan >Asmus Freytag >Dennis Chang >Dennis Jennings >Francisco Arias >Karen Lentz >Kim Davies >Michael Everson >Naela Sarras >Patrick Jones >Steve Sheng >Xiaodong Lee > > >Regards, > >__ > >Francisco. I do not note any French sounding name of volunteer. I therefore note that I do not have to fear any technical conflict with my experimental ".Fra" I documented to the IETF and to the IESG and they consider before notifying me they would follow my recommendation to accept IDNA2008 without demanding the WG/IDNAbis to document the key questions for the user side raised by the Area Director. These questions are now on the IAB lap. I note that the http://iucg.org/wiki/IDNA2010 page on the way to implement IDNA2008 on the user side has been read more than 14,700 times. jfc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Fri Aug 24 12:53:27 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 18:53:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <72.34.52.169.1345742306.1780@mx1.ovh.net> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> <2138177065-1345731664-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1259518285-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> <503648A0.1060202@panamo.eu> <72.34.52.169.1345742306.1780@mx1.ovh.net> Message-ID: <5037B187.1070805@panamo.eu> Le 23/08/12 19:18, JFC Morfin a écrit : > At 17:13 23/08/2012, Dominique Lacroix wrote: >> I guess we, in Western countries, are scaring some peoples in the >> world and losing any moral consideration. > I am not sure the Assange's case is matter of Internet Governance. I > only observe that if the Civil Society had spent as much time on the > DNS RFCs as on the UK Tabloids, the vanity vTLD project would be long > forgot. > jfc My dear friend Jean-François, I am not sure the RFCs are matters for a CS group. But I'm sure that understanding what you're telling often would need at least thrice the time spent on Assange's case ;-) So I personnaly deal only with what I believe I can understand... At the moment. PS. And I believe that this precise knowledge question is an IG stake that should be discussed by CS groups. Best, @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 24 16:24:18 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:24:18 +1200 Subject: [governance] Apple Samsung Patent Trial: Closing Arguments Delivered In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: "A plague on both your houses" South Korean court finds for (and fines) both Samsung and Apple Posted By TelecomTV One , 24 August 2012 | 1 Comments | (0) Tags: *Apple * *Samsung * * iPhone * * Galaxt * * Litigation * *Technology * *IPR * *money * At the end of a lengthy, acrimonious and tedious court case, the South Korean legal system has delivered a slap across the chops of both Apple and Samsung and fined them for infringing one another's patents. You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh. By Martyn Warwick. In recent years the global telecoms industry has been twisted out of shape by a seemingly endless series of legal wrangles over intellectual property and mobile comms patents. It has been unedifying, boring, expensive, largely pointless and has distracted manufacturers and vendors, distorted markets, angered consumers and delayed the introduction of improved and new technologies. Earlier today a panel of three judges sitting in Seoul's Central District Court ruled that Apple infringed two technology patents owned by Samsung and also that Samsung infringed one of Apple's patents. The case centred on allegations by Apple that Korea's Samsung had stolen and copied significant parts of the design of the iPhone - including its shape. The Seoul court decided that had not happened and dismissed Apple's claim. However, the court also imposed a ban on the sale in South Korea of various iterations of various handsets, smartphones and tablet computers made by Apple and by Samsung. These include the iPhone 3G, the iPhone 4, the iPad and 12 different models from Samsung's 'Galaxy" suite of smartphones and tablets. Source: [See: http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49167&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10&utm_campaign=DailyNews240812APlaqueOnBoth&utm_medium=email&utm_source=TTV-Daily-News-Alert ] On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19340229 > > Interesting how the trial has been going on for quite some time now. > > Fahd > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Aug 24 16:53:09 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 02:23:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Apple Samsung Patent Trial: Closing Arguments Delivered In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: WOOHOOO!!! They just wrote HISTORY!! -C On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 1:54 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > "A plague on both your houses" South Korean court finds for (and fines) > both Samsung and Apple > > Posted By TelecomTV One > , 24 August 2012 | 1 Comments > | (0) > Tags: *Apple > * *Samsung > * *iPhone * > *Galaxt * * > Litigation > * *Technology > * *IPR * * > money * > > At the end of a lengthy, acrimonious and tedious court case, the South > Korean legal system has delivered a slap across the chops of both Apple and > Samsung and fined them for infringing one another's patents. You'd need a > heart of stone not to laugh. By Martyn Warwick. > > In recent years the global telecoms industry has been twisted out of shape > by a seemingly endless series of legal wrangles over intellectual property > and mobile comms patents. It has been unedifying, boring, expensive, > largely pointless and has distracted manufacturers and vendors, distorted > markets, angered consumers and delayed the introduction of improved and new > technologies. > > Earlier today a panel of three judges sitting in Seoul's Central District > Court ruled that Apple infringed two technology patents owned by Samsung > and also that Samsung infringed one of Apple's patents. > > The case centred on allegations by Apple that Korea's Samsung had stolen > and copied significant parts of the design of the iPhone - including its > shape. The Seoul court decided that had not happened and dismissed Apple's > claim. However, the court also imposed a ban on the sale in South Korea of > various iterations of various handsets, smartphones and tablet computers > made by Apple and by Samsung. These include the iPhone 3G, the iPhone 4, > the iPad and 12 different models from Samsung's 'Galaxy" suite of > smartphones and tablets. > Source: [See: > http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49167&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10&utm_campaign=DailyNews240812APlaqueOnBoth&utm_medium=email&utm_source=TTV-Daily-News-Alert > ] > > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh < > fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19340229 >> >> Interesting how the trial has been going on for quite some time now. >> >> Fahd >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 24 22:53:46 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 22:53:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <5037B187.1070805@panamo.eu> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> <2138177065-1345731664-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1259518285-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> <503648A0.1060202@panamo.eu> <72.34.52.169.1345742306.1780@mx1.ovh.net> <5037B187.1070805@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Le 23/08/12 19:18, JFC Morfin a écrit : > >> At 17:13 23/08/2012, Dominique Lacroix wrote: >> >>> I guess we, in Western countries, are scaring some peoples in the world >>> and losing any moral consideration. >>> >> I am not sure the Assange's case is matter of Internet Governance. I only >> observe that if the Civil Society had spent as much time on the DNS RFCs as >> on the UK Tabloids, the vanity vTLD project would be long forgot. >> jfc >> > My dear friend Jean-François, > I am not sure the RFCs are matters for a CS group. > Since RFCs are written by people working for governments, industry, CS and Internet End-Users together in a collaborative, open, transparent manner, I would say that this is a model of CS cooperation! -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Sat Aug 25 02:26:17 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:26:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> <2138177065-1345731664-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1259518285-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> <503648A0.1060202@panamo.eu> <72.34.52.169.1345742306.1780@mx1.ovh.net> <5037B187.1070805@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <50387009.5040809@panamo.eu> Le 25/08/12 04:53, McTim a écrit : > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Dominique Lacroix
> wrote: > I am not sure the RFCs are matters for a CS group. > > Since RFCs are written by people working for governments, industry, CS > and Internet End-Users together in a collaborative, open, transparent > manner, I would say that this is a model of CS cooperation! So let's discuss: I'd like to know what people on this list think about the Ping software and the round-trip packet loss... ;-) It's not a critique of IETF. Every profession creates its own language, that closes the exchange for others, or makes it difficult to enter the matters. If you meant that everybody is able to discuss the RFCs, the engineers expertise and time would had no value. Now, I agree with you. The organization design of several IG components is an interesting matter for CS. And precisely, the high expertise of IT companies engineers meets the great role they have for the society. Lawrence Lessig explained some times ago. That's a cognitive paradoxe we have to deal with. Best, @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 25 03:28:00 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:28:00 +0300 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> <2138177065-1345731664-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1259518285-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> <503648A0.1060202@panamo.eu> <72.34.52.169.1345742306.1780@mx1.ovh.net> <5037B187.1070805@panamo.eu> Message-ID: > > > Since RFCs are written by people working for governments, industry, CS and > Internet End-Users together in a collaborative, open, transparent manner, I > would say that this is a model of CS cooperation! > +1 Let us not forget that the work of the IETF is a consensus driven process since their documents are entitled "Request for *Comments*". Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Sat Aug 25 03:35:20 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 09:35:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> <2138177065-1345731664-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1259518285-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> <503648A0.1060202@panamo.eu> <72.34.52.169.1345742306.1780@mx1.ovh.net> <5037B187.1070805@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <50388038.8000000@panamo.eu> Congratulations for your B.Sc. in Computer Engineering, Fahd! Kind regards, @+, Dominique Le 25/08/12 09:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : > > > Since RFCs are written by people working for governments, > industry, CS and Internet End-Users together in a collaborative, > open, transparent manner, I would say that this is a model of CS > cooperation! > > > +1 > > Let us not forget that the work of the IETF is a consensus driven > process since their documents are entitled "Request for _Comments_". > > Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 25 03:44:26 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:44:26 +0300 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <50388038.8000000@panamo.eu> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503245F7.8000109@gmx.net> <5032B859.90808@gmail.com> <50334CB7.4070600@gmail.com> <50338A72.7080103@gmail.com> <5035ED14.20709@gmail.com> <2138177065-1345731664-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1259518285-@b4.c9.bise7.blackberry> <503648A0.1060202@panamo.eu> <72.34.52.169.1345742306.1780@mx1.ovh.net> <5037B187.1070805@panamo.eu> <50388038.8000000@panamo.eu> Message-ID: Mind you Dominique, the last time I did any pure technical stuff was ages ago, so you might want to rephrase to "Congratulations on moving away from what your degree was supposed to position you at" ;-) And oh, I am currently finalizing an MBA degree, so that shall push me even further adrift. Fahd On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Congratulations for your B.Sc. in Computer Engineering, Fahd! > > Kind regards, > > @+, Dominique > > Le 25/08/12 09:28, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : > > >> Since RFCs are written by people working for governments, industry, CS >> and Internet End-Users together in a collaborative, open, transparent >> manner, I would say that this is a model of CS cooperation! >> > > +1 > > Let us not forget that the work of the IETF is a consensus driven process > since their documents are entitled "Request for *Comments*". > > Fahd > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 25 03:49:20 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 13:19:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> On Thursday 23 August 2012 11:55 AM, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > On Aug 22, 2012, at 8:03 PM, parminder > wrote: >> Problem is, ICANN apologists claim so, especially when caught on the >> wrong foot in global discussions - like on this list - faced with >> legitimate criticism of how a global infrastructure can be managed as >> per legal and executive authority of one country. > > I'm surprised anyone would make such a claim. Could you provide a URL? > I'd like to understand the rationale. What I said about the apologists for the current ICANN-US relationship was; "They first claim that ICANN is /de jure/ independent, but when pushed with facts, they try to say, ok, well, at least, it is /de facto/, independent of US laws." You tell me that you have never heard of any such claim. Before I try to show you when and where such claims have been made, let me, for the sake of argument, take your word and agree that no one ever makes any such claim. This would obviously means that everyone agrees that ICANN operates under US laws (which is kind of same as 'oversight') for its full range of its functions. Right! Therefore, it is agreed that ICANN can be forced to change its decisions by the US courts, legally exercised executive power etc. Also as all entities subject to any jurisdiction do,/*ICANN must already be carefully factoring in US law in all its decisions, knowing that in default its decisions can be struck down*/ (this kind of less-than-very-obvious control is of very great significance). I hope you agree that I am still following a logical consistent argument! Now, if all this is true; are we not justified in saying that ICANN largely confirms to the command and wishes of the US state - and through it, assuming a good degree of democracy in the US - of the the people of the US - and correspondingly not of the people of the rest of the world. To the extent that ICANN does take global inputs for its policy development, it is within (relatively narrow) confines or constraints of the degrees of freedom allowed by US law and executive authority. Why then it not be considered legitimate that the rest of world finds this situation not acceptable, being not democratic etc? Why do you bring in always, to any proposal for more democratic alternatives, the issue of having to show you the proof that (1) the present system is not working (not being democratic is enough reason, isnt it!) and (2) how an alternative system will be better (something that can never be proved by demonstration). parminder > > Thanks, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 25 04:02:58 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 11:02:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] US Music File-Sharer Must Pay Damages Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19370862 Joel Tenenbaum must pay $675,000 (£426,000) in damages awarded to the major US music labels after his request for a retrial was turned down. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 25 04:06:55 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 11:06:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] Apple Samsung Patent Trial: Closing Arguments Delivered In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And the latest from the case http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19377261. Apple Awarded $1bn in Damages from Samsung in US Court. Fahd On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > "A plague on both your houses" South Korean court finds for (and fines) > both Samsung and Apple > > Posted By TelecomTV One > , 24 August 2012 | 1 Comments > | (0) > Tags: *Apple > * *Samsung > * *iPhone * > *Galaxt * * > Litigation > * *Technology > * *IPR * * > money * > > At the end of a lengthy, acrimonious and tedious court case, the South > Korean legal system has delivered a slap across the chops of both Apple and > Samsung and fined them for infringing one another's patents. You'd need a > heart of stone not to laugh. By Martyn Warwick. > > In recent years the global telecoms industry has been twisted out of shape > by a seemingly endless series of legal wrangles over intellectual property > and mobile comms patents. It has been unedifying, boring, expensive, > largely pointless and has distracted manufacturers and vendors, distorted > markets, angered consumers and delayed the introduction of improved and new > technologies. > > Earlier today a panel of three judges sitting in Seoul's Central District > Court ruled that Apple infringed two technology patents owned by Samsung > and also that Samsung infringed one of Apple's patents. > > The case centred on allegations by Apple that Korea's Samsung had stolen > and copied significant parts of the design of the iPhone - including its > shape. The Seoul court decided that had not happened and dismissed Apple's > claim. However, the court also imposed a ban on the sale in South Korea of > various iterations of various handsets, smartphones and tablet computers > made by Apple and by Samsung. These include the iPhone 3G, the iPhone 4, > the iPad and 12 different models from Samsung's 'Galaxy" suite of > smartphones and tablets. > Source: [See: > http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49167&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10&utm_campaign=DailyNews240812APlaqueOnBoth&utm_medium=email&utm_source=TTV-Daily-News-Alert > ] > > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh < > fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19340229 >> >> Interesting how the trial has been going on for quite some time now. >> >> Fahd >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Aug 25 04:35:29 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 11:35:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] Economic, Energy, Agricultural and Trade Issues: Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic Statecraft In-Reply-To: References: <1345750641970.1115667.101309238.bulletin.usstatebpa@subscriptions.fcg.gov> Message-ID: An interesting article. However, I think the US government must shed more light on their internal issues. Having stayed in the USA for more than 10 months, there is lots the USA government must do to ensure better lives for their citizens. While none of us would disagree - or even try to open a debate - that the USA is a super-power, I think the US government has been super-week with internal issues. During world war II, the main reason Germany lost the war was because they pushed to invade the Soviet Union at full throttle and barely left any defense lines behind. The Western coalition seized this weak push by Hitler and managed to break the German power by invading Germany itself and cutting supplies to the German army. The US government must learn from this experience. My 2 cents. Fahd On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > It was not all that long ago when we were alerted to the trials and > difficulties that colleagues in Syria and Iran were going through. The > creation of elite armies to hunt down dissidents and the restrictive supply > of bandwidth to cause a lack of access have been challenging for civil > society activists and civilians. > > Kind Regards, > > Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic Statecraft > 08/23/2012 03:04 PM EDT > > Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic Statecraft > > Remarks > Jose W. Fernandez > Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs > San Francisco, CA > July 25, 2012 > > ------------------------------ > > *Introduction* > > Good evening. Thank you for the introduction. I’m delighted to be in San > Francisco and at the World Affairs Council. > > I am here to talk about sanctions. Now, I didn’t come into the State > Department to get involved in sanctions. I came to support development, > promoting American values, and helping U.S. business to compete abroad and > create jobs here. But if Clausewitz wrote that “war is diplomacy carried > out by other means,” my time at that State Department has taught me that > sanctions too are a form of diplomacy. And this is nothing new. > > Throughout world history, effective diplomacy and statecraft more often > than not, required a nation to use its commercial and economic leverage to > achieve political and strategic goals. Within this narrow focus, the use of > sanctions to exploit that leverage is virtually as old as diplomacy itself. > Indeed one of the earliest recorded uses of economic sanctions was by > ancient Athens. Pericles ordered all trade between Athens and Megra banned > in retaliation for Megra’s support of Sparta. In more recent decades, > sanctions were used against a number of countries, such as South Africa for > apartheid and Serbia for its actions during the break-up of Yugoslavia. The > fact of the matter is that, while there are many carrots that can be > offered to countries – development assistance or increased access to > markets – economic sanctions is one of the few sticks…short of war. > > For the United States, the sticks we use today have evolved from the > historic policies of the 20th century that shut out Castro’s Cuba from > the global economy, and halted Iranian Oil in 1979 after the takeover of > the American Embassy in Tehran. These days, our approach is more > calibrated. Instead of imposing only wholesale embargos on all of a > nation’s trade, our deeper understanding of the many complex relationships, > transactions and interactions that make up a nation’s economy enables us to > craft sanctions regimes that can focus on certain sectors and actors, which > more effectively achieve our goal while avoiding collateral damage. Those > targeted measures are what we call “smart sanctions,” and that’s what I > would like to talk about: how smart sanctions can be an effective foreign > policy tool, and how smart implementation of sanctions promotes American > economic prosperity and national security. > > We start with the reality that there are many foreign policy priorities > that will compete with sanctions: negotiating new trade agreements with > Korea and Colombia, managing relationships with strategic allies such as > Pakistan and Russia, and supporting the transitions in North Africa. So > where do sanctions fit within our priorities? > > *Smart Sanctions* > > When we discuss smart sanctions, the first question is: “What is our > goal?” What are we trying to achieve? Sanctions are generally invoked for > one of three purposes: 1) to change a government’s or private actor’s > unacceptable behavior; 2) to constrain such behavior going forward; and/or > 3) to expose behavior through censure. The goal is to raise the economic > cost of unacceptable behavior and denying the resources that make it > possible. > > Given these goals, what are our available tools? Well, as we ratchet up > pressure, sanctions increase and change. At the most basic level, we > withhold U.S. government cooperation, such as by prohibiting development > assistance. But, this only gets us so far, because most of the bad actors > in this world don’t get a lot of assistance. As we move to a higher level, > we look to freeze the assets of individuals and governments and restrict > their access to the U.S. market or prevent them from receiving visas. > Finally, we might also ban exports or imports from countries for certain > activities, as in the case of Iran for refusing to address the > international community’s concerns about its nuclear program. > > An even more aggressive approach involves the use of “secondary > sanctions.” These measures act against companies in third countries who do > business with a U.S.-sanctioned target, thereby indirectly supporting the > behavior of the bad actor. Ultimately, making that institution choose > between doing business with a rogue country or operating in the United > States. > > But at the same time that we consider the optimum sanctions for a given > objective, an important element for consideration is how to ensure that > sanctions are structured to achieve the desired outcome, while minimizing > collateral damage to U.S. and other interests. > > This unwanted collateral damage includes investments, economic and trade > relations that we want to maintain, and protecting innocent citizens in the > targeted country. For example, in Iran, the door is still open for the sale > of agriculture products and medicine. Approval was given for NGOs working > to empower Iranian women, support heart surgery for children, for > consultants on a telecom fiber optic ring, for a lawyer’s association > providing legal training, and for a media company that filmed an Iranian > election. So our smart sanctions are targeted. > > Effective diplomatic leadership is also crucial to effective sanctions. > Sanctions are more likely to have an impact when many countries > participate. The more global leaders are on board in imposing sanctions, > the more powerful the message that certain behavior is unacceptable in > today’s world. > > So, let’s look at a few recent cases – Iran, Syria, Burma, and Libya – and > review our sanctions policy. > > *1) **Iran* > > Iran’s destabilizing actions speak for themselves: refusal to address > international concerns about its nuclear program; defiance of UN Security > Council resolutions; support for terrorism, and efforts to stir regional > unrest, all present a grave threat to international peace and security. > Iran remains one of our top foreign policy and international security > priorities. > > Smart sanctions have played a prominent role in the success of the > Administration’s dual-track policy of pressure and engagement to compel > Tehran to address the concerns of the international community over its > nuclear program. In fact, senior Iranian officials, including President > Ahmadinejad have acknowledged the negative impact of sanctions. The > macroeconomic indicators tell the story: the Iranian rial has lost nearly > half of its value in nine months, oil exports and revenues are down > significantly, and inflation is rampant throughout the economy. > > The Administration’s recent actions on sanctions include: > > - An Executive Order targeting development of Iran’s upstream oil and > gas industry and petrochemical sector. This order expands existing > sanctions by authorizing asset freezes on persons who knowingly support > Iran’s ability to develop its petroleum and petrochemical sector, which is > one of Iran’s primary sources of funding for public projects like uranium > enrichment. > - President Obama also enacted legislation targeting the Central Bank > and Iran’s oil revenues. Section 1245 of the 2012 National Defense > Authorization Act (NDAA) places sanctions on foreign financial institutions > for significant transactions related to the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and > designated Iranian financial institutions. As a measure of the successful > implementation of the legislation, some 20 countries have qualified for > banking exceptions under the NDAA because they significantly reduced their > purchase of Iranian crude oil. > > In addition, the 27-member European Union implemented a full embargo on > Iranian crude oil effective July 1. > > The possibility of sanctions has persuaded many firms to discontinue their > business with Iran - Total, Shell, Statoil (Norway), Edison International > (Italy), and many, many others. In fact, an Iranian official recently > admitted that sanctions have led, according to their estimates, to a 20-30 > percent reduction in sales of Iranian crude oil. This translates into > almost $8 billion in lost revenue every quarter. > > Our efforts aren’t limited to oil: as a result of U.S. and multilateral > sanctions, major shipping lines have ceased servicing Iranian ports. The > Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), Iran’s major shipping > line, and the National Iranian Tanker Company, Iran’s tanker fleet, have > had increasing difficulty in receiving flagging, insurance, and other > shipping services from reputable providers. This further decreases Iran’s > ability to gain revenue. > > As we continue to seek progress on the negotiating front, we will maintain > unrelenting pressure on Tehran. We know the pressure we are bringing to > bear has been vital to getting Iran to the negotiating table. We all have a > stake in resolving the international community’s concerns about Iran’s > nuclear program through diplomacy if we can, and so we will continue our > work with countries around the world to keep pressure on Tehran. > > *2) **Syria* > > Although Iran sanctions continue to produce results, Syria requires a > different approach. Indeed, as the death toll rises above 17,000, the Syria > crisis becomes graver every minute. There are food shortages. There is a > lack of safe access to adequate medical services. Syrian families are > fleeing the country and registering in refugee camps in neighboring > countries. It is a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian crisis. > > Our goal in Syria is to support a democratic transition that reflects the > legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. The United States looks to its > sanctions toolbox to isolate Asad and deprive him of financial resources > that allow him to continue attacking the Syrian people. > > Even before the current outbreak of violence in February 2011, the United > States had several sanctions programs against Syria as a result of Syrian > support for terrorism. More recently, we applied U.S. sanctions through a > series of Executive Orders, issued by President Obama, targeting > individuals who use information technology to commit human rights abuses, > senior officials of the Syrian government, and supporters of the regime > such as some Syrian businessmen. > > The United States joined with likeminded countries in a multilateral group > known as the “Friends of the Syrian People.” Through this group, we work > with other countries to harmonize implementation of national sanctions > regimes and coordinate efforts for implementing a multi-lateral sanctions > regime. The work of this group is especially important given some countries > have effectively blocked a UN Security Council resolution calling for > international sanctions. > > In the group, we synchronize the individuals and entities targeted by the > sanctions, and discuss ways to strengthen sanctions by identifying measures > that will impact the Assad regime while permitting legitimate trade to > continue to flow. > > So far, U.S. and international sanctions have had a significant effect on > Assad’s reserves, and are making it difficult for the regime to finance its > brutality. > > But what happens when sanctions are successful? How quickly do you unwind? > > *3) **Burma* > > Recent positive developments in Burma, that were unimaginable just last > year, led the Administration to implement an innovative approach that eases > certain sanctions and incentivizes further political and economic reform. > Within the past year, over 500 political prisoners have been released, and > the government and several armed ethnic groups (some of whom have been > fighting against the government since 1948) have reached preliminary > ceasefire agreements. Pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi re-registered her > party and stood for office in recent parliamentary by-elections. She, along > with 42 other candidates from her party, was elected to Parliament in early > April. > > The Burmese parliament has also taken several steps towards reform, > including passing new legislation to protect the freedom of assembly and > the right of workers to form labor unions. The government is also taking > steps to bring increased transparency to the national budget. > > Burma became subject to U.S. sanctions in the 1990s. Those sanctions were > not universally emulated by many of our traditional allies. But, our > sanctions are credited with helping to persuade Burma’s leadership to > reconsider its long-term interests and move toward democratic reform. And > now the country is becoming a case study in how difficult it is to be > “smart” about easing sanctions. Our sanctions were initially developed > before we gave serious consideration to the structure of sanctions and they > were not built with an exit strategy in mind. That’s made it more difficult > to address the developments of the last year, and it’s been a valuable > lesson for crafting future sanctions regimes. > > With regard to Burma, even though many of our international partners moved > to fully suspend their sanctions, we opted for a different route: We are > easing our sanctions, but in a calibrated manner. Even after our most > recent easing, we remain vigilant about the protection of human rights, > corruption, and the role of the military in the Burmese economy. Our > approach aims to support democratic reform while aiding in the development > of an economic and business environment that provides benefits to all of > Burma’s people. > > In forming our easing policy, we were also mindful of the desire for > American companies to contribute to improved human rights, worker rights, > environmental protection, and transparency in Burma, including the need to > improve the transparency of the Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), > Burma’s state-owned oil company. We sought to do so while working for a > broad easing across sectors. And we did something that hadn’t been done > before in a license context: we integrated novel reporting requirements > into the new investment license. These requirements, which will have a > public transparency component, cover issues such as due diligence in > protecting human rights and worker rights, and transparency in land > acquisition and payments to the Burmese government, including state-owned > enterprises. In addition, companies working with MOGE must report their > investment within 60 days. The purpose of the public reporting is to > promote greater transparency and encourage civil society to partner with > our companies toward responsible investment. We want American companies to > take advantage of the new opportunities. We think that by allowing them to > invest in Burma provides an opportunity to share American values, > transparency, and model corporate governance in the country. > > Another key element of this policy can be found in the general license. > While permitting new investment and financial services, we do not authorize > new investment with the Burmese Ministry of Defense, state or non-state > armed groups (which includes the military), or entities owned by them. U.S. > persons are also still prohibited from dealing with blocked persons, > including listed Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs), as well as any > entities 50 percent or more owned by an SDN. It’s also important to keep in > mind that the core authorities underlying our sanctions remain in place. > They weren’t terminated, just suspended. This means that back sliding by > the Burmese government, or other potential spoilers, on democracy, human > rights, etc., can be countered with the appropriate measures. > > We took the suspension route because while we are encouraged by the > positive steps that President Thein Sein and his government have taken > toward a more civilian led and democratic government, concerns still > remain. These concerns include the continued detention of hundreds of > political prisoners, ongoing conflict in ethnic areas, and Burma’s military > relationship with North Korea. Going forward, we hope our calibrated > approach results in increased democratic values and economic opportunities, > and diminish human rights abuses. But, again, we have also maintained > flexibility to further ease, or re-impose, restrictions as necessary. So > stay tuned on Burma. We are. > > So, let’s look at one of our recent successes? > > *4) **Libya* > > After suffering from more than four decades of erratic and abusive rule by > Muammar Qadhafi, the people of Libya rose up on early 2011. As the Libyan > grassroots opposition grew in strength, Qadhafi recognized that his grip on > power was threatened. He responded by unleashing the Libyan military on his > own citizens. > > Working closely with our allies around the world, the United States moved > rapidly to support the Libyan people. Our efforts included launching a > major economic sanctions program specifically geared to target Qadhafi and > his cronies. The program sought to deprive Qadhafi of the resources > necessary to sustain his assault, to preserve Libya’s wealth for its > people, and to signal to Qadhafi and his allies that they were isolated and > their days were numbered. These efforts were on both domestic and > multilateral fronts. > > Domestically, the U.S. government reached out to U.S. financial > institutions to identify assets controlled by the Libyan government, > Qadhafi, his family, and their cronies, in anticipation of a new sanctions > program, and here we have a pleasant surprise: freezing Libyan assets had a > far greater impact than first expected. For example, just one financial > institution held assets of over $29 billion; another held almost $500 > million in a single portfolio. Freezing these assets substantially > constrained Qadhafi’s campaign. > > But we do not act alone: just as the United States reacted with > unprecedented speed, so too did the international community. The day after > President Obama signed the Executive Order to freeze over $30 billion in > Libyan assets, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions targeting the > individuals most responsible for the violence. As the conflict intensified, > the Security Council expanded its approach, imposing further sanctions on > key financial and economic institutions, such as the Libyan Central Bank, > the National Oil Corporation, and a number of Libyan sovereign wealth funds. > > Unilateral and multilateral sanctions, reinforced with intense diplomatic > and military efforts, hastened the demise of the Qadhafi regime. Targeted > sanctions appeared to motivate Libyan leaders to defect, like the Foreign > Minister Moussa Koussa. Broad private sector support in implementing > sanctions removed the resources Qadhafi needed to supply his military and > pay his mercenaries, and safeguarded the wealth of the Libyan people from > Qadhafi and his cronies. Ultimately, this allowed Libya’s people to > courageously liberate themselves and begin a new, democratic era. Our goal > then became to lead a rapid transition to ease sanctions and help Libya > re-open for business. > > Last April, I traveled with representatives from twenty U. S. companies to > Tripoli. We followed up on U.S. commitments to deepen economic and > commercial relations with Libya in the aftermath of Qadhafi. While there, I > was met with overwhelming goodwill for the U.S. and appreciation for U.S. > leadership in the international operation to protect Libyan civilians > against Qadhafi’s regime, and in following through with ensuring the new > Libya was on a path to rebound. > > *Conclusion* > > Iran, Syria, Burma, and Libya remind us there is no one-size-fits-all > sanctions strategy. Sanctions tools have to be flexible enough to adapt to > rapidly changing conditions. From each application of sanctions, we learn a > new lesson. What we learned from unwinding the Libya sanctions, we applied > to Burma, and will help us as events unfold in Syria. > > We’ve seen success in Libya, changes in Burma, and acknowledgement of an > impact in Iran. While the results may take months or years to be apparent, > we know economic sanctions work. They can be a powerful tool in diplomacy – > a stick whose use we are constantly evaluating and working to improve, and > to keep smart. > > Thank you. > > > *The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this > site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department. > External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an > endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.* > > ------------------------------ > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 25 05:45:43 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 11:45:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] US Music File-Sharer Must Pay Damages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This "damages" figure is totally bogus. Here is a good example of US legal terrorism. Louis - - - On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19370862 > > Joel Tenenbaum must pay $675,000 (£426,000) in damages awarded to the > major US music labels after his request for a retrial was turned down. > > Fahd > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 25 06:09:32 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:09:32 +0700 Subject: [governance] US Music File-Sharer Must Pay Damages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5038A45C.5000305@gmx.net> Thanks - and I will share my comment also on the Internet Society Chapter Support list. On 8/25/2012 4:45 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > This "damages" figure is totally bogus. Here is a good example of US > legal terrorism. > Louis > - - - > > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh > > wrote: > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19370862 > > Joel Tenenbaum must pay $675,000 (£426,000) in damages awarded to > the major US music labels after his request for a retrial was > turned down. > From the text above: *Mr Tenenbaum was 16 years old when a letter was sent to his parents' home accusing him of illegal file-sharing.* *He was asked to pay $5,250 (£3,319) for downloading seven songs. He claims he offered $500 (£316) which was all he could afford at the time, and it was declined.* > > Fahd > For those who may not know: *Internet Society* *Internet Hall of Fame 2012* Louis Pouzin - Pouzin invented the datagram and an early packet communications network, known as CYCLADES. His work was influential among Vint Cerf, Robert Kahn and others in the development of TCP/IP Protocols. Is the Internet Society going to comment on this judgement? Norbert Klein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Aug 25 06:36:57 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 12:36:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Apple Samsung Patent Trial: Closing Arguments Delivered In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A tit for a tat. The poker game goes on. Apple will refund the fine in buying Samsung components. - - - On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > And the latest from the case http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19377261 > . > > Apple Awarded $1bn in Damages from Samsung in US Court. > > Fahd > > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> "A plague on both your houses" South Korean court finds for (and fines) >> both Samsung and Apple >> >> Posted By TelecomTV One >> , 24 August 2012 | 1 Comments >> | (0) >> Tags: *Apple >> * *Samsung >> * *iPhone * >> *Galaxt * >> *Litigation >> * *Technology >> * *IPR * * >> money * >> >> At the end of a lengthy, acrimonious and tedious court case, the South >> Korean legal system has delivered a slap across the chops of both Apple and >> Samsung and fined them for infringing one another's patents. You'd need a >> heart of stone not to laugh. By Martyn Warwick. >> >> In recent years the global telecoms industry has been twisted out of >> shape by a seemingly endless series of legal wrangles over intellectual >> property and mobile comms patents. It has been unedifying, boring, >> expensive, largely pointless and has distracted manufacturers and vendors, >> distorted markets, angered consumers and delayed the introduction of >> improved and new technologies. >> >> Earlier today a panel of three judges sitting in Seoul's Central District >> Court ruled that Apple infringed two technology patents owned by Samsung >> and also that Samsung infringed one of Apple's patents. >> >> The case centred on allegations by Apple that Korea's Samsung had stolen >> and copied significant parts of the design of the iPhone - including its >> shape. The Seoul court decided that had not happened and dismissed Apple's >> claim. However, the court also imposed a ban on the sale in South Korea of >> various iterations of various handsets, smartphones and tablet computers >> made by Apple and by Samsung. These include the iPhone 3G, the iPhone 4, >> the iPad and 12 different models from Samsung's 'Galaxy" suite of >> smartphones and tablets. >> Source: [See: >> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49167&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10&utm_campaign=DailyNews240812APlaqueOnBoth&utm_medium=email&utm_source=TTV-Daily-News-Alert >> ] >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh < >> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19340229 >>> >>> Interesting how the trial has been going on for quite some time now. >>> >>> Fahd >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sat Aug 25 06:41:00 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 16:11:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Apple Samsung Patent Trial: Closing Arguments Delivered In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well said Louis! On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > A tit for a tat. The poker game goes on. > Apple will refund the fine in buying Samsung components. > - - - > > > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh < > fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: > >> And the latest from the case >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19377261. >> >> Apple Awarded $1bn in Damages from Samsung in US Court. >> >> Fahd >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> "A plague on both your houses" South Korean court finds for (and fines) >>> both Samsung and Apple >>> >>> Posted By TelecomTV One >>> , 24 August 2012 | 1 Comments >>> | (0) >>> Tags: *Apple >>> * *Samsung >>> * *iPhone >>> * *Galaxt >>> * *Litigation >>> * *Technology >>> * *IPR * * >>> money * >>> >>> At the end of a lengthy, acrimonious and tedious court case, the South >>> Korean legal system has delivered a slap across the chops of both Apple and >>> Samsung and fined them for infringing one another's patents. You'd need a >>> heart of stone not to laugh. By Martyn Warwick. >>> >>> In recent years the global telecoms industry has been twisted out of >>> shape by a seemingly endless series of legal wrangles over intellectual >>> property and mobile comms patents. It has been unedifying, boring, >>> expensive, largely pointless and has distracted manufacturers and vendors, >>> distorted markets, angered consumers and delayed the introduction of >>> improved and new technologies. >>> >>> Earlier today a panel of three judges sitting in Seoul's Central >>> District Court ruled that Apple infringed two technology patents owned by >>> Samsung and also that Samsung infringed one of Apple's patents. >>> >>> The case centred on allegations by Apple that Korea's Samsung had stolen >>> and copied significant parts of the design of the iPhone - including its >>> shape. The Seoul court decided that had not happened and dismissed Apple's >>> claim. However, the court also imposed a ban on the sale in South Korea of >>> various iterations of various handsets, smartphones and tablet computers >>> made by Apple and by Samsung. These include the iPhone 3G, the iPhone 4, >>> the iPad and 12 different models from Samsung's 'Galaxy" suite of >>> smartphones and tablets. >>> Source: [See: >>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49167&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10&utm_campaign=DailyNews240812APlaqueOnBoth&utm_medium=email&utm_source=TTV-Daily-News-Alert >>> ] >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh < >>> fahd.batayneh at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19340229 >>>> >>>> Interesting how the trial has been going on for quite some time now. >>>> >>>> Fahd >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To 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 >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 25 07:56:32 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:26:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5038BD70.7080909@itforchange.net> On Thursday 23 August 2012 03:34 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Actually, Parminder you are confusing different things. > I think you are trying to be too clever to wriggle out of this, but not very successfully, for which see below... > > If there was someone willing and able to challenge ICANN's decision to > award .xxx on antitrust grounds in Europe, or in India, and ICM > Registry were domiciled in Europe or India, respectively, then an > adverse decision would make European or Indian law "applicable" to an > ICANN decision. > No, it will make European/ Indian decision applicable *only* to ICM registry and *not* to the ICANN. This is a straight forward and obvious fact despite your very clever attempt to twist it to suit you. Lets say, IT for Change and your Internet Governance Project ( IGP) were doing a project together and the Indian government closes done IT for Change for financial irregularities or whatever. IGP would certainly be impacted by this Indian state's 'decision', but would it not be rather big stretch to say Indian state decisions have become 'applicable' to the IGP. US laws can today close down ICANN, force it to rescind any of its agreement or change it. No European and Indian state can do anything like this. This is what is meant by applicability of the laws of a state, and Milton, you as a political theorist know this quite well. But still if you have to resort to such flimsy arguments itself shows how weak is the case of the status quo around the ICANN. You are just proving my case :) > This is a problem, not with the US, but with nation-states' > territorial jursidcition exerting control over the internet. > And your solution to this problem is? As a key political actor in this space you must have some kind of a possible solution, and a possible roadmap to it. BTW, I am reminded that unlike many others here, you are not for a free float fully independent ICANN, and would like to have appropriate political jurisdiction(s) apply to it, even if it just with your version of what are the only legitimate functions of any political jurisdiction - general procedural accountabilities, competion law, FoE etc (which simply represents a specific political ideology). And further, coming to the original issue, your choice of this applicable political jurisdiction - more or less- is the US state. . Is this not a good approximation your position? I will be glad to be corrected though. How then are you speaking so completely against nation state based jurisdiction. And correspondingly, what is your idea of the applicable non-national jurisdiction, and what is its practical shape? > > Let me say that I think this antitrust challenge has no merit and will > not go anywhere. > This is completely beside the point! Enough that it is 'possible' that the challenge will be upheld whereby ICANN will have to annul or change its decision. The world has to prepare its institutional systems keeping such clearly probable eventuality in mind and not react after the house has caught fire. parminder > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:36 AM > *To:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell > Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs > > > Sala, > > You are getting me wrong... I am not faulting ICANN's decision.... I > have no view on this particular decision of ICANN to have a .xxx gtld. > I am speaking about applicability of the jurisdiction of US courts on > all ICANN decisions. And since US courts apply US law, it is the > applicability of US laws over all ICANN decisions, which is also > called 'oversight'. And I dont like anything that calls itself a > global system/ infrastructure to be subject to laws that I do not have > an opportunity to participate in making. Simple democratic principle. > No legislation without representation....... > > The argument that US has strongest anti-trust laws is quite beside the > point.... But then if you have to pursue that line, US has some of the > worst IP laws, but still when an IP issue vis a vis any ICANN decision > comes up for judicial review, it will still be the same US courts and > US law, and not Brazilian courts and law..... > > Dont you think this is undemocratic, and unjustified.... parminder > > On Tuesday 21 August 2012 12:53 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > My personal views are if anything I would say that the situation > proves that the system works. It means that decisions can be > subject to scrutiny. Having personally seen voluntary scrutiny > take place within ICANN and now seeing decisions being checked by > the legal system it shows that the organisation is answerable. > > If anything, the US is probably the strictest enforcer of > antitrust laws in the world and standards for corporate governance > rate as among the highest if not the highest. This should inspire > confidence that decisions can be checked. For ICANN it means an > internal self evaluation and ongoing assessment to ensure that > they perform their obligations to the highest standards. > > Organisations all over the world, governments included continue to > learn, grow and evolve that is part of life. You pick up and learn > and move on. It does not mean that all your actions are going to > be flawless - show me one perfect organisation and I will show you > Utopia. Of course that does not mean that we do not strive for > excellent > > standards. > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:45 PM, parminder > > wrote: > > > This is a very important, and possibly a historic, news, which > exposing the meaninglessness of ICANN's claim of independence from > the US establishment. > > A US court has given the go ahead to the anti-trust filing against > ICANN decision instituting the .xxx gtld . There is every > likelihood that this decision of ICANN may be found as going > against US laws. What would ICANN do in that case? At the very > least, it is quite probable that ICANN may be asked to put certain > new provisions in its registry agreement regarding .xxx, as has > been sought by the plaintiff. What would be ICANN's response in > that case? > > Remember that each of the new gltds will be open to similar review > by US courts. > > ICANN has lost a major battle regarding its claimed status as a > global organisation responsible only to the global community, a > claim which in any case had feet of clay.... > > And with it, also those who defend ICANN on the above ground have > lost a major battle. I hope such defendants on the list will > respond to this news and the paradox it poses. > > It is now clear that ICANN is subject to US judicial review (which > of course it always was), and that its decisions can be struck > down by US courts, in which case, ICANN has just no option other > than to reverse its decisions. For those who have expressed lack > of clarity about the meaning of oversight, this is oversight. > Well, to me more precise, this is judicial review which is a part > of overall oversight. > > parminder > > On Tuesday 21 August 2012 06:37 AM, Robert Pollard wrote: > > Salanieta > > Thanks for these interesting links. I'm re-posting your > message with a new subject line, as the issue would seem to > deserve a separate thread from "new gTLDs". > > Although the suit may have some implications for new gTLDs, > many of the allegations re antitrust issues re the .xxx tld > are based on the the particular history of the establishment > of .xxx and the actions of ICM Registry, LLC in obtaining > control of it > > Robert > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > http://www.law.com/jsp/lawtechnologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202567792748 > > http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tal/icann.pdf > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sat Aug 25 11:58:42 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:28:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] US Music File-Sharer Must Pay Damages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Like in the napster case it's just focused at pacifying the real super power behind the super power. Capitalist to the t. -C On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19370862 > > Joel Tenenbaum must pay $675,000 (£426,000) in damages awarded to the > major US music labels after his request for a retrial was turned down. > > Fahd > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Aug 25 12:10:21 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 16:10:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> ,<50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B13088C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Parminder, Until someone explains: '(2) how an alternative system will be better (something that can never be proved by demonstration)' - we got what we got, which is a system with ~2 billion users. By some measures that's 'working.' ; ) Where we go from here is the question. 1 scenario is status quo, 2nd is ICANN as a free-floating international org. Several of us have been asking you to try again to come up with a viable 'Third Way' model. You're saying we academic weenies should go next or what are we good for. I pass the buck to the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force proposed by Norbert. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:49 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs On Thursday 23 August 2012 11:55 AM, David Conrad wrote: Parminder, On Aug 22, 2012, at 8:03 PM, parminder > wrote: Problem is, ICANN apologists claim so, especially when caught on the wrong foot in global discussions - like on this list - faced with legitimate criticism of how a global infrastructure can be managed as per legal and executive authority of one country. I'm surprised anyone would make such a claim. Could you provide a URL? I'd like to understand the rationale. What I said about the apologists for the current ICANN-US relationship was; "They first claim that ICANN is de jure independent, but when pushed with facts, they try to say, ok, well, at least, it is de facto, independent of US laws." You tell me that you have never heard of any such claim. Before I try to show you when and where such claims have been made, let me, for the sake of argument, take your word and agree that no one ever makes any such claim. This would obviously means that everyone agrees that ICANN operates under US laws (which is kind of same as 'oversight') for its full range of its functions. Right! Therefore, it is agreed that ICANN can be forced to change its decisions by the US courts, legally exercised executive power etc. Also as all entities subject to any jurisdiction do, ICANN must already be carefully factoring in US law in all its decisions, knowing that in default its decisions can be struck down (this kind of less-than-very-obvious control is of very great significance). I hope you agree that I am still following a logical consistent argument! Now, if all this is true; are we not justified in saying that ICANN largely confirms to the command and wishes of the US state - and through it, assuming a good degree of democracy in the US - of the the people of the US - and correspondingly not of the people of the rest of the world. To the extent that ICANN does take global inputs for its policy development, it is within (relatively narrow) confines or constraints of the degrees of freedom allowed by US law and executive authority. Why then it not be considered legitimate that the rest of world finds this situation not acceptable, being not democratic etc? Why do you bring in always, to any proposal for more democratic alternatives, the issue of having to show you the proof that (1) the present system is not working (not being democratic is enough reason, isnt it!) and (2) how an alternative system will be better (something that can never be proved by demonstration). parminder Thanks, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 25 21:31:30 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 13:31:30 +1200 Subject: [governance] Apple Samsung Patent Trial: Closing Arguments Delivered In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I would like to get my hands on a copy of both the South Korean Judgment as well as the American one. On another note, this morning I was interviewed by a University of Leeds student who is writing her thesis on the impact of the internet on access to knowledge from traditional books to e books etc. She was surprised when I recounted that whilst the Internet was revolutionising the manner in which people were accessing knowledge through access to e books that some of the countries in the Pacific like Cook Islands and Kiribati for instance still have the most expensive internet in the world. Coupled with things like SPAM which chews on valuable bandwidth this is a major barrier when it comes to things like basic access, leave alone trying to download books etc. She was further surprised when I told her that there were parts of the Pacific where energy grids were unreliable and that this has an impact on internet penetration. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jstyre at jstyre.com Sat Aug 25 22:20:43 2012 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 19:20:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] Apple Samsung Patent Trial: Closing Arguments Delivered In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <009c01cd8331$655f4130$301dc390$@jstyre.com> The U.S. case is a jury verdict, not yet a final judgment. (Among other things, the judge, not the jury, will decide whether Apple is entitled to an injunction prohibiting sale of the relevant Samsung products.) Here's the amended verdict: http://jstyre.com/misc/Apple_v_Samsung_amended-verdict-form.pdf -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:32 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Chaitanya Dhareshwar Cc: Louis Pouzin (well); Fahd A. Batayneh Subject: Re: [governance] Apple Samsung Patent Trial: Closing Arguments Delivered I would like to get my hands on a copy of both the South Korean Judgment as well as the American one. On another note, this morning I was interviewed by a University of Leeds student who is writing her thesis on the impact of the internet on access to knowledge from traditional books to e books etc. She was surprised when I recounted that whilst the Internet was revolutionising the manner in which people were accessing knowledge through access to e books that some of the countries in the Pacific like Cook Islands and Kiribati for instance still have the most expensive internet in the world. Coupled with things like SPAM which chews on valuable bandwidth this is a major barrier when it comes to things like basic access, leave alone trying to download books etc. She was further surprised when I told her that there were parts of the Pacific where energy grids were unreliable and that this has an impact on internet penetration. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 25 23:31:11 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:31:11 +1200 Subject: [governance] Apple Samsung Patent Trial: Closing Arguments Delivered In-Reply-To: <009c01cd8331$655f4130$301dc390$@jstyre.com> References: <009c01cd8331$655f4130$301dc390$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: Thanks James for the clarification. It would be great if you could send us the link to the final judgment when it comes out. It is also interesting in light of the reports on the Korean Judgment. Best Regards, Sala On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM, James S. Tyre wrote: > The U.S. case is a jury verdict, not yet a final judgment. (Among other > things, the judge, not the jury, will decide whether Apple is entitled to > an injunction prohibiting sale of the relevant Samsung products.) Here’s > the amended verdict:**** > > ** ** > > http://jstyre.com/misc/Apple_v_Samsung_amended-verdict-form.pdf**** > > ** ** > > --**** > > James S. Tyre**** > > Law Offices of James S. Tyre**** > > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512**** > > Culver City, CA 90230-4969**** > > 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)**** > > jstyre at jstyre.com**** > > Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation**** > > https://www.eff.org**** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro > *Sent:* Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:32 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Chaitanya Dhareshwar > *Cc:* Louis Pouzin (well); Fahd A. Batayneh > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Apple Samsung Patent Trial: Closing Arguments > Delivered**** > > ** ** > > I would like to get my hands on a copy of both the South Korean Judgment > as well as the American one. On another note, this morning I was > interviewed by a University of Leeds student who is writing her thesis on > the impact of the internet on access to knowledge from traditional books to > e books etc. She was surprised when I recounted that whilst the Internet > was revolutionising the manner in which people were accessing knowledge > through access to e books that some of the countries in the Pacific like > Cook Islands and Kiribati for instance still have the most expensive > internet in the world. Coupled with things like SPAM which chews on > valuable bandwidth this is a major barrier when it comes to things like > basic access, leave alone trying to download books etc.**** > > ** ** > > She was further surprised when I told her that there were parts of the > Pacific where energy grids were unreliable and that this has an impact on > internet penetration.**** > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sat Aug 25 23:39:17 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 09:09:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Apple Samsung Patent Trial: Closing Arguments Delivered In-Reply-To: References: <009c01cd8331$655f4130$301dc390$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: Yes its like they were made at opposite ends of the earth.... Wait - they WERE made at opposite ends of the earth. Surely the law is not that different!? -C On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks James for the clarification. It would be great if you could send us > the link to the final judgment when it comes out. It is also interesting in > light of the reports on the Korean Judgment. > > Best Regards, > Sala > > > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM, James S. Tyre wrote: > >> The U.S. case is a jury verdict, not yet a final judgment. (Among other >> things, the judge, not the jury, will decide whether Apple is entitled to >> an injunction prohibiting sale of the relevant Samsung products.) Here’s >> the amended verdict:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> http://jstyre.com/misc/Apple_v_Samsung_amended-verdict-form.pdf**** >> >> ** ** >> >> --**** >> >> James S. Tyre**** >> >> Law Offices of James S. Tyre**** >> >> 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512**** >> >> Culver City, CA 90230-4969**** >> >> 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)**** >> >> jstyre at jstyre.com**** >> >> Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation**** >> >> https://www.eff.org**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Salanieta T. >> Tamanikaiwaimaro >> *Sent:* Saturday, August 25, 2012 6:32 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Chaitanya Dhareshwar >> *Cc:* Louis Pouzin (well); Fahd A. Batayneh >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Apple Samsung Patent Trial: Closing >> Arguments Delivered**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I would like to get my hands on a copy of both the South Korean Judgment >> as well as the American one. On another note, this morning I was >> interviewed by a University of Leeds student who is writing her thesis on >> the impact of the internet on access to knowledge from traditional books to >> e books etc. She was surprised when I recounted that whilst the Internet >> was revolutionising the manner in which people were accessing knowledge >> through access to e books that some of the countries in the Pacific like >> Cook Islands and Kiribati for instance still have the most expensive >> internet in the world. Coupled with things like SPAM which chews on >> valuable bandwidth this is a major barrier when it comes to things like >> basic access, leave alone trying to download books etc.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> She was further surprised when I told her that there were parts of the >> Pacific where energy grids were unreliable and that this has an impact on >> internet penetration.**** >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Aug 26 01:18:06 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 22:18:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Aug 25, 2012, at 12:49 AM, parminder wrote: >> On Aug 22, 2012, at 8:03 PM, parminder wrote: >> I'm surprised anyone would make such a claim. Could you provide a URL? I'd like to understand the rationale. > What I said about the apologists for the current ICANN-US relationship was; Actually, what you said was: >>> Yes, ICANN has never claimed it is not subject to US law. It will be ridiculous to do so for any responsible organisation based in the US. Problem is, ICANN apologists claim so, especially when caught on the wrong foot in global discussions - like on this list - faced with legitimate criticism of how a global infrastructure can be managed as per legal and executive authority of one country. I was specifically asking for a reference to where any "ICANN apologist claim[s] so" so I can understand their rationale. Your statement is rather bald, so presumably you can back it up. I'm asking for a reference. Can you provide one? However, to respond to your apparent attempt to redirect the simple question above to something you would prefer to talk about: > You tell me that you have never heard of any such claim. No, I have not heard anyone seriously claim that ICANN was not subject to US law, hence my request. > Therefore, it is agreed that ICANN can be forced to change its decisions by the US courts, legally exercised executive power etc. Also as all entities subject to any jurisdiction do, ICANN must already be carefully factoring in US law in all its decisions, knowing that in default its decisions can be struck down (this kind of less-than-very-obvious control is of very great significance). I suspect you credit ICANN's legal team with more strategic thought than others. I suspect ICANN is _far_ more worried about civil suits brought against it than violating corporate law. However, that's neither here nor there. > Now, if all this is true; are we not justified in saying that ICANN largely confirms to the command and wishes of the US state If you assume that the "wishes of the US state" are codified in corporate law, I suppose so, but this seems to be a bit of a reach to me. For example, my impression the USG wasn't particularly excited about the creation of .XXX yet ICANN seems to have gone ahead and allowed for its creation, no? > To the extent that ICANN does take global inputs for its policy development, it is within (relatively narrow) confines or constraints of the degrees of freedom allowed by US law and executive authority. Constrained by US law, yes. Whether that is "relatively narrow" is a matter for debate. As for abiding by the constraints of executive authority, ICANN, at least in theory, abides by policies created by a bottom-up open process, not by the dictates from the USG executive branch. Do you have any examples in which ICANN has violated those bottom-up processes in order to meet demands of the USG? > Why then it not be considered legitimate that the rest of world finds this situation not acceptable, being not democratic etc? ICANN, as a private, non-governmental entity, had to be incorporated somewhere. For historical reasons that I'm sure you're quite well aware, incorporating in the US was the obvious choice. Was this undemocratic? Sure, but most folk at the PTT level knew that OSI was going to replace TCP/IP so they didn't care (I know this from painful personal experience). If you actually took a vote of Internet users at the time, I suspect the democratic answer would've been "incorporate in the US" (since at the time, the US was the country where most of the Internet existed). Yes, things have changed, but I'm unclear as to how changing where ICANN is incorporated (assuming it is possible) will have any useful effect. As to it being unacceptable, my impression is that the vast (VAST) majority of folks simply don't care about whether or not ICANN is incorporated in the US (actually, I suspect they've never heard of ICANN). What I suspect they care about is being able to get access to the content they want (e.g., getting basic Internet connectivity, having that connectivity be affordable and reliable, not being blocked by various government-imposed filters, etc). Since ICANN by and large doesn't impede this access, I'm guessing ICANN being incorporated in the US falls pretty low on their priority list. Personally, I've always found it somewhat depressing that people in forums such as this focus on stuff like what TLDs will be created or who has the power to deny those TLDs when the _real_ "critical Internet resources" are things like fibers and base stations and electricity and environments that allow folks to interconnect their devices and networks together. None of these are in ICANN's purview, but I guess it is a lot easier for folks to throw rocks at ICANN and/or the USG than deal with the policies and infrastructures in their own countries. > Why do you bring in always, to any proposal for more democratic alternatives, the issue of having to show you the proof that (1) the present system is not working (not being democratic is enough reason, isnt it!) and (2) how an alternative system will be better (something that can never be proved by demonstration). A (undoubtedly poor) analogy: I have a solution to power distribution problems in India. Everyone agrees the current system is broken. My solution hasn't been implemented before, nor has it actually been formally documented or even exposed to peer review, but I assure you it is much better. Your arguments against replacing the current power distribution system in India with mine just show you are a status quoist. I figure when you are talking about mucking about with a working albeit imperfect global infrastructure upon which people, nations, and economies are increasingly dependent, you need a bit more than "but the current system is undemocratic!". But maybe that's just me. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Sun Aug 26 01:48:48 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 07:48:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5039B8C0.3010006@panamo.eu> Le 26/08/12 07:18, David Conrad a écrit : > [...] Personally, I've always found it somewhat depressing that people > in forums such as this focus on stuff like what TLDs will be created > or who has the power to deny those TLDs when the _real_ "critical > Internet resources" are things like fibers and base stations and > electricity and environments that allow folks to interconnect their > devices and networks together. None of these are in ICANN's purview, > but I guess it is a lot easier for folks to throw rocks at ICANN > and/or the USG than deal with the policies and infrastructures in > their own countries. That's exactly why WCIT-12 in Dubai has to deal with some Internet matters. Not all, but it's part. Thanks David. @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 26 04:55:17 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:55:17 +1200 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <5039B8C0.3010006@panamo.eu> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> <5039B8C0.3010006@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Le 26/08/12 07:18, David Conrad a écrit : > > [...] Personally, I've always found it somewhat depressing that people in > forums such as this focus on stuff like what TLDs will be created or who > has the power to deny those TLDs when the _real_ "critical Internet > resources" are things like fibers and base stations and electricity and > environments that allow folks to interconnect their devices and networks > together. None of these are in ICANN's purview, but I guess it is a lot > easier for folks to throw rocks at ICANN and/or the USG than deal with the > policies and infrastructures in their own countries. > > Hi David, please allow me to offer a slightly different perspective primarily as one who is from a region where infrastructure is a challenge. I respectfully disagree with your comment about people not wanting to deal with policies and infrastructures in their own countries and would rather throw stones at ICANN. The tLD market also affects us in the Pacific. I would not be surprised that this is a view commonly held by many as the issues and complexities of small island developing states are not rarely known because it is often seen as insignificant in the grand scheme of things. [The good news is that only recently within the IGF is there opportunity for LDCs, SIDS to share their challenges and also learn from others in the process.] There are islands such as Christmas Is in Kiribati where in order to have repairs done on base stations need to fly to Fiji before they fly to Tarawa [capital of Kiribati] before they fly to Tarawa to pick up supplies. Barriers of trade include excessive transportation costs from high petroleum costs etc. For quite along while I have been liaising with Vendors to ask about energy efficient base stations because much of the OPEX for most telcos in the region is spent on petroleum etc but have often been told that the more energy efficient base stations and components are expensive than the regular ones. The recent Pacific Broadband Forum which was facilitated by the ITU gave us the opportunity to hear first hand from countries in the Pacific and this included the Private Sector and Government. There were a quite a few people from the Pacific ISOC Chapter, myself included. Believe me when I say that we in the Pacific are doing something about it and we are committed to ensuring that the digital divide is conquered. Whilst the Pacific comprises of 22 countries and territories, 16 or which are independent nation states, at least 1 country and 2 territories derive a significant portion of their GDP from .tv, .nu and now .tk. Tuvalu the holder of .tv is a country that is sinking and its neighbouring country, Kiribati is also sinking because of impact of climate change etc. As you can imagine most countries still do not have internet exchange points because you need a minimum of three at least to start peering. Whilst World Bank and others are laying global submarine cables in Tonga for instance, wholesale transit costs are still high which is of course passed down to ISPs and the consumer inevitably. A lot of the issues on the WCIT 12 Agenda as Dominique mentioned deal with some of these matters. There are certain things which they can do within their jurisdictions but there are other layers that need discussion with countries. For the record, if we were anti-ICANN we would not participate in the ICANN processes. Development requires collaboration amongst all stakeholders. > That's exactly why WCIT-12 in Dubai has to deal with some Internet > matters. Not all, but it's part. > Thanks David. > > @+, Dominique > > -- > Dominique Lacroix > Société européenne de l'Internethttp://www.ies-france.eu+33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 26 07:41:58 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:11:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B13088C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> ,<50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B13088C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <503A0B86.6040707@itforchange.net> Lee On Saturday 25 August 2012 09:40 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Parminder, > > Until someone explains: '(2) how an alternative system will be better > (something that can never be proved by demonstration)' - we got what > we got, which is a system with ~2 billion users. By some measures > that's 'working.' ; ) Similarly as Pax Britannica was 'working' over most of the world in the 19th century, and was working by many measures, as long as some people appropriate the right to decide what these measures are.... The numbers, legacy, status quo etc are neither measures of legitimacy or even of the greatest effectiveness. What we have, as was with Pax Britannica, is just a hegemonic system created and perpetuated by the use of illegitimate power. There were enough apologists for Pax Britannica at that time - they are a legion - and there are enoforugh Pax Americana now. Not very different at all. Meanwhile, people fought against illegitimate British domination and they will against illegitimate US domination. In this regard, seeking proofs of what is wrong with how things are at present is, in my view, a rather cynical if not condescending view to take. > > Where we go from here is the question. > > 1 scenario is status quo, 2nd is ICANN as a free-floating > international org. > > Several of us have been asking you to try again to come up with a > viable 'Third Way' model. > > You're saying we academic weenies should go next or what are we good for. No, Lee, this is not true. Many aspects of such a viable alternatives have been discussed here in good detail - like, a OECD's CCICP like body to look at global Internet policy matters but not CIR oversight, a kind of international CIR Oversight Board with very clearly delimited remit, judicial review with the International Court of Justice, a better geographic distribution of root servers etc..... Do you really think it is wise to present a complete monolithic model in an academic paper rather than proceed collaboratively through building on such basic outlines, what I have tried through this list? I dont think the academic paper route is the best way. The right way is to get a global CS group come up with basic elements and propose it as a starting point of disucssion globally. (As India proposed a global discussion with CIRP as a dialogue opener.) Of course if I see some mass building behind a set of proposals, I can try to flesh it out in a week. parminder > > I pass the buck to the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force proposed by > Norbert. > > Lee > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder > [parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Saturday, August 25, 2012 3:49 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell > Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs > > > On Thursday 23 August 2012 11:55 AM, David Conrad wrote: >> Parminder, >> >> On Aug 22, 2012, at 8:03 PM, parminder > > wrote: >>> Problem is, ICANN apologists claim so, especially when caught on the >>> wrong foot in global discussions - like on this list - faced with >>> legitimate criticism of how a global infrastructure can be managed >>> as per legal and executive authority of one country. >> >> I'm surprised anyone would make such a claim. Could you provide a >> URL? I'd like to understand the rationale. > > What I said about the apologists for the current ICANN-US relationship > was; > > "They first claim that ICANN is /de jure/ independent, but when > pushed with facts, they try to say, ok, well, at least, it is /de > facto/, independent of US laws." > > > You tell me that you have never heard of any such claim. Before I try > to show you when and where such claims have been made, let me, for the > sake of argument, take your word and agree that no one ever makes any > such claim. > > This would obviously means that everyone agrees that ICANN operates > under US laws (which is kind of same as 'oversight') for its full > range of its functions. Right! > > Therefore, it is agreed that ICANN can be forced to change its > decisions by the US courts, legally exercised executive power etc. > Also as all entities subject to any jurisdiction do,/*ICANN must > already be carefully factoring in US law in all its decisions, knowing > that in default its decisions can be struck down*/ (this kind of > less-than-very-obvious control is of very great significance). > > I hope you agree that I am still following a logical consistent argument! > > Now, if all this is true; are we not justified in saying that ICANN > largely confirms to the command and wishes of the US state - and > through it, assuming a good degree of democracy in the US - of the the > people of the US - and correspondingly not of the people of the rest > of the world. > > To the extent that ICANN does take global inputs for its policy > development, it is within (relatively narrow) confines or constraints > of the degrees of freedom allowed by US law and executive authority. > > Why then it not be considered legitimate that the rest of world finds > this situation not acceptable, being not democratic etc? > > Why do you bring in always, to any proposal for more democratic > alternatives, the issue of having to show you the proof that (1) the > present system is not working (not being democratic is enough reason, > isnt it!) and (2) how an alternative system will be better (something > that can never be proved by demonstration). > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > >> >> Thanks, >> -drc >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fsylla at gmail.com Sun Aug 26 09:13:14 2012 From: fsylla at gmail.com (Fatimata) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:13:14 +0400 Subject: [governance] Apple Samsung Patent Trial: Closing Arguments Delivered Message-ID: Dear Sala, Your story is similar to ours in African remote areas where internet access remains a difficult issue for undepriviledged people. Yes broadband access remains a true barrier to 21st century education Best, Fatimata T-Mobile. America's First Nationwide 4G Network "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: >I would like to get my hands on a copy of both the South Korean Judgment as >well as the American one. On another note, this morning I was interviewed >by a University of Leeds student who is writing her thesis on the impact of >the internet on access to knowledge from traditional books to e books etc. >She was surprised when I recounted that whilst the Internet was >revolutionising the manner in which people were accessing knowledge through >access to e books that some of the countries in the Pacific like Cook >Islands and Kiribati for instance still have the most expensive internet in >the world. Coupled with things like SPAM which chews on valuable bandwidth >this is a major barrier when it comes to things like basic access, leave >alone trying to download books etc. > >She was further surprised when I told her that there were parts of the >Pacific where energy grids were unreliable and that this has an impact on >internet penetration. > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 26 09:41:59 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:11:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Economic, Energy, Agricultural and Trade Issues: Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic Statecraft In-Reply-To: References: <1345750641970.1115667.101309238.bulletin.usstatebpa@subscriptions.fcg.gov> Message-ID: <503A27A7.8030101@itforchange.net> Sanctions against other countries as a coercive measure was bad enough, but still country to country sanction have been around for long, and can be understood. What is called as 'smart sanctions' below is a very problematic category - whereby US state is able to exercise coercive power on specific individuals and groups within another country. Till now use of coercive power within the territory of a state was a (defining) sovereign right of the concerned national governments. This new development potentially re-writes the political scape of our world. Expectedly, Internet as a cross-border artefact of communication and control, with US's hegemonic position vis a vis the global Internet, is a key instrument of such selective 'smart sanctions', which is and will be the new basis of extra-territorial political control by the US. (BTW, the most unacceptable 'drone attack's by the US inside Pakistan's territory is another case of such targeted 'smart sanctions' as against conventional country to country wars.) It will be interesting to know the details of how the US based Internet behemoths like google, facebook, microsoft etc actually collaborate with the US state for such 'smart sanctions' which will form the basis of US's global control. The stuff we have been reading about the US state forming close operating relationships with these global Internet companies is lot about such 'smart sanctions'. And there is such a cloak of secrecy over these arrangements (for ex http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/03/doj-asks-court-to-keep-secret-any-partnership-between-google-nsa.html There are very dangerous forerunners to a new US hegemonic global regime with selective co-optation of groups and classes from different countries. Manuel Castell's famous network theory gives a very good analysis of the proclivities of the network for such centralised control with selective co-optation. It is chillingly alarming how true to the theory is the phenomenon playing out. For those who wonder why the ICANN model under US control which largely deals with not very consequential issues (and I agree to this more than most people here) is such a red rag to so many of us. It is so becuase the US control over the ICANN model, and its support among so many despite its patently undemocratic nature, represents the new paradigm of use of Internet for some very serious and unprecedented hegemonic control over the world by the US and its allied groups. parminder On Friday 24 August 2012 11:17 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > It was not all that long ago when we were alerted to the trials and > difficulties that colleagues in Syria and Iran were going through. The > creation of elite armies to hunt down dissidents and the restrictive > supply of bandwidth to cause a lack of access have been challenging > for civil society activists and civilians. > > Kind Regards, > > Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic > Statecraft > 08/23/2012 03:04 PM EDT > > > Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic Statecraft > > > Remarks > Jose W. Fernandez > Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs > San Francisco, CA > July 25, 2012 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Introduction* > > Good evening. Thank you for the introduction. I’m delighted to be in > San Francisco and at the World Affairs Council. > > I am here to talk about sanctions. Now, I didn’t come into the State > Department to get involved in sanctions. I came to support > development, promoting American values, and helping U.S. business to > compete abroad and create jobs here. But if Clausewitz wrote that “war > is diplomacy carried out by other means,” my time at that State > Department has taught me that sanctions too are a form of diplomacy. > And this is nothing new. > > Throughout world history, effective diplomacy and statecraft more > often than not, required a nation to use its commercial and economic > leverage to achieve political and strategic goals. Within this narrow > focus, the use of sanctions to exploit that leverage is virtually as > old as diplomacy itself. Indeed one of the earliest recorded uses of > economic sanctions was by ancient Athens. Pericles ordered all trade > between Athens and Megra banned in retaliation for Megra’s support of > Sparta. In more recent decades, sanctions were used against a number > of countries, such as South Africa for apartheid and Serbia for its > actions during the break-up of Yugoslavia. The fact of the matter is > that, while there are many carrots that can be offered to countries – > development assistance or increased access to markets – economic > sanctions is one of the few sticks…short of war. > > For the United States, the sticks we use today have evolved from the > historic policies of the 20^th century that shut out Castro’s Cuba > from the global economy, and halted Iranian Oil in 1979 after the > takeover of the American Embassy in Tehran. These days, our approach > is more calibrated. Instead of imposing only wholesale embargos on all > of a nation’s trade, our deeper understanding of the many complex > relationships, transactions and interactions that make up a nation’s > economy enables us to craft sanctions regimes that can focus on > certain sectors and actors, which more effectively achieve our goal > while avoiding collateral damage. Those targeted measures are what we > call “smart sanctions,” and that’s what I would like to talk about: > how smart sanctions can be an effective foreign policy tool, and how > smart implementation of sanctions promotes American economic > prosperity and national security. > > We start with the reality that there are many foreign policy > priorities that will compete with sanctions: negotiating new trade > agreements with Korea and Colombia, managing relationships with > strategic allies such as Pakistan and Russia, and supporting the > transitions in North Africa. So where do sanctions fit within our > priorities? > > *Smart Sanctions* > > When we discuss smart sanctions, the first question is: “What is our > goal?” What are we trying to achieve? Sanctions are generally invoked > for one of three purposes: 1) to change a government’s or private > actor’s unacceptable behavior; 2) to constrain such behavior going > forward; and/or 3) to expose behavior through censure. The goal is to > raise the economic cost of unacceptable behavior and denying the > resources that make it possible. > > Given these goals, what are our available tools? Well, as we ratchet > up pressure, sanctions increase and change. At the most basic level, > we withhold U.S. government cooperation, such as by prohibiting > development assistance. But, this only gets us so far, because most of > the bad actors in this world don’t get a lot of assistance. As we move > to a higher level, we look to freeze the assets of individuals and > governments and restrict their access to the U.S. market or prevent > them from receiving visas. Finally, we might also ban exports or > imports from countries for certain activities, as in the case of Iran > for refusing to address the international community’s concerns about > its nuclear program. > > An even more aggressive approach involves the use of “secondary > sanctions.” These measures act against companies in third countries > who do business with a U.S.-sanctioned target, thereby indirectly > supporting the behavior of the bad actor. Ultimately, making that > institution choose between doing business with a rogue country or > operating in the United States. > > But at the same time that we consider the optimum sanctions for a > given objective, an important element for consideration is how to > ensure that sanctions are structured to achieve the desired outcome, > while minimizing collateral damage to U.S. and other interests. > > This unwanted collateral damage includes investments, economic and > trade relations that we want to maintain, and protecting innocent > citizens in the targeted country. For example, in Iran, the door is > still open for the sale of agriculture products and medicine. Approval > was given for NGOs working to empower Iranian women, support heart > surgery for children, for consultants on a telecom fiber optic ring, > for a lawyer’s association providing legal training, and for a media > company that filmed an Iranian election. So our smart sanctions are > targeted. > > Effective diplomatic leadership is also crucial to effective > sanctions. Sanctions are more likely to have an impact when many > countries participate. The more global leaders are on board in > imposing sanctions, the more powerful the message that certain > behavior is unacceptable in today’s world. > > So, let’s look at a few recent cases – Iran, Syria, Burma, and Libya – > and review our sanctions policy. > > *1) **Iran* > > Iran’s destabilizing actions speak for themselves: refusal to address > international concerns about its nuclear program; defiance of UN > Security Council resolutions; support for terrorism, and efforts to > stir regional unrest, all present a grave threat to international > peace and security. Iran remains one of our top foreign policy and > international security priorities. > > Smart sanctions have played a prominent role in the success of the > Administration’s dual-track policy of pressure and engagement to > compel Tehran to address the concerns of the international community > over its nuclear program. In fact, senior Iranian officials, including > President Ahmadinejad have acknowledged the negative impact of > sanctions. The macroeconomic indicators tell the story: the Iranian > rial has lost nearly half of its value in nine months, oil exports and > revenues are down significantly, and inflation is rampant throughout > the economy. > > The Administration’s recent actions on sanctions include: > > * An Executive Order targeting development of Iran’s upstream oil > and gas industry and petrochemical sector. This order expands > existing sanctions by authorizing asset freezes on persons who > knowingly support Iran’s ability to develop its petroleum and > petrochemical sector, which is one of Iran’s primary sources of > funding for public projects like uranium enrichment. > * President Obama also enacted legislation targeting the Central > Bank and Iran’s oil revenues. Section 1245 of the 2012 National > Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) places sanctions on foreign > financial institutions for significant transactions related to the > Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and designated Iranian financial > institutions. As a measure of the successful implementation of the > legislation, some 20 countries have qualified for banking > exceptions under the NDAA because they significantly reduced their > purchase of Iranian crude oil. > > In addition, the 27-member European Union implemented a full embargo > on Iranian crude oil effective July 1. > > The possibility of sanctions has persuaded many firms to discontinue > their business with Iran - Total, Shell, Statoil (Norway), Edison > International (Italy), and many, many others. In fact, an Iranian > official recently admitted that sanctions have led, according to their > estimates, to a 20-30 percent reduction in sales of Iranian crude oil. > This translates into almost $8 billion in lost revenue every quarter. > > Our efforts aren’t limited to oil: as a result of U.S. and > multilateral sanctions, major shipping lines have ceased servicing > Iranian ports. The Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), > Iran’s major shipping line, and the National Iranian Tanker Company, > Iran’s tanker fleet, have had increasing difficulty in receiving > flagging, insurance, and other shipping services from reputable > providers. This further decreases Iran’s ability to gain revenue. > > As we continue to seek progress on the negotiating front, we will > maintain unrelenting pressure on Tehran. We know the pressure we are > bringing to bear has been vital to getting Iran to the negotiating > table. We all have a stake in resolving the international community’s > concerns about Iran’s nuclear program through diplomacy if we can, and > so we will continue our work with countries around the world to keep > pressure on Tehran. > > *2) **Syria* > > Although Iran sanctions continue to produce results, Syria requires a > different approach. Indeed, as the death toll rises above 17,000, the > Syria crisis becomes graver every minute. There are food shortages. > There is a lack of safe access to adequate medical services. Syrian > families are fleeing the country and registering in refugee camps in > neighboring countries. It is a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian crisis. > > Our goal in Syria is to support a democratic transition that reflects > the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. The United States > looks to its sanctions toolbox to isolate Asad and deprive him of > financial resources that allow him to continue attacking the Syrian > people. > > Even before the current outbreak of violence in February 2011, the > United States had several sanctions programs against Syria as a result > of Syrian support for terrorism. More recently, we applied U.S. > sanctions through a series of Executive Orders, issued by President > Obama, targeting individuals who use information technology to commit > human rights abuses, senior officials of the Syrian government, and > supporters of the regime such as some Syrian businessmen. > > The United States joined with likeminded countries in a multilateral > group known as the “Friends of the Syrian People.” Through this group, > we work with other countries to harmonize implementation of national > sanctions regimes and coordinate efforts for implementing a > multi-lateral sanctions regime. The work of this group is especially > important given some countries have effectively blocked a UN Security > Council resolution calling for international sanctions. > > In the group, we synchronize the individuals and entities targeted by > the sanctions, and discuss ways to strengthen sanctions by identifying > measures that will impact the Assad regime while permitting legitimate > trade to continue to flow. > > So far, U.S. and international sanctions have had a significant effect > on Assad’s reserves, and are making it difficult for the regime to > finance its brutality. > > But what happens when sanctions are successful? How quickly do you unwind? > > *3) **Burma* > > Recent positive developments in Burma, that were unimaginable just > last year, led the Administration to implement an innovative approach > that eases certain sanctions and incentivizes further political and > economic reform. Within the past year, over 500 political prisoners > have been released, and the government and several armed ethnic groups > (some of whom have been fighting against the government since 1948) > have reached preliminary ceasefire agreements. Pro-democracy icon Aung > San Suu Kyi re-registered her party and stood for office in recent > parliamentary by-elections. She, along with 42 other candidates from > her party, was elected to Parliament in early April. > > The Burmese parliament has also taken several steps towards reform, > including passing new legislation to protect the freedom of assembly > and the right of workers to form labor unions. The government is also > taking steps to bring increased transparency to the national budget. > > Burma became subject to U.S. sanctions in the 1990s. Those sanctions > were not universally emulated by many of our traditional allies. But, > our sanctions are credited with helping to persuade Burma’s leadership > to reconsider its long-term interests and move toward democratic > reform. And now the country is becoming a case study in how difficult > it is to be “smart” about easing sanctions. Our sanctions were > initially developed before we gave serious consideration to the > structure of sanctions and they were not built with an exit strategy > in mind. That’s made it more difficult to address the developments of > the last year, and it’s been a valuable lesson for crafting future > sanctions regimes. > > With regard to Burma, even though many of our international partners > moved to fully suspend their sanctions, we opted for a different > route: We are easing our sanctions, but in a calibrated manner. Even > after our most recent easing, we remain vigilant about the protection > of human rights, corruption, and the role of the military in the > Burmese economy. Our approach aims to support democratic reform while > aiding in the development of an economic and business environment that > provides benefits to all of Burma’s people. > > In forming our easing policy, we were also mindful of the desire for > American companies to contribute to improved human rights, worker > rights, environmental protection, and transparency in Burma, including > the need to improve the transparency of the Myanma Oil and Gas > Enterprise (MOGE), Burma’s state-owned oil company. We sought to do so > while working for a broad easing across sectors. And we did something > that hadn’t been done before in a license context: we integrated novel > reporting requirements into the new investment license. These > requirements, which will have a public transparency component, cover > issues such as due diligence in protecting human rights and worker > rights, and transparency in land acquisition and payments to the > Burmese government, including state-owned enterprises. In addition, > companies working with MOGE must report their investment within 60 > days. The purpose of the public reporting is to promote greater > transparency and encourage civil society to partner with our companies > toward responsible investment. We want American companies to take > advantage of the new opportunities. We think that by allowing them to > invest in Burma provides an opportunity to share American values, > transparency, and model corporate governance in the country. > > Another key element of this policy can be found in the general > license. While permitting new investment and financial services, we do > not authorize new investment with the Burmese Ministry of Defense, > state or non-state armed groups (which includes the military), or > entities owned by them. U.S. persons are also still prohibited from > dealing with blocked persons, including listed Specially Designated > Nationals (SDNs), as well as any entities 50 percent or more owned by > an SDN. It’s also important to keep in mind that the core authorities > underlying our sanctions remain in place. They weren’t terminated, > just suspended. This means that back sliding by the Burmese > government, or other potential spoilers, on democracy, human rights, > etc., can be countered with the appropriate measures. > > We took the suspension route because while we are encouraged by the > positive steps that President Thein Sein and his government have taken > toward a more civilian led and democratic government, concerns still > remain. These concerns include the continued detention of hundreds of > political prisoners, ongoing conflict in ethnic areas, and Burma’s > military relationship with North Korea. Going forward, we hope our > calibrated approach results in increased democratic values and > economic opportunities, and diminish human rights abuses. But, again, > we have also maintained flexibility to further ease, or re-impose, > restrictions as necessary. So stay tuned on Burma. We are. > > So, let’s look at one of our recent successes? > > *4) **Libya* > > After suffering from more than four decades of erratic and abusive > rule by Muammar Qadhafi, the people of Libya rose up on early 2011. As > the Libyan grassroots opposition grew in strength, Qadhafi recognized > that his grip on power was threatened. He responded by unleashing the > Libyan military on his own citizens. > > Working closely with our allies around the world, the United States > moved rapidly to support the Libyan people. Our efforts included > launching a major economic sanctions program specifically geared to > target Qadhafi and his cronies. The program sought to deprive Qadhafi > of the resources necessary to sustain his assault, to preserve Libya’s > wealth for its people, and to signal to Qadhafi and his allies that > they were isolated and their days were numbered. These efforts were on > both domestic and multilateral fronts. > > Domestically, the U.S. government reached out to U.S. financial > institutions to identify assets controlled by the Libyan government, > Qadhafi, his family, and their cronies, in anticipation of a new > sanctions program, and here we have a pleasant surprise: freezing > Libyan assets had a far greater impact than first expected. For > example, just one financial institution held assets of over $29 > billion; another held almost $500 million in a single portfolio. > Freezing these assets substantially constrained Qadhafi’s campaign. > > But we do not act alone: just as the United States reacted with > unprecedented speed, so too did the international community. The day > after President Obama signed the Executive Order to freeze over $30 > billion in Libyan assets, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions > targeting the individuals most responsible for the violence. As the > conflict intensified, the Security Council expanded its approach, > imposing further sanctions on key financial and economic institutions, > such as the Libyan Central Bank, the National Oil Corporation, and a > number of Libyan sovereign wealth funds. > > Unilateral and multilateral sanctions, reinforced with intense > diplomatic and military efforts, hastened the demise of the Qadhafi > regime. Targeted sanctions appeared to motivate Libyan leaders to > defect, like the Foreign Minister Moussa Koussa. Broad private sector > support in implementing sanctions removed the resources Qadhafi needed > to supply his military and pay his mercenaries, and safeguarded the > wealth of the Libyan people from Qadhafi and his cronies. Ultimately, > this allowed Libya’s people to courageously liberate themselves and > begin a new, democratic era. Our goal then became to lead a rapid > transition to ease sanctions and help Libya re-open for business. > > Last April, I traveled with representatives from twenty U. S. > companies to Tripoli. We followed up on U.S. commitments to deepen > economic and commercial relations with Libya in the aftermath of > Qadhafi. While there, I was met with overwhelming goodwill for the > U.S. and appreciation for U.S. leadership in the international > operation to protect Libyan civilians against Qadhafi’s regime, and in > following through with ensuring the new Libya was on a path to rebound. > > *Conclusion* > > Iran, Syria, Burma, and Libya remind us there is no one-size-fits-all > sanctions strategy. Sanctions tools have to be flexible enough to > adapt to rapidly changing conditions. From each application of > sanctions, we learn a new lesson. What we learned from unwinding the > Libya sanctions, we applied to Burma, and will help us as events > unfold in Syria. > > We’ve seen success in Libya, changes in Burma, and acknowledgement of > an impact in Iran. While the results may take months or years to be > apparent, we know economic sanctions work. They can be a powerful tool > in diplomacy – a stick whose use we are constantly evaluating and > working to improve, and to keep smart. > > Thank you. > > > /The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages > this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department. > External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an > endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein./ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 26 10:36:04 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:06:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <503A3454.3080309@itforchange.net> On Sunday 26 August 2012 10:48 AM, David Conrad wrote: > snip > > I was specifically asking for a reference to where any "ICANN > apologist claim[s] so" so I can understand their rationale. Your > statement is rather bald, so presumably you can back it up. I'm asking > for a reference. Can you provide one? David, I have been through long discussions on this list about the problems with US political control over the ICANN, and the other side, expectedly, refutes or minimises such control (otherwise discussions would not be so long and inconclusive). 'Subject to US laws and executive power' and 'political control' are the same thing. I dont want to dig up all emails and get into a long discussion on you said this, what i meant was this and so on........ However, indicatively I can mention that when the US treasury department's OFAC sanctions on other countries were discussed by me as potentially problematic vis a vis ICANN's global activities, the counter argument ranged from - these sanctions cannot be applied to ICANN's work (there is no de jure application) to US is never going to do so (there is no de facto application). Similarly, when problem with 10 out of 13 root servers being in the US was discussed, the counter arguments started with - US gov /cannot /exercise authority over them and then went towards of course they will never do such a thing. > snip > > If you assume that the "wishes of the US state" are codified in > corporate law, I suppose so, but this seems to be a bit of a reach to me. Why? Doest US state make the corporate law? > For example, my impression the USG wasn't particularly excited about > the creation of .XXX yet ICANN seems to have gone ahead and allowed > for its creation, no? How many time can this one example to used to show the purity of the US state... Everyone knows that the stakes in the .xxx case were just too low for the US to do such a thing with the obvious bad press expected.... But the next time the threshold vis a vis high stakes may be crossed.... We cant wait for that moment and then rue the arrangement. This .xxx instance is like the British empire telling its colony again and again about that one instance when they /could /have acted in some way that apparently was more in their narrow interest but did not out of large heartedness.... What does it prove... Should the colonised stop seeking their democratic rights becuase of that !? I am deliberately taking an extreme sounding example because I see that the argument of democracy seems not making much impression in most of our discussions. > >> To the extent that ICANN does take global inputs for its policy >> development, it is within (relatively narrow) confines or constraints >> of the degrees of freedom allowed by US law and executive authority. > > Constrained by US law, yes. It is not acceptable to us, I mean those who dont participate in making US laws. Simple, isnt it. > Whether that is "relatively narrow" is a matter for debate. As for > abiding by the constraints of executive authority, ICANN, at least in > theory, abides by policies created by a bottom-up open process, not by > the dictates from the USG executive branch. In theory, the hierarchy between the two above kinds of control over the ICANN is clear. US laws and general US authority will prevail whether they have exercised it in any strong manner till now or not. And this is not acceptable. > Do you have any examples in which ICANN has violated those bottom-up > processes in order to meet demands of the USG? US has been restrained till now. But the rest of world is not willing to live on its mercy and goodwill, their being enough instances in other areas that this is a dangerous thing to do, BTW, why dont I get the answer to the main question which started this thread, and is in its subject line. *What happens if the US court, having accepted it as a maintainable case, declares .xxx registry agreement to be in contravention of US laws*? *Does the ICANN system with its chimera of global legitimacy simply unravels that moment? How do you see such a scenario?* Should we not simple not discuss it and not prepare for the probable eventuality. > > snip > > I figure when you are talking about mucking about with a working > albeit imperfect global infrastructure upon which people, nations, and > economies are increasingly dependent, you need a bit more than "but > the current system is undemocratic!". All my political and democratic sensibilities make me feel that your sentence above is self contradictory. You say that Internet has become too important an issue to subject to the democratic criterion !? Or at least that, it has become too important for us to risk talking about democracy vis a vis its governance. Precisely, as you say, because it has become so important that it has to be governed democratically. Dont know why democracy is becoming such a cheap commodity now a days, and that in civil society discussions. In fact for a such an important global phenomenon, the democracy logic is so strong that rather then keeping on asking me to show you how the alternative more democratic system will be better, it is you who should tell me why it is clearly so bad in your view that we have to sacrifice the considerations of democracy. parminder. > But maybe that's just me. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 26 14:11:03 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:11:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Economic, Energy, Agricultural and Trade Issues: Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic Statecraft In-Reply-To: <503A27A7.8030101@itforchange.net> References: <1345750641970.1115667.101309238.bulletin.usstatebpa@subscriptions.fcg.gov> <503A27A7.8030101@itforchange.net> Message-ID: The USG, very much like a sorcerer apprentice, is escalating threats around the world. As history has taught many times the end result is quite predictable. Louis - - - On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 3:41 PM, parminder wrote: > > Sanctions against other countries as a coercive measure was bad enough, > but still country to country sanction have been around for long, and can be > understood. What is called as 'smart sanctions' below is a very problematic > category - whereby US state is able to exercise coercive power on specific > individuals and groups within another country. Till now use of coercive > power within the territory of a state was a (defining) sovereign right of > the concerned national governments. This new development potentially > re-writes the political scape of our world. > > Expectedly, Internet as a cross-border artefact of communication and > control, with US's hegemonic position vis a vis the global Internet, is a > key instrument of such selective 'smart sanctions', which is and will be > the new basis of extra-territorial political control by the US. (BTW, the > most unacceptable 'drone attack's by the US inside Pakistan's territory is > another case of such targeted 'smart sanctions' as against conventional > country to country wars.) > > It will be interesting to know the details of how the US based Internet > behemoths like google, facebook, microsoft etc actually collaborate with > the US state for such 'smart sanctions' which will form the basis of US's > global control. The stuff we have been reading about the US state forming > close operating relationships with these global Internet companies is lot > about such 'smart sanctions'. And there is such a cloak of secrecy over > these arrangements (for ex > > > http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/03/doj-asks-court-to-keep-secret-any-partnership-between-google-nsa.html > > There are very dangerous forerunners to a new US hegemonic global regime > with selective co-optation of groups and classes from different countries. > Manuel Castell's famous network theory gives a very good analysis of the > proclivities of the network for such centralised control with selective > co-optation. It is chillingly alarming how true to the theory is the > phenomenon playing out. > > For those who wonder why the ICANN model under US control which largely > deals with not very consequential issues (and I agree to this more than > most people here) is such a red rag to so many of us. It is so becuase the > US control over the ICANN model, and its support among so many despite its > patently undemocratic nature, represents the new paradigm of use of > Internet for some very serious and unprecedented hegemonic control over the > world by the US and its allied groups. > > parminder > > On Friday 24 August 2012 11:17 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > It was not all that long ago when we were alerted to the trials and > difficulties that colleagues in Syria and Iran were going through. The > creation of elite armies to hunt down dissidents and the restrictive supply > of bandwidth to cause a lack of access have been challenging for civil > society activists and civilians. > > Kind Regards, > > Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic > Statecraft > 08/23/2012 03:04 PM EDT > > Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic Statecraft > > Remarks > Jose W. Fernandez > Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs > San Francisco, CA > July 25, 2012 > > ------------------------------ > > *Introduction* > > Good evening. Thank you for the introduction. I’m delighted to be in San > Francisco and at the World Affairs Council. > > I am here to talk about sanctions. Now, I didn’t come into the State > Department to get involved in sanctions. I came to support development, > promoting American values, and helping U.S. business to compete abroad and > create jobs here. But if Clausewitz wrote that “war is diplomacy carried > out by other means,” my time at that State Department has taught me that > sanctions too are a form of diplomacy. And this is nothing new. > > Throughout world history, effective diplomacy and statecraft more often > than not, required a nation to use its commercial and economic leverage to > achieve political and strategic goals. Within this narrow focus, the use of > sanctions to exploit that leverage is virtually as old as diplomacy itself. > Indeed one of the earliest recorded uses of economic sanctions was by > ancient Athens. Pericles ordered all trade between Athens and Megra banned > in retaliation for Megra’s support of Sparta. In more recent decades, > sanctions were used against a number of countries, such as South Africa for > apartheid and Serbia for its actions during the break-up of Yugoslavia. The > fact of the matter is that, while there are many carrots that can be > offered to countries – development assistance or increased access to > markets – economic sanctions is one of the few sticks…short of war. > > For the United States, the sticks we use today have evolved from the > historic policies of the 20th century that shut out Castro’s Cuba from > the global economy, and halted Iranian Oil in 1979 after the takeover of > the American Embassy in Tehran. These days, our approach is more > calibrated. Instead of imposing only wholesale embargos on all of a > nation’s trade, our deeper understanding of the many complex relationships, > transactions and interactions that make up a nation’s economy enables us to > craft sanctions regimes that can focus on certain sectors and actors, which > more effectively achieve our goal while avoiding collateral damage. Those > targeted measures are what we call “smart sanctions,” and that’s what I > would like to talk about: how smart sanctions can be an effective foreign > policy tool, and how smart implementation of sanctions promotes American > economic prosperity and national security. > > We start with the reality that there are many foreign policy priorities > that will compete with sanctions: negotiating new trade agreements with > Korea and Colombia, managing relationships with strategic allies such as > Pakistan and Russia, and supporting the transitions in North Africa. So > where do sanctions fit within our priorities? > > *Smart Sanctions* > > When we discuss smart sanctions, the first question is: “What is our > goal?” What are we trying to achieve? Sanctions are generally invoked for > one of three purposes: 1) to change a government’s or private actor’s > unacceptable behavior; 2) to constrain such behavior going forward; and/or > 3) to expose behavior through censure. The goal is to raise the economic > cost of unacceptable behavior and denying the resources that make it > possible. > > Given these goals, what are our available tools? Well, as we ratchet up > pressure, sanctions increase and change. At the most basic level, we > withhold U.S. government cooperation, such as by prohibiting development > assistance. But, this only gets us so far, because most of the bad actors > in this world don’t get a lot of assistance. As we move to a higher level, > we look to freeze the assets of individuals and governments and restrict > their access to the U.S. market or prevent them from receiving visas. > Finally, we might also ban exports or imports from countries for certain > activities, as in the case of Iran for refusing to address the > international community’s concerns about its nuclear program. > > An even more aggressive approach involves the use of “secondary > sanctions.” These measures act against companies in third countries who do > business with a U.S.-sanctioned target, thereby indirectly supporting the > behavior of the bad actor. Ultimately, making that institution choose > between doing business with a rogue country or operating in the United > States. > > But at the same time that we consider the optimum sanctions for a given > objective, an important element for consideration is how to ensure that > sanctions are structured to achieve the desired outcome, while minimizing > collateral damage to U.S. and other interests. > > This unwanted collateral damage includes investments, economic and trade > relations that we want to maintain, and protecting innocent citizens in the > targeted country. For example, in Iran, the door is still open for the sale > of agriculture products and medicine. Approval was given for NGOs working > to empower Iranian women, support heart surgery for children, for > consultants on a telecom fiber optic ring, for a lawyer’s association > providing legal training, and for a media company that filmed an Iranian > election. So our smart sanctions are targeted. > > Effective diplomatic leadership is also crucial to effective sanctions. > Sanctions are more likely to have an impact when many countries > participate. The more global leaders are on board in imposing sanctions, > the more powerful the message that certain behavior is unacceptable in > today’s world. > > So, let’s look at a few recent cases – Iran, Syria, Burma, and Libya – and > review our sanctions policy. > > *1) **Iran* > > Iran’s destabilizing actions speak for themselves: refusal to address > international concerns about its nuclear program; defiance of UN Security > Council resolutions; support for terrorism, and efforts to stir regional > unrest, all present a grave threat to international peace and security. > Iran remains one of our top foreign policy and international security > priorities. > > Smart sanctions have played a prominent role in the success of the > Administration’s dual-track policy of pressure and engagement to compel > Tehran to address the concerns of the international community over its > nuclear program. In fact, senior Iranian officials, including President > Ahmadinejad have acknowledged the negative impact of sanctions. The > macroeconomic indicators tell the story: the Iranian rial has lost nearly > half of its value in nine months, oil exports and revenues are down > significantly, and inflation is rampant throughout the economy. > > The Administration’s recent actions on sanctions include: > > - An Executive Order targeting development of Iran’s upstream oil and > gas industry and petrochemical sector. This order expands existing > sanctions by authorizing asset freezes on persons who knowingly support > Iran’s ability to develop its petroleum and petrochemical sector, which is > one of Iran’s primary sources of funding for public projects like uranium > enrichment. > - President Obama also enacted legislation targeting the Central Bank > and Iran’s oil revenues. Section 1245 of the 2012 National Defense > Authorization Act (NDAA) places sanctions on foreign financial institutions > for significant transactions related to the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and > designated Iranian financial institutions. As a measure of the successful > implementation of the legislation, some 20 countries have qualified for > banking exceptions under the NDAA because they significantly reduced their > purchase of Iranian crude oil. > > In addition, the 27-member European Union implemented a full embargo on > Iranian crude oil effective July 1. > > The possibility of sanctions has persuaded many firms to discontinue their > business with Iran - Total, Shell, Statoil (Norway), Edison International > (Italy), and many, many others. In fact, an Iranian official recently > admitted that sanctions have led, according to their estimates, to a 20-30 > percent reduction in sales of Iranian crude oil. This translates into > almost $8 billion in lost revenue every quarter. > > Our efforts aren’t limited to oil: as a result of U.S. and multilateral > sanctions, major shipping lines have ceased servicing Iranian ports. The > Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), Iran’s major shipping > line, and the National Iranian Tanker Company, Iran’s tanker fleet, have > had increasing difficulty in receiving flagging, insurance, and other > shipping services from reputable providers. This further decreases Iran’s > ability to gain revenue. > > As we continue to seek progress on the negotiating front, we will maintain > unrelenting pressure on Tehran. We know the pressure we are bringing to > bear has been vital to getting Iran to the negotiating table. We all have a > stake in resolving the international community’s concerns about Iran’s > nuclear program through diplomacy if we can, and so we will continue our > work with countries around the world to keep pressure on Tehran. > > *2) **Syria* > > Although Iran sanctions continue to produce results, Syria requires a > different approach. Indeed, as the death toll rises above 17,000, the Syria > crisis becomes graver every minute. There are food shortages. There is a > lack of safe access to adequate medical services. Syrian families are > fleeing the country and registering in refugee camps in neighboring > countries. It is a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian crisis. > > Our goal in Syria is to support a democratic transition that reflects the > legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. The United States looks to its > sanctions toolbox to isolate Asad and deprive him of financial resources > that allow him to continue attacking the Syrian people. > > Even before the current outbreak of violence in February 2011, the United > States had several sanctions programs against Syria as a result of Syrian > support for terrorism. More recently, we applied U.S. sanctions through a > series of Executive Orders, issued by President Obama, targeting > individuals who use information technology to commit human rights abuses, > senior officials of the Syrian government, and supporters of the regime > such as some Syrian businessmen. > > The United States joined with likeminded countries in a multilateral group > known as the “Friends of the Syrian People.” Through this group, we work > with other countries to harmonize implementation of national sanctions > regimes and coordinate efforts for implementing a multi-lateral sanctions > regime. The work of this group is especially important given some countries > have effectively blocked a UN Security Council resolution calling for > international sanctions. > > In the group, we synchronize the individuals and entities targeted by the > sanctions, and discuss ways to strengthen sanctions by identifying measures > that will impact the Assad regime while permitting legitimate trade to > continue to flow. > > So far, U.S. and international sanctions have had a significant effect on > Assad’s reserves, and are making it difficult for the regime to finance its > brutality. > > But what happens when sanctions are successful? How quickly do you unwind? > > *3) **Burma* > > Recent positive developments in Burma, that were unimaginable just last > year, led the Administration to implement an innovative approach that eases > certain sanctions and incentivizes further political and economic reform. > Within the past year, over 500 political prisoners have been released, and > the government and several armed ethnic groups (some of whom have been > fighting against the government since 1948) have reached preliminary > ceasefire agreements. Pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi re-registered her > party and stood for office in recent parliamentary by-elections. She, along > with 42 other candidates from her party, was elected to Parliament in early > April. > > The Burmese parliament has also taken several steps towards reform, > including passing new legislation to protect the freedom of assembly and > the right of workers to form labor unions. The government is also taking > steps to bring increased transparency to the national budget. > > Burma became subject to U.S. sanctions in the 1990s. Those sanctions were > not universally emulated by many of our traditional allies. But, our > sanctions are credited with helping to persuade Burma’s leadership to > reconsider its long-term interests and move toward democratic reform. And > now the country is becoming a case study in how difficult it is to be > “smart” about easing sanctions. Our sanctions were initially developed > before we gave serious consideration to the structure of sanctions and they > were not built with an exit strategy in mind. That’s made it more difficult > to address the developments of the last year, and it’s been a valuable > lesson for crafting future sanctions regimes. > > With regard to Burma, even though many of our international partners moved > to fully suspend their sanctions, we opted for a different route: We are > easing our sanctions, but in a calibrated manner. Even after our most > recent easing, we remain vigilant about the protection of human rights, > corruption, and the role of the military in the Burmese economy. Our > approach aims to support democratic reform while aiding in the development > of an economic and business environment that provides benefits to all of > Burma’s people. > > In forming our easing policy, we were also mindful of the desire for > American companies to contribute to improved human rights, worker rights, > environmental protection, and transparency in Burma, including the need to > improve the transparency of the Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), > Burma’s state-owned oil company. We sought to do so while working for a > broad easing across sectors. And we did something that hadn’t been done > before in a license context: we integrated novel reporting requirements > into the new investment license. These requirements, which will have a > public transparency component, cover issues such as due diligence in > protecting human rights and worker rights, and transparency in land > acquisition and payments to the Burmese government, including state-owned > enterprises. In addition, companies working with MOGE must report their > investment within 60 days. The purpose of the public reporting is to > promote greater transparency and encourage civil society to partner with > our companies toward responsible investment. We want American companies to > take advantage of the new opportunities. We think that by allowing them to > invest in Burma provides an opportunity to share American values, > transparency, and model corporate governance in the country. > > Another key element of this policy can be found in the general license. > While permitting new investment and financial services, we do not authorize > new investment with the Burmese Ministry of Defense, state or non-state > armed groups (which includes the military), or entities owned by them. U.S. > persons are also still prohibited from dealing with blocked persons, > including listed Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs), as well as any > entities 50 percent or more owned by an SDN. It’s also important to keep in > mind that the core authorities underlying our sanctions remain in place. > They weren’t terminated, just suspended. This means that back sliding by > the Burmese government, or other potential spoilers, on democracy, human > rights, etc., can be countered with the appropriate measures. > > We took the suspension route because while we are encouraged by the > positive steps that President Thein Sein and his government have taken > toward a more civilian led and democratic government, concerns still > remain. These concerns include the continued detention of hundreds of > political prisoners, ongoing conflict in ethnic areas, and Burma’s military > relationship with North Korea. Going forward, we hope our calibrated > approach results in increased democratic values and economic opportunities, > and diminish human rights abuses. But, again, we have also maintained > flexibility to further ease, or re-impose, restrictions as necessary. So > stay tuned on Burma. We are. > > So, let’s look at one of our recent successes? > > *4) **Libya* > > After suffering from more than four decades of erratic and abusive rule by > Muammar Qadhafi, the people of Libya rose up on early 2011. As the Libyan > grassroots opposition grew in strength, Qadhafi recognized that his grip on > power was threatened. He responded by unleashing the Libyan military on his > own citizens. > > Working closely with our allies around the world, the United States moved > rapidly to support the Libyan people. Our efforts included launching a > major economic sanctions program specifically geared to target Qadhafi and > his cronies. The program sought to deprive Qadhafi of the resources > necessary to sustain his assault, to preserve Libya’s wealth for its > people, and to signal to Qadhafi and his allies that they were isolated and > their days were numbered. These efforts were on both domestic and > multilateral fronts. > > Domestically, the U.S. government reached out to U.S. financial > institutions to identify assets controlled by the Libyan government, > Qadhafi, his family, and their cronies, in anticipation of a new sanctions > program, and here we have a pleasant surprise: freezing Libyan assets had a > far greater impact than first expected. For example, just one financial > institution held assets of over $29 billion; another held almost $500 > million in a single portfolio. Freezing these assets substantially > constrained Qadhafi’s campaign. > > But we do not act alone: just as the United States reacted with > unprecedented speed, so too did the international community. The day after > President Obama signed the Executive Order to freeze over $30 billion in > Libyan assets, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions targeting the > individuals most responsible for the violence. As the conflict intensified, > the Security Council expanded its approach, imposing further sanctions on > key financial and economic institutions, such as the Libyan Central Bank, > the National Oil Corporation, and a number of Libyan sovereign wealth funds. > > Unilateral and multilateral sanctions, reinforced with intense diplomatic > and military efforts, hastened the demise of the Qadhafi regime. Targeted > sanctions appeared to motivate Libyan leaders to defect, like the Foreign > Minister Moussa Koussa. Broad private sector support in implementing > sanctions removed the resources Qadhafi needed to supply his military and > pay his mercenaries, and safeguarded the wealth of the Libyan people from > Qadhafi and his cronies. Ultimately, this allowed Libya’s people to > courageously liberate themselves and begin a new, democratic era. Our goal > then became to lead a rapid transition to ease sanctions and help Libya > re-open for business. > > Last April, I traveled with representatives from twenty U. S. companies to > Tripoli. We followed up on U.S. commitments to deepen economic and > commercial relations with Libya in the aftermath of Qadhafi. While there, I > was met with overwhelming goodwill for the U.S. and appreciation for U.S. > leadership in the international operation to protect Libyan civilians > against Qadhafi’s regime, and in following through with ensuring the new > Libya was on a path to rebound. > > *Conclusion* > > Iran, Syria, Burma, and Libya remind us there is no one-size-fits-all > sanctions strategy. Sanctions tools have to be flexible enough to adapt to > rapidly changing conditions. From each application of sanctions, we learn a > new lesson. What we learned from unwinding the Libya sanctions, we applied > to Burma, and will help us as events unfold in Syria. > > We’ve seen success in Libya, changes in Burma, and acknowledgement of an > impact in Iran. While the results may take months or years to be apparent, > we know economic sanctions work. They can be a powerful tool in diplomacy – > a stick whose use we are constantly evaluating and working to improve, and > to keep smart. > > Thank you. > > *The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this > site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department. > External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an > endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.* > ------------------------------ > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 26 15:20:53 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 07:20:53 +1200 Subject: [governance] Economic, Energy, Agricultural and Trade Issues: Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic Statecraft In-Reply-To: References: <1345750641970.1115667.101309238.bulletin.usstatebpa@subscriptions.fcg.gov> <503A27A7.8030101@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Earlier this year, I had met one of our subscribers in Washington D.C who is an activist from a country mentioned in the Report, a former Minister who was responsible for Telecommunications and was persecuted within this own country. He is now part of an organisation that lobbies to speak out against issues affecting ordinary citizens. The creation of elite armies to hunt down dissidents is a reality. He escaped by the skin of his teeth to lobby in Washington DC. This activist also flew to Geneva and wanted to raise these with several organisations, the ITU included. On a separate note, I remember in a meeting with Ambassador Verveer and Deputy Assistant Secretary Loi at the State Department where were discussing Pacific issues in Washington, I recall seeing a tent outside the State Department comprising of Iranian activists in yellow tshirts giving out fliers. Whilst countries have their own motivations for dishing out targeted sanctions, I must say that credit should be given to the US in this instance for stepping up. Countries have the sovereign right to determine how they at the end of the day will relate to other countries. For instance if India really can't stand the US, it can for instance impose sanctions such as refusing to engage in receiving the "outsourcing" of the bulk of "customer care" work or "call center work" or for other countries other than the US it receives increasingly the bulk of "publishing houses" work. The reality is different because at the end of the day bottom line much of this is based on economics. What I like about the quote from Clausewitz is that "war is diplomacy carried out by other means". As for extraterritorial in this instance, the rules in justifying humanitarian intervention are quite clear and in my view do not apply in the case of Syria, Iran etc. Of course, I hold a different view over what happened in Grenada in the past. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 6:11 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > The USG, very much like a sorcerer apprentice, is escalating threats > around the world. > As history has taught many times the end result is quite predictable. > Louis > - - - > > > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 3:41 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> Sanctions against other countries as a coercive measure was bad enough, >> but still country to country sanction have been around for long, and can be >> understood. What is called as 'smart sanctions' below is a very problematic >> category - whereby US state is able to exercise coercive power on specific >> individuals and groups within another country. Till now use of coercive >> power within the territory of a state was a (defining) sovereign right of >> the concerned national governments. This new development potentially >> re-writes the political scape of our world. >> >> Expectedly, Internet as a cross-border artefact of communication and >> control, with US's hegemonic position vis a vis the global Internet, is a >> key instrument of such selective 'smart sanctions', which is and will be >> the new basis of extra-territorial political control by the US. (BTW, the >> most unacceptable 'drone attack's by the US inside Pakistan's territory is >> another case of such targeted 'smart sanctions' as against conventional >> country to country wars.) >> >> It will be interesting to know the details of how the US based Internet >> behemoths like google, facebook, microsoft etc actually collaborate with >> the US state for such 'smart sanctions' which will form the basis of US's >> global control. The stuff we have been reading about the US state forming >> close operating relationships with these global Internet companies is lot >> about such 'smart sanctions'. And there is such a cloak of secrecy over >> these arrangements (for ex >> >> >> http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2012/03/doj-asks-court-to-keep-secret-any-partnership-between-google-nsa.html >> >> There are very dangerous forerunners to a new US hegemonic global regime >> with selective co-optation of groups and classes from different countries. >> Manuel Castell's famous network theory gives a very good analysis of the >> proclivities of the network for such centralised control with selective >> co-optation. It is chillingly alarming how true to the theory is the >> phenomenon playing out. >> >> For those who wonder why the ICANN model under US control which largely >> deals with not very consequential issues (and I agree to this more than >> most people here) is such a red rag to so many of us. It is so becuase the >> US control over the ICANN model, and its support among so many despite its >> patently undemocratic nature, represents the new paradigm of use of >> Internet for some very serious and unprecedented hegemonic control over the >> world by the US and its allied groups. >> >> parminder >> >> On Friday 24 August 2012 11:17 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> It was not all that long ago when we were alerted to the trials and >> difficulties that colleagues in Syria and Iran were going through. The >> creation of elite armies to hunt down dissidents and the restrictive supply >> of bandwidth to cause a lack of access have been challenging for civil >> society activists and civilians. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic >> Statecraft >> 08/23/2012 03:04 PM EDT >> >> Smart Sanctions: Confronting Security Threats with Economic Statecraft >> >> Remarks >> Jose W. Fernandez >> Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs >> San Francisco, CA >> July 25, 2012 >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *Introduction* >> >> Good evening. Thank you for the introduction. I’m delighted to be in San >> Francisco and at the World Affairs Council. >> >> I am here to talk about sanctions. Now, I didn’t come into the State >> Department to get involved in sanctions. I came to support development, >> promoting American values, and helping U.S. business to compete abroad and >> create jobs here. But if Clausewitz wrote that “war is diplomacy carried >> out by other means,” my time at that State Department has taught me that >> sanctions too are a form of diplomacy. And this is nothing new. >> >> Throughout world history, effective diplomacy and statecraft more often >> than not, required a nation to use its commercial and economic leverage to >> achieve political and strategic goals. Within this narrow focus, the use of >> sanctions to exploit that leverage is virtually as old as diplomacy itself. >> Indeed one of the earliest recorded uses of economic sanctions was by >> ancient Athens. Pericles ordered all trade between Athens and Megra banned >> in retaliation for Megra’s support of Sparta. In more recent decades, >> sanctions were used against a number of countries, such as South Africa for >> apartheid and Serbia for its actions during the break-up of Yugoslavia. The >> fact of the matter is that, while there are many carrots that can be >> offered to countries – development assistance or increased access to >> markets – economic sanctions is one of the few sticks…short of war. >> >> For the United States, the sticks we use today have evolved from the >> historic policies of the 20th century that shut out Castro’s Cuba from >> the global economy, and halted Iranian Oil in 1979 after the takeover of >> the American Embassy in Tehran. These days, our approach is more >> calibrated. Instead of imposing only wholesale embargos on all of a >> nation’s trade, our deeper understanding of the many complex relationships, >> transactions and interactions that make up a nation’s economy enables us to >> craft sanctions regimes that can focus on certain sectors and actors, which >> more effectively achieve our goal while avoiding collateral damage. Those >> targeted measures are what we call “smart sanctions,” and that’s what I >> would like to talk about: how smart sanctions can be an effective foreign >> policy tool, and how smart implementation of sanctions promotes American >> economic prosperity and national security. >> >> We start with the reality that there are many foreign policy priorities >> that will compete with sanctions: negotiating new trade agreements with >> Korea and Colombia, managing relationships with strategic allies such as >> Pakistan and Russia, and supporting the transitions in North Africa. So >> where do sanctions fit within our priorities? >> >> *Smart Sanctions* >> >> When we discuss smart sanctions, the first question is: “What is our >> goal?” What are we trying to achieve? Sanctions are generally invoked for >> one of three purposes: 1) to change a government’s or private actor’s >> unacceptable behavior; 2) to constrain such behavior going forward; and/or >> 3) to expose behavior through censure. The goal is to raise the economic >> cost of unacceptable behavior and denying the resources that make it >> possible. >> >> Given these goals, what are our available tools? Well, as we ratchet up >> pressure, sanctions increase and change. At the most basic level, we >> withhold U.S. government cooperation, such as by prohibiting development >> assistance. But, this only gets us so far, because most of the bad actors >> in this world don’t get a lot of assistance. As we move to a higher level, >> we look to freeze the assets of individuals and governments and restrict >> their access to the U.S. market or prevent them from receiving visas. >> Finally, we might also ban exports or imports from countries for certain >> activities, as in the case of Iran for refusing to address the >> international community’s concerns about its nuclear program. >> >> An even more aggressive approach involves the use of “secondary >> sanctions.” These measures act against companies in third countries who do >> business with a U.S.-sanctioned target, thereby indirectly supporting the >> behavior of the bad actor. Ultimately, making that institution choose >> between doing business with a rogue country or operating in the United >> States. >> >> But at the same time that we consider the optimum sanctions for a given >> objective, an important element for consideration is how to ensure that >> sanctions are structured to achieve the desired outcome, while minimizing >> collateral damage to U.S. and other interests. >> >> This unwanted collateral damage includes investments, economic and trade >> relations that we want to maintain, and protecting innocent citizens in the >> targeted country. For example, in Iran, the door is still open for the sale >> of agriculture products and medicine. Approval was given for NGOs >> working to empower Iranian women, support heart surgery for children, for >> consultants on a telecom fiber optic ring, for a lawyer’s association >> providing legal training, and for a media company that filmed an Iranian >> election. So our smart sanctions are targeted. >> >> Effective diplomatic leadership is also crucial to effective sanctions. >> Sanctions are more likely to have an impact when many countries >> participate. The more global leaders are on board in imposing sanctions, >> the more powerful the message that certain behavior is unacceptable in >> today’s world. >> >> So, let’s look at a few recent cases – Iran, Syria, Burma, and Libya – >> and review our sanctions policy. >> >> *1) **Iran* >> >> Iran’s destabilizing actions speak for themselves: refusal to address >> international concerns about its nuclear program; defiance of UN Security >> Council resolutions; support for terrorism, and efforts to stir regional >> unrest, all present a grave threat to international peace and security. >> Iran remains one of our top foreign policy and international security >> priorities. >> >> Smart sanctions have played a prominent role in the success of the >> Administration’s dual-track policy of pressure and engagement to compel >> Tehran to address the concerns of the international community over its >> nuclear program. In fact, senior Iranian officials, including President >> Ahmadinejad have acknowledged the negative impact of sanctions. The >> macroeconomic indicators tell the story: the Iranian rial has lost nearly >> half of its value in nine months, oil exports and revenues are down >> significantly, and inflation is rampant throughout the economy. >> >> The Administration’s recent actions on sanctions include: >> >> - An Executive Order targeting development of Iran’s upstream oil and >> gas industry and petrochemical sector. This order expands existing >> sanctions by authorizing asset freezes on persons who knowingly support >> Iran’s ability to develop its petroleum and petrochemical sector, which is >> one of Iran’s primary sources of funding for public projects like uranium >> enrichment. >> - President Obama also enacted legislation targeting the Central Bank >> and Iran’s oil revenues. Section 1245 of the 2012 National Defense >> Authorization Act (NDAA) places sanctions on foreign financial institutions >> for significant transactions related to the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) and >> designated Iranian financial institutions. As a measure of the successful >> implementation of the legislation, some 20 countries have qualified for >> banking exceptions under the NDAA because they significantly reduced their >> purchase of Iranian crude oil. >> >> In addition, the 27-member European Union implemented a full embargo on >> Iranian crude oil effective July 1. >> >> The possibility of sanctions has persuaded many firms to discontinue >> their business with Iran - Total, Shell, Statoil (Norway), Edison >> International (Italy), and many, many others. In fact, an Iranian official >> recently admitted that sanctions have led, according to their estimates, to >> a 20-30 percent reduction in sales of Iranian crude oil. This translates >> into almost $8 billion in lost revenue every quarter. >> >> Our efforts aren’t limited to oil: as a result of U.S. and multilateral >> sanctions, major shipping lines have ceased servicing Iranian ports. The >> Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), Iran’s major shipping >> line, and the National Iranian Tanker Company, Iran’s tanker fleet, have >> had increasing difficulty in receiving flagging, insurance, and other >> shipping services from reputable providers. This further decreases Iran’s >> ability to gain revenue. >> >> As we continue to seek progress on the negotiating front, we will >> maintain unrelenting pressure on Tehran. We know the pressure we are >> bringing to bear has been vital to getting Iran to the negotiating table. >> We all have a stake in resolving the international community’s concerns >> about Iran’s nuclear program through diplomacy if we can, and so we will >> continue our work with countries around the world to keep pressure on >> Tehran. >> >> *2) **Syria* >> >> Although Iran sanctions continue to produce results, Syria requires a >> different approach. Indeed, as the death toll rises above 17,000, the Syria >> crisis becomes graver every minute. There are food shortages. There is a >> lack of safe access to adequate medical services. Syrian families are >> fleeing the country and registering in refugee camps in neighboring >> countries. It is a rapidly deteriorating humanitarian crisis. >> >> Our goal in Syria is to support a democratic transition that reflects the >> legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people. The United States looks to its >> sanctions toolbox to isolate Asad and deprive him of financial resources >> that allow him to continue attacking the Syrian people. >> >> Even before the current outbreak of violence in February 2011, the United >> States had several sanctions programs against Syria as a result of Syrian >> support for terrorism. More recently, we applied U.S. sanctions through >> a series of Executive Orders, issued by President Obama, targeting >> individuals who use information technology to commit human rights abuses, >> senior officials of the Syrian government, and supporters of the regime >> such as some Syrian businessmen. >> >> The United States joined with likeminded countries in a multilateral >> group known as the “Friends of the Syrian People.” Through this group, we >> work with other countries to harmonize implementation of national sanctions >> regimes and coordinate efforts for implementing a multi-lateral sanctions >> regime. The work of this group is especially important given some countries >> have effectively blocked a UN Security Council resolution calling for >> international sanctions. >> >> In the group, we synchronize the individuals and entities targeted by the >> sanctions, and discuss ways to strengthen sanctions by identifying measures >> that will impact the Assad regime while permitting legitimate trade to >> continue to flow. >> >> So far, U.S. and international sanctions have had a significant effect on >> Assad’s reserves, and are making it difficult for the regime to finance its >> brutality. >> >> But what happens when sanctions are successful? How quickly do you unwind? >> >> *3) **Burma* >> >> Recent positive developments in Burma, that were unimaginable just last >> year, led the Administration to implement an innovative approach that eases >> certain sanctions and incentivizes further political and economic reform. >> Within the past year, over 500 political prisoners have been released, and >> the government and several armed ethnic groups (some of whom have been >> fighting against the government since 1948) have reached preliminary >> ceasefire agreements. Pro-democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi re-registered her >> party and stood for office in recent parliamentary by-elections. She, along >> with 42 other candidates from her party, was elected to Parliament in early >> April. >> >> The Burmese parliament has also taken several steps towards reform, >> including passing new legislation to protect the freedom of assembly and >> the right of workers to form labor unions. The government is also taking >> steps to bring increased transparency to the national budget. >> >> Burma became subject to U.S. sanctions in the 1990s. Those sanctions were >> not universally emulated by many of our traditional allies. But, our >> sanctions are credited with helping to persuade Burma’s leadership to >> reconsider its long-term interests and move toward democratic reform. And >> now the country is becoming a case study in how difficult it is to be >> “smart” about easing sanctions. Our sanctions were initially developed >> before we gave serious consideration to the structure of sanctions and they >> were not built with an exit strategy in mind. That’s made it more difficult >> to address the developments of the last year, and it’s been a valuable >> lesson for crafting future sanctions regimes. >> >> With regard to Burma, even though many of our international partners >> moved to fully suspend their sanctions, we opted for a different route: We >> are easing our sanctions, but in a calibrated manner. Even after our most >> recent easing, we remain vigilant about the protection of human rights, >> corruption, and the role of the military in the Burmese economy. Our >> approach aims to support democratic reform while aiding in the development >> of an economic and business environment that provides benefits to all of >> Burma’s people. >> >> In forming our easing policy, we were also mindful of the desire for >> American companies to contribute to improved human rights, worker rights, >> environmental protection, and transparency in Burma, including the need to >> improve the transparency of the Myanma Oil and Gas Enterprise (MOGE), >> Burma’s state-owned oil company. We sought to do so while working for a >> broad easing across sectors. And we did something that hadn’t been done >> before in a license context: we integrated novel reporting requirements >> into the new investment license. These requirements, which will have a >> public transparency component, cover issues such as due diligence in >> protecting human rights and worker rights, and transparency in land >> acquisition and payments to the Burmese government, including state-owned >> enterprises. In addition, companies working with MOGE must report their >> investment within 60 days. The purpose of the public reporting is to >> promote greater transparency and encourage civil society to partner with >> our companies toward responsible investment. We want American companies to >> take advantage of the new opportunities. We think that by allowing them to >> invest in Burma provides an opportunity to share American values, >> transparency, and model corporate governance in the country. >> >> Another key element of this policy can be found in the general license. >> While permitting new investment and financial services, we do not authorize >> new investment with the Burmese Ministry of Defense, state or non-state >> armed groups (which includes the military), or entities owned by them. U.S. >> persons are also still prohibited from dealing with blocked persons, >> including listed Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs), as well as any >> entities 50 percent or more owned by an SDN. It’s also important to keep in >> mind that the core authorities underlying our sanctions remain in place. >> They weren’t terminated, just suspended. This means that back sliding by >> the Burmese government, or other potential spoilers, on democracy, human >> rights, etc., can be countered with the appropriate measures. >> >> We took the suspension route because while we are encouraged by the >> positive steps that President Thein Sein and his government have taken >> toward a more civilian led and democratic government, concerns still >> remain. These concerns include the continued detention of hundreds of >> political prisoners, ongoing conflict in ethnic areas, and Burma’s military >> relationship with North Korea. Going forward, we hope our calibrated >> approach results in increased democratic values and economic opportunities, >> and diminish human rights abuses. But, again, we have also maintained >> flexibility to further ease, or re-impose, restrictions as necessary. So >> stay tuned on Burma. We are. >> >> So, let’s look at one of our recent successes? >> >> *4) **Libya* >> >> After suffering from more than four decades of erratic and abusive rule >> by Muammar Qadhafi, the people of Libya rose up on early 2011. As the >> Libyan grassroots opposition grew in strength, Qadhafi recognized that his >> grip on power was threatened. He responded by unleashing the Libyan >> military on his own citizens. >> >> Working closely with our allies around the world, the United States moved >> rapidly to support the Libyan people. Our efforts included launching a >> major economic sanctions program specifically geared to target Qadhafi and >> his cronies. The program sought to deprive Qadhafi of the resources >> necessary to sustain his assault, to preserve Libya’s wealth for its >> people, and to signal to Qadhafi and his allies that they were isolated and >> their days were numbered. These efforts were on both domestic and >> multilateral fronts. >> >> Domestically, the U.S. government reached out to U.S. financial >> institutions to identify assets controlled by the Libyan government, >> Qadhafi, his family, and their cronies, in anticipation of a new sanctions >> program, and here we have a pleasant surprise: freezing Libyan assets had a >> far greater impact than first expected. For example, just one financial >> institution held assets of over $29 billion; another held almost $500 >> million in a single portfolio. Freezing these assets substantially >> constrained Qadhafi’s campaign. >> >> But we do not act alone: just as the United States reacted with >> unprecedented speed, so too did the international community. The day after >> President Obama signed the Executive Order to freeze over $30 billion in >> Libyan assets, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions targeting the >> individuals most responsible for the violence. As the conflict intensified, >> the Security Council expanded its approach, imposing further sanctions on >> key financial and economic institutions, such as the Libyan Central Bank, >> the National Oil Corporation, and a number of Libyan sovereign wealth funds. >> >> Unilateral and multilateral sanctions, reinforced with intense diplomatic >> and military efforts, hastened the demise of the Qadhafi regime. Targeted >> sanctions appeared to motivate Libyan leaders to defect, like the Foreign >> Minister Moussa Koussa. Broad private sector support in implementing >> sanctions removed the resources Qadhafi needed to supply his military and >> pay his mercenaries, and safeguarded the wealth of the Libyan people from >> Qadhafi and his cronies. Ultimately, this allowed Libya’s people to >> courageously liberate themselves and begin a new, democratic era. Our goal >> then became to lead a rapid transition to ease sanctions and help Libya >> re-open for business. >> >> Last April, I traveled with representatives from twenty U. S. companies >> to Tripoli. We followed up on U.S. commitments to deepen economic and >> commercial relations with Libya in the aftermath of Qadhafi. While there, I >> was met with overwhelming goodwill for the U.S. and appreciation for U.S. >> leadership in the international operation to protect Libyan civilians >> against Qadhafi’s regime, and in following through with ensuring the new >> Libya was on a path to rebound. >> >> *Conclusion* >> >> Iran, Syria, Burma, and Libya remind us there is no one-size-fits-all >> sanctions strategy. Sanctions tools have to be flexible enough to adapt to >> rapidly changing conditions. From each application of sanctions, we learn a >> new lesson. What we learned from unwinding the Libya sanctions, we applied >> to Burma, and will help us as events unfold in Syria. >> >> We’ve seen success in Libya, changes in Burma, and acknowledgement of an >> impact in Iran. While the results may take months or years to be apparent, >> we know economic sanctions work. They can be a powerful tool in diplomacy – >> a stick whose use we are constantly evaluating and working to improve, and >> to keep smart. >> >> Thank you. >> >> *The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages >> this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department. >> External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an >> endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.* >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Aug 26 15:39:43 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:39:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <503A3454.3080309@itforchange.net> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> <503A3454.3080309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Aug 26, 2012, at 7:36 AM, parminder wrote: > On Sunday 26 August 2012 10:48 AM, David Conrad wrote: >> I was specifically asking for a reference to where any "ICANN apologist claim[s] so" so I can understand their rationale. Your statement is rather bald, so presumably you can back it up. I'm asking for a reference. Can you provide one? > I dont want to dig up all emails and get into a long discussion on you said this, what i meant was this and so on........ So, I gather you choose not to back up your assertion. Useful to know for future discussions. >> If you assume that the "wishes of the US state" are codified in corporate law, I suppose so, but this seems to be a bit of a reach to me. > Why? Doest US state make the corporate law? Yes, but corporate law is a tiny subset of the "wishes of the US state". >> For example, my impression the USG wasn't particularly excited about the creation of .XXX yet ICANN seems to have gone ahead and allowed for its creation, no? > How many time can this one example to used to show the purity of the US state... Until it is demonstrated it is inapplicable, I suspect it will continue to be used. There are others, e.g., processing requests from countries in which it is illegal (as in criminal felony, decades in jail, millions in fines) for US citizens to do business. >> As for abiding by the constraints of executive authority, ICANN, at least in theory, abides by policies created by a bottom-up open process, not by the dictates from the USG executive branch. > In theory, the hierarchy between the two above kinds of control over the ICANN is clear. US laws and general US authority will prevail whether they have exercised it in any strong manner till now or not. And this is not acceptable. If you say so. I eagerly await a full proposal of your alternative that describes an operational entity that exists above nation-state law. > BTW, why dont I get the answer to the main question which started this thread, and is in its subject line. What happens if the US court, having accepted it as a maintainable case, declares .xxx registry agreement to be in contravention of US laws? Does the ICANN system with its chimera of global legitimacy simply unravels that moment? How do you see such a scenario? Despite you being seemingly unwilling to answer my simple question, I'll take a stab at this from an operational perspective (since I'm not a lawyer): If a court were to decide .XXX violated US law (somehow), it could direct ICANN to remove it. However, ICANN, as the IANA functions operator, can't do the job (at least usefully -- the most ICANN can do unilaterally is remove the Whois entry for XXX, but I doubt many people would care). ICANN can at most send a request for a de-delegation to DoC for authorization. Assuming DoC authorizes that request, it would then go to Verisign who would likely remove the entry from the root zone (since DoC authorized it, they'd be silly not to). The XXX-less zone would then get signed and put onto the distribution master where the root server operators would pull it down and serve it to the world's resolvers. I suspect where things might get a bit complicated is in the DoC authorization step. My guess is that DoC would not authorize the request as it would be done outside of documented policies. This in turn would likely result in the lawsuit being redirected to DoC. Assuming the USG allowed the suit to proceed and the judgement was against the DoC, DoC could be forced to authorize the request. It would then run into the other complicated bit -- whether or not the root server operators accept and serve the XXX-less zone. Opinions differ. Does ICANN's legitimacy unravel if this were to occur? Not really, IMHO. The illusion that some (including yourself, I gather) have ICANN is actually in control of anything other than providing a venue in which consensus policies are derived and implemented might unravel, but that would (again, IMHO) be a good thing. >> I figure when you are talking about mucking about with a working albeit imperfect global infrastructure upon which people, nations, and economies are increasingly dependent, you need a bit more than "but the current system is undemocratic!". > All my political and democratic sensibilities make me feel that your sentence above is self contradictory. Then you may need to adjust either your sensibilities or your perception. > You say that Internet has become too important an issue to subject to the democratic criterion !? Nope. I'm saying pretty much exactly the opposite. The Internet has become too important to go mucking about with before exposing exactly how and why you're going to be mucking about to the people who are going to be affected by that mucking about. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Aug 26 16:02:46 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:02:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] ITU: Travel All The Way To Dubai... And Then We'll Decide If You Can Attend Our Meeting On Internet Governance Message-ID: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/21460320121/itu-travel-all-way-to-dubai-then-well-decide-if-you-can-attend-our-meeting-internet-governance.shtmlv Another interesting move from the ITU... Whatever that means! Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Sun Aug 26 17:52:36 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:52:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] ITU: Travel All The Way To Dubai... And Then We'll Decide If You Can Attend Our Meeting On Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <503A9AA4.6060501@panamo.eu> Well, thanks Fahd. How hell could we improve the quality of informations provided by Techdirt and a poor lonesome Republican FCC commissioner? The post is based upon quotes from a Mr. Robert Mcdowell's article. Eg. /Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling:/ * /Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;/ * /Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for "international" Internet traffic, perhaps even on a "per-click" basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;/ * /Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as "peering." / * /Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;/ Mr. Robert Mcdowell : http://www.fcc.gov/leadership - http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/robert-mcdowell NB. He's a lawyer from Virginia, whose famous Court gets Grand Juries who spread generously indictments all around the world: Megaupload; Assange coming soon. It's a pity that suspense and surprise become unlikely with jurors drawn among employees of DOD, CIA, National Counterterrorism Center etc. @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 26/08/12 22:02, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/21460320121/itu-travel-all-way-to-dubai-then-well-decide-if-you-can-attend-our-meeting-internet-governance.shtmlv > > Another interesting move from the ITU... Whatever that means! > > Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 26 18:31:47 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:31:47 +1200 Subject: [governance] ITU: Travel All The Way To Dubai... And Then We'll Decide If You Can Attend Our Meeting On Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <503A9AA4.6060501@panamo.eu> References: <503A9AA4.6060501@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Well, thanks Fahd. > > How hell could we improve the quality of informations provided by Techdirt > and a poor lonesome Republican FCC commissioner? > +1 > The post is based upon quotes from a Mr. Robert Mcdowell's article. > > Eg. *Reading even a partial list of proposals that could be codified into > international law next December at a conference in Dubai is chilling:* > > - *Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;* > > This can never happen. Countries can strengthen their resolve to working towards increased cooperation when it comes to investigation and enforcement but a major barrier is the duality of legislative provisions. The world is far from this stage. Noting however, that Cyber Security is a collection of tools, policies, best practices etc etc. With regards to Data Privacy, we are witnessing a trend within countries themselves of flagrant abuse not only by some players within the Private Sector but also Governments. See EFF website for some examples. > > - *Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for "international" > Internet traffic, perhaps even on a "per-click" basis for certain Web > destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone > companies and government treasuries;* > > Believe it or not, countries have been complaining of telephone hijacking that is an offence in some jurisdictions like Australia under the category of "theft of telecommunications services" and is not a criminal offence in others. To draw from but a few examples around the world we see different categorisations of cyber crime, see the US, Council of Europe and Australia. For some developing countries, loss in call revenue from certain acts means a serious loss of revenue. If we use the example of Ethiopia which was on the list, they have decided to criminalise VOIP (which is a super extreme measure) to sustain their business model to allow for rollout of universal services. > > - *Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for > rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping > agreements known as "peering."* > > If they are referring to the Accounting and Taxation aspects, it will be great to make clear what precisely is being objected to. I mean we are witnessing even within the IETF when JFC Morfin made the call that there needs to be more civil society presence hence the IUCG to ensure that things or design remain people centric because you have corporates holding the reign in decision making processes. To be frank, I am not opposed to the Private Sector because my personal views are that all stakeholders whether they are civil society, private sector or governments are equally important. The Private sector have done alot for building infrastructure, creating markets etc and governments have also a role in stewarding and ensuring that appropriate climates and conditions are present to enable economic growth and also protecting the rights of individuals. Civil Society exists to be a watchdog etc. I would say that the challenge for the multistakeholder environment is now getting them to collaborate. My personal view is that there are two paradigms at play - one holds the view that the model should be self regulatory, that is let sleeping dogs lie. The other paradigm is that there is need for regulation. The reality is that given the complexity of the Internet Architecture and that we live in a global borderless world although some argue that we still live in a world with borders, it follows that the issues for Internet Governance in light of this debate require careful screening. There is a misconception on one view that ITU regulates, in my view it does not. Countries regulate and the means in which they regulate differs. Because all our countries (ie. all those subscribed to this list) are members of the UN with the exception if someone is "stateless" of course, it follows that the UN carries the mandate of all countries and it can only execute that which countries push, so whether it is a big country like the US or a small country like Kiribati, everyone gets one vote at the General Assembly and likewise each country has speaking and voting privileges. On another note with the likes of Google they have also done some really incredible things for humanity. Having seen the excellent contribution in the wake of disaster preparation and mitigation that Google has done, they can remind governments of how they are helping make a difference in Japan, in parts of Africa. Of course at the same time, they must also review certain practices that are questionable. However, the adversarial approach to discussions on critical issues won't do anyone any good. If countries are raising certain issues, then we should listen to their voices even if we disagree and make room for dialogue. The strength of the IGF is the creation of that one "safe space" that will encourage people and organisations of diverse voices to come together to dialogue. It is how we manage that dialogue that will be critical in the days to come. > > - *Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions > of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that > coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world.* > > For this to happen it must mean that countries consent. I personally don't see this happening any time soon as there are far more important things that needs doing instead of taking over a complex task. There are countries outside of the US who have assigned the ICANN to carry out this function > > > Mr. Robert Mcdowell : http://www.fcc.gov/leadership - > http://www.fcc.gov/leadership/robert-mcdowell > NB. He's a lawyer from Virginia, whose famous Court gets Grand Juries who > spread generously indictments all around the world: > Megaupload; Assange coming soon. > It's a pity that suspense and surprise become unlikely with jurors drawn > among employees of DOD, CIA, National Counterterrorism Center etc. > > @+, Dominique > > -- > Dominique Lacroix > Société européenne de l'Internethttp://www.ies-france.eu+33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > > Le 26/08/12 22:02, Fahd A. Batayneh a écrit : > > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/21460320121/itu-travel-all-way-to-dubai-then-well-decide-if-you-can-attend-our-meeting-internet-governance.shtmlv > > Another interesting move from the ITU... Whatever that means! > > Fahd > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 26 19:27:35 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:27:35 +1200 Subject: [governance] South Korean Constitutional Court declares Internet "Real Name Policy as Unconstitutional" Message-ID: Source: http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?artid=201208241354087&code=790101 accessed 27/8/12 Internet "Real Name" Law Violates the Constitution, Of Course Posted on : 2012-08-24 13:54 - Zoom - - - l - - l - - l - - l - - l - - l - The Constitutional Court has decided that the Internet "real name" policy is unconstitutional. The judges unanimously voted that clause 5 of article 44 in the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, which requires websites with more than an average of 100,000 visitors a day to verify the real name of the user when the person posts on the website, violated the Constitution. We welcome the court's decision to protect the freedom of speech by abolishing this anachronistic regulation. The court ruling was mainly supported by the fact that the real name policy infringes the users' right to free speech and to determine personal information, along with the operators' freedom of speech. The court pointed out, "If we are to restrict freedom of expression, public interests we would thereby acquire must be clear. On August 23 at the Constitutional Court, the judges are seated to announce their decision that the Internet real name policy is unconstitutional. From the left are the justices, Lee Jung-Mi, Song Doo-Hwan, Lee Dong-Heub, Kim Jong-Dae, Lee Kang-Kuk, Min Hyeong-Ki, Mok Young-Jun, Park Han-Chul. Yonhap news We have yet to see a sharp decline in illegal postings, and with users fleeing to overseas websites, the policy has caused reverse discrimination between domestic and overseas businesses. Taking these factors into consideration, it is difficult to say that we have contributed to public interest." Apparently, the court has agreed with most of the arguments made by the civic society in their efforts to abolish the real name system. The real name policy was introduced in 2007 to prevent harmful consequences of vicious comments made anonymously. Originally, it was targeted to websites with more than 300,000 visitors a day, but in 2009 the number was lowered to 100,000 visitors, forcing most major websites to follow the policy. However, people criticized the system, questioning its effectiveness and claiming that it only obstructed free speech. As a series of large scale hacking incidents occurred at sites run by Auction, SK Communications, and KT, people pointed out that the policy only encouraged leaks in personal information. Since the candlelight rallies, the Lee Myung-bak government has constantly tried to put a gag on the Internet by reinforcing the real name system and by arresting the Internet columnist known as Minerva. They claimed that they were preventing libel, but underneath their claims is an anti-democratic mind that is trying to muzzle unfavorable press coverage. Why else would *The New York Times* point out, "Online anonymity is essential for political dissidents... and for corporate whistle-blowers," criticizing Korea's real name policy last year? Hiding behind online anonymity and spreading false rumors or slandering someone with abusive words is clearly an act of violence. However, the court's decision has confirmed that implementing a real name policy to control these actions is like burning the house down to roast the pig. Some are concerned that this decision may have side effects, such as the defamation of celebrities online. However, these wrongdoings can be punished by tracing the Internet address of the user. The increase in freedom of speech may bring some discomfort for the time being, but still it is something we should bear. As the Constitutional Court pointed out, "The freedom of expression is an important constitutional value, which is the basis of democracy." -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 26 19:49:34 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:49:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] Apple Samsung Patent Trial: Closing Arguments Delivered In-Reply-To: <009c01cd8331$655f4130$301dc390$@jstyre.com> References: <009c01cd8331$655f4130$301dc390$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: Dear All, The South Korean Summary of the Judgment of the Apple v Samsung saga in South Korea is available via http://news.khan.co.kr/kh_news/khan_art_view.html?artid=201208241533501&code=940301. It is available within te grey box and you can copy its contents and have it translated to a language of your choice, ie. Arabic, Spanish etc. The crude English Translation of the Summary Judgment of 2011가합63647 판결 선고문 원고 애플Inc, 피고 삼성전자 주식회사 using Google is as follows:- 2011 gahap ruling seongomun 63647 Plaintiff Apple Inc., Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. The Type 1 The gist of the plaintiff claims A. Claimer Galaxy S2 that the defendant manufactured, sold products such as the four user interface associated with the plaintiff's patent, ie ① bounce back Bounce Back-related patents, 120 patent, ② Slide the unlock (Slide to Unlock)-related patents, 459 patent , ③ icon reconfiguration Icon Reconfiguration related patents, 123 patents, the heuristics (Heuristics) related patents, 831 patent infringement. B. Design infringement claim Of the six parts of the design, such as the shape of the manuscript of mobile communication devices, namely shape-related design of mobile communication devices 568 Design ①, ② icon array design 156 design, ③ note that the defendant manufactured, sold products of the Galaxy S2 icon related design, 164 design, ⑤ ④ 166 phone icon design design, both books flipped related design, the M10 design, and (6) one book flipped related design, the M12 design infringement. The Unfair competition claims Galaxy S manufactures products sold by the defendant by the plaintiff to mimic the form of products such as the iPhone 3GS mistaken ① consumer confusion was induced, ② weaken discernment as the types of products cover products manuscript violated the Unfair Competition Prevention Law. LA. Infringement prohibited and Claims Defendant stopped to infringe the plaintiff's patent, Galaxy S2, including production, sales, and disposal of products that patents per $ 25 million won by calculating the sum charged as part of the damage suffered by the plaintiff, seeking payment of 100 million won obtained. 2 The judgment of this court A. 120 patents 1) 120 patents 120 patents, a touch-screen display on electronic documents through the contact of the object translocate to reach the edge of the electronic document, the area beyond the edge of the corresponding electronic documents doedaga display, the contact of the user object If you stop invention, which moves in the opposite direction that electronic documents will not be displayed until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document. 120 patents of some dependent claims beyond the edge of the electronic document, the invention is related to the features that slow the movement speed of the electronic document. 2) infringement That drive run by the defendant of Internet products, galleries, such as Notepad, to look at the sun, depending on the user's finger touches the area beyond the edge of the electronic document was shown to stop the touch of a finger, the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is not visible solar powered solar powered, to move in the opposite direction until the 120 patent therefore, defendant 120 products infringe patents. Version of the defendant to build some of the products such driving the sun does not appear, the product did not appear to slow the movement speed of the electronic document features beyond the edge of the electronic document that seems to be, but the defendant argued in the course of defendant about 120 patent infringement and that the product had no quarrel, according to the principle argued defendant Products 120 patent infringement and shall be deemed to have 3) invalid or ) Invented the establishment of Defendants, 120 patents is only externally appear on the touch screen display 'results' visual phenomena lend the instruction format of the program, as described in the abstract, because the invention of established requirements for completeness of invalid claims that 120 patents meet the established requirements of the present invention is presented in the specification of the program to be realized by hardware realization of specific driving sun. ) Described the deficiency Defendant, argued that one of the deficiency described in the 120 patent illegality, the claims of the 120 patent because it is backed by a detailed description of the specification described the deficiency of illegal do not. ) Novelty or inventive step Tile preceding inventions (1) the defendant based on the 120 patent that invention is not already known novelty launch email application, 'Lila' inventions. Launch tile configuration is aligned in the opposite direction, again depending on the user's scroll beyond the edge of the area was interrupted when you touch the end of the e-mail list of e-mail applications will appear when scrolling related inventions 'Lila' column between the reconstructed configuration appears to touch the area beyond the edge of the column was interrupted again in the opposite direction is aligned. Altoona, launch email application tiles Notice that in general, admit that there is no evidence the plaintiff, according to the evidence 2005. Symposium from 10000000000000000 HCLI launch email application tiles vainly conduct that may be acceptable. Tile (2) launch an email application, and 'Lila' 120 patent discloses all components, which, with respect to plaintiff launch tiles and 'Lila' only if the threshold less than or equal to the user's scroll-driven bounce back the sun appears and the user threshold of scrolling more than this drive, so the sun did not appear to argue that there was a difference between the 120 patent configuration and launch, one tile and 'Lila' to scroll all the components of the 120 patent, if more than the threshold bounce not happen one hundred and two to the configuration can be simply added that is intended, eventually including all components of the 120 patent and that 120 patents launch tiles and 'Lila' by the novelty is negative. Launch tiles and 'Lila' by 120 patents of some of the dependent claim (3), however, the invention is related to slow the movement speed of the electronic document beyond the edge of the electronic document if the configuration of novelty negative does not. Defendant's claimed invention can be disclosed in the above dependent subsection 'Lila' scrolling drainage and related technologies on the basis of the defendant to facilitate technical inventiveness that dependent claim above, is 'Lila' are not progressivity denied by no one, so do not accept the above argument. D) sogyeolron Invalid reason for this apparent deadline to patent rights, rights abuses. Of the claims of the 120 patent, as above, the deadline to claim the novelty denied the exercise of rights is not allowed. 4) freedom conduct technical Defendant, the defendant applied to the product technology announcements from technology can be carried out to facilitate the freedom of implementation techniques claimed to be one, as you saw earlier, the defendant beyond the edge 120 of the patent's dependent claims, as to slow down the configuration subsection above-dependent announcements of technical invention can be obtained from the technical evidence that is included, because the defendant's freedom to conduct technical product that does not. 5) sogyeolron Therefore, the plaintiff's 120 patent infringement claims, the remaining claims and dependent claims, ie, that is not shown above are not progressivity denied claim 35, 36, 53, 54, only about 87, 88, 104, 105 to claim based on the allegations made is not the reason. B. 459 patents Features 1) 459 patents When moving the unlock image displayed on the touch screen display to move along the path to display a pre-determined or specific area unlock the 459 patent is the invention of an electronic device to unlock. 2) infringement Defendant product because it includes a way to unlock by sliding the unlock image 459 patents, 459 patent infringement. 3) invalid or ) Invented the establishment of 459 patents is only externally appear on the touch screen display 'results' visual phenomena lend the instruction format of the program, as described in the abstract, because the invention of established requirements for completeness of invalid claims that one defendant, the 459 patent meet the established requirements of the present invention is presented in the specification of the program to be realized by hardware realization of specific driving sun. ) Described the deficiency Defendant, argued that one of the deficiency described in the 459 patent illegality, the claims of the 459 patent because it is backed by a detailed description of the specification described the deficiency of illegal do not. ) Novelty or inventive step Has been developed from the neo-node, four mobile phones, based on 459 patent is not a novelty invention that (1) the defendant presented Of mobile phones is so that you can unlock by sliding your finger along the direction of the arrows that appear on the screen. Altoona eligible prior art that is submitted as evidence in the real world of mobile phones, the fact that there is no basis to plaintiff, in real life, even if not submitted by other evidence in the prior art, technology announcements, recognized that the performances conducted to admit evidence which neo-node Saga 2005. 10000000000000000 N1m mobile phone released by sliding the unlock feature generously admit the fact. 459 (2) Neo-node mobile phones most of the configuration of the patent offers, but offers 459 patents unlock 'image' configuration not. 459 patents by the Neo-node mobile phones novelty negative does not. (3) However, the graphics that move according to the user's touch unlock 'image' 459 patent Plaisant literature, etc., which are well known as an object of the invention is disclosed in Neo-node cell phone by sliding the unlock technology to combine objects in the graphic above normal of the technician is considered easy. 459 patent literature, neo-node mobile phones and Plaisant by the inventive step is denied. 4) sogyeolron 459 patents invalid, so the reason inventiveness defect rights based event does not allow rights abuses. The 123 patents Features 1) 123 patents 123 patent icon reconfiguration mode by entering one of the touch-sensitive display offers a portable electronic device to display a plurality of icons on the finger touches longer than the time prescribed by detecting portable electronic device, the user interface is simple and intuitive how you want so that it can be reconfigured in a way that is invented. 2) infringement Icon above listed specifications of the 123 patent, etc., in summary, means' You can move the position of a plurality of icons in the status of the 'reconfiguration mode' 123 patent, the defendant contact with fingers longer than the time prescribed by swiping fingers does not have a 'reconfiguration' 123 patent configuration only the relevant icon, so you can move. Therefore, the defendant product does not infringe the 123 patent. 3) invalid or Plaintiffs claim that includes finger contact can only move the relevant icon in the status mode, the reconfiguration of the 123 patent, 123 the scope of patent rights be interpreted as such, 123 patents previously disclosed in its filing date, touch screen files on your finger to drag into contact with the same technology or invention, the invention can be facilitated by the above techniques in technology as novelty or inventive step is denied. 4) sogyeolron Therefore, in every sense of the deadlines in the 123 patent, the plaintiff's claim can not be accepted. LA. 831 patents Features 1) 831 patents Heuristics such since finger movements, regardless of the user's finger to the initial movement angle, solely on the basis of a one-dimensional two-dimensional scrolling or scrolling commands corresponding to the 831 patent, invention. 2) infringement The basis of the user's finger on the angle of initial movement defendant that are driving the sun, corresponding to a scrolling command appears by scrolling one-dimensional or two-dimensional. However, Galaxy S, K, U part of the build version, Galaxy S2 scrolling one-dimensional or two-dimensional scrolling command based on the angle of initial movement since the start, even though the angle of the finger movement is rapidly changing, if the above one-dimensional or two-dimensional scrolling command is turned off, so does not infringe the patent, 831. The remaining defendants, except for the above product, products, depending on the angle of initial movement of the one-dimensional or two-dimensional scrolling command is initiated regardless of a one-dimensional or two-dimensional, since the finger movements and scrolling command is maintained infringe the 831 patent. One exceptional driving under the sun related to the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and 0.1 seconds in the angle of the finger movements made on the basis of non-infringement of the 831 patent claims, the defendants within 0.1 seconds of finger movements that can be used to determine the user's intention initial finger movement is difficult to view it as such can not accept the claim. 3) invalid or ) Invented the establishment of 831 patents is only externally appear on the touch screen display 'results' visual phenomena lend the instruction format of the program, as described in the abstract, because the invention of established requirements for completeness of invalid claims that one defendant, the 831 patent meet the established requirements of the present invention is presented in the specification of the program to be realized by hardware realization of specific driving sun. ) Described the deficiency Defendant, argued that one of the deficiency described in the 831 patent illegality, the claims of the 831 patent because it is backed by a detailed description of the specification described the deficiency of illegal do not. C) adding new details Add a new 831 in the patent application process, the defendant argued that the legalities. Observe pray, at the request of the first of the 831 patent, according to the 831 patents filed Inspector angle of initial movement on the basis of 'just listed, this' secondary correction after the initial movement angle, solely on the basis of the initial movement is detected, is called substrate added to admit that, regardless of all other movements. This initial specification not listed in the new additions would be so, 831 Patent Law, Article 133, paragraph 1, item No. 6 according to the patent is invalid reasons. 4) sogyeolron Of new details added 459 patents invalid reason, because exercise of rights based does not allow rights abuses. Matt. 568 Design Design Features 1) 568 568 design as the exterior design of mobile communication devices, the corners right and left, rounded rectangular shape, the surrounding bezel (bezel) ② rectangular shape, 3 on the front screen of a large rectangular-shaped point at the top of the screen, ④ ① ⑤ front operation button at the bottom of the circle, and as long as the speaker holes marked. 2) infringement ) Design books design registration was a novelty in the shape of goods, including announcements of grant, which is the combination of shape, color, shape and appearance filed by announcements partial monopoly and exclusive rights to be recognized, so even if the design highly appreciated and underestimated the importance of the announcements part, the relative importance of novelty in part to judge the books of the same. similar should be. Galaxy S) 568 the defendant's design and product design, corner rounded rectangular shape points, (2) rectangular shape, around the bezel (bezel) in (3) on the front screen of a large rectangular shape ①, ④ shape-related design of mobile communication devices in the above, when viewed in light of the similarities and marked at the top left and right of the screen as long as the speaker holes, one Advanced Design JP1241638 Japanese design, the LG Prada phone design, RCD000569157 European Community Design similarities ①, ②, ③, ④ features designs with already known that, because of the design, including the design of the manuscript, and the defendant's Galaxy S product that just because you share the similarities of the known characteristics of the two designs are the same can not jump to a conclusion like that. Even small variations of the design and feel a sense of aesthetic, design width of the deformation front design for mobile communication devices with touch screen) itself, so no big consumers, especially in this case the plaintiff's design and components are very by the overall aesthetic of the design elements that make small changes have been simplified, as well as the design itself is very small number of components that affect the overall aesthetic can vary greatly. Given these points, the defendant Unlike the front of the button at the bottom of the shape and number, side of the curve, such as the design of the backside of the drawings and the camera, and the design of the manuscript and the manuscript of the design based on minimalism, simplicity and there is a difference, other forms of of the aesthetic sense that the design of mobile communication devices that implement that can be evaluated. Mobile devices with a touch screen, for example, in the design of the front bezel, rounded rectangular form with wide rectangular screen, speakers left and right as long associated with the hole design is known, as well as mobile devices with touch screen, typically On the other hand, the forms that because the width of deformation is not large, and the possibility of wide variations in operation buttons at the bottom of the Galaxy S products, etc., depending on the configuration and design of these operations button, you can get the difference between the overall aesthetic, the defendant selected buttons and three buttons of different shapes, the circular design of the manuscript, there is a difference. Furthermore, selected defendant's Galaxy S product, etc., hair ornaments, 'hairpin' side of the curve, in the form of original manuscript aspects of the design curve and the difference in part, defendant's Galaxy S product backside was added to dense small circular pattern and difference backside and simple, clean design of the manuscript, the camera border, comprehensively consider the extent and importance of the difference of these two designs, the two will be different from the overall aesthetic design. 's Galaxy S product, the defendant's manuscript of the same design and the design is similar in design, it is difficult to see La) 568 in the original design right infringement does not. Bar. 156 Design Design Features 1) 156 Is a design icon icon arrangement on mobile devices and on the 156 design. 2) infringement 156 design described in the specification to design the scope of protection of the rights described in the specification, which is to form as well as the array of icons and the scope of protection to the specific shape of the individual icons are. 156 design similar to the design in order to become icon array, as well as the form the specific shape of the individual icons should be similar. Galaxy S product, the defendant's icon design applied, but the design is similar to the plaintiff's there to see in the form of an array design is similar to the plaintiff's specific shape individual icons in can not see. Thus, the defendant applied to the product does not infringe the rights of the plaintiff 156 design icon design. Four. 164 Design Design Features 1) 164 164 design, is on the note icon design. 2) infringement Galaxy S product, the defendant's applied 164 design reminiscent of the Legal Pad, and Memo icon brown sticky note on the board attached in the shape reminiscent of, and therefore, the two designs are the same, are similar difficult. 3) invalid or Novelty or the plaintiff's memo icon design and Legal Pad Legal Pad concept design design icon design and the same. Similar design or therefrom can facilitate creative design, so there is a reason for the deficiencies of the original cost reason invalid. 4) sogyeolron Thus, plaintiff's claim based on the 164 design in every sense of the word, is no reason. Oh. 166 Design Design Features 1) 166 Design 166 Design icon on the phone. 2) infringement The design of the design, since it's similar to the 166, 166, the defendant used a telephone icon infringement. 3) invalid or Phone icon from the prior design of the defendant previously was used from the 166 design to facilitate design, so you can be creative, original cost of defect of reason invalid reason. 4) sogyeolron 166 obvious to be invalid exercise of rights based on the design corresponds to the abuse of rights is not allowed; Party. M10 Design 1) M10 Design Features M10 is the design of the relevant design of both the book flipped. 2) infringement Wraparound design defendant used books are similar M10 design and design, M10 infringement. 3) invalid or M10 design that can facilitate creative design from the preceding book flipped related design, because the original cost of defect of reason invalid reason. 4) sogyeolron Rights abuses in the exercise of rights void to be obvious based on the M10 design is not permitted by applicable Party. M12 Design 1) M12 Design Features M12 design, design is the one book flipped. 2) infringement Wraparound design defendant used book design similar to the M12, M12 design, so infringement. 3) invalid or M12 design that can facilitate creative design from the preceding book flipped related design, because the original cost of defect of reason invalid reason. 4) sogyeolron Void to be obvious M12 corresponds to the abuse of rights, the exercise of rights based on a design by permit does not. Car. Act confused Source products 1) Thurs prescribed goods subject to act confused whether the Unfair Competition Prevention Law Article 2, paragraph 1 (a) whether the judgment likely to confuse consumers of products subject to actual trading relationship based on whether you need to, so homeopathic products used to observe the overall objective and separation of the two products cover appearance, title, formally the notion of one, even if it is similar to the deal considering the matter to the similarity of confusion If you do not have to worry about the possibility of confusion is denied. ① the thin side, and 2) the plaintiff's iPhone 3, such as the defendant's Galaxy S, ③ transparent surface that covers the front of the shape of a rectangle with rounded corners that face the entire flat and transparent ② the front of the product, the bezel around the (bezel or border) that ④ under the transparent side of a rectangular shape and a wide-screen, the black edges on the perimeter of the screen that when ⑤ unit operates a rectangle with rounded corners in various colors of icons screen are arranged above that there are similarities, but these similarities are difficult, and mobile communication devices, or identify the cover of the tablet computer, which functions as an important element In addition to these similarities, the difference between the front bottom center of the operation buttons, ①, ② manuscript marked apple-shaped emblem on the back of the product (), and defendant indicated on the product indicates that the defendant's product) emblem (low prestige, such ③ plaintiff's iPhone 3, brand names and the defendant's Galaxy S and the product name itself jujiseong prominent lettering on the packaging box is displayed when you purchase ④ mobile devices and tablet computers, consumers simply rare and reported only if you choose the appearance, product names, operating system, performance, trademarks, works, manuscripts, applications, to select the product, price, after-sales service, the existing product or service, and the compatibility of several factors, including the comprehensive consideration of the general points such as the summary, when the real deal in relation to confuse consumers by the products of the plaintiff and defendant's products possibilities that will 3) confused acts of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law on Product Source defendant was the plaintiff's claim is not the reason. Car. Prominent Trademark Dilution Act 1) the well-known trademarks of the Unfair Competition Prevention Law Article 2, paragraph 1 (c) of subdivision prescribed dilution, in order to constitute an act of the plaintiff's iPhone 3 products in the form of the plaintiff's product, indicating that identifies me as a cover, and the need to acquire the reputation the form of a product is identified, the cover has acquired a reputation as low, with the product in the form of distinctive features traders or consumers, as well as to most of the general public are significantly individualized enough to cover sales of a particular source is reminiscent gain dominance enough to be reached. Observe how about the form of products 2) the plaintiff identified as a sign earned me fame pray alone, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's iPhone 3 cover as of such identification in the form of the product acquired that reputation and to admit that the lack of , otherwise there is no evidence to admit it. 3) There is no evidence that the defendant admit to dilute the distinctiveness of the plaintiff identify the products of the cover was also 4) the defendant acts to dilute the prominent trademark on the Unfair Competition Prevention Law was the plaintiff's claim without reason. Other. Infringement prohibited and damages, obligations, 1) the defendant to stop production and sales of products, including some 120 patents of the plaintiff's infringement of a dependent claim that Galaxy S2 has an obligation to dispose of the above products. 2) the plaintiff claimed damages only partially the case is not finalized for the full amount of damages to the plaintiff's damages, but not exceed the amount of the plaintiff to obtain a clear, because the defendant, as the plaintiff to obtain part of the damages suffered by the plaintiff, obligated to pay $ 25 million of liquidated damages and delays. Order 1 The defendant, A. Appendix 1 list, listed for each product, production, transfer, lease, or rental offer for rental or transfer (including exhibits) to import or transfer shall not be B. Repeal all finished and semi-finished products are kept in the defendant's office, factory, warehouse, office, Exhibit 1 lists each product listed. 2 Fri 25,000,000 and the defendant to the plaintiff for 2011. 6 30 from 2012. 8 24 until the annual 5%, let them off the next day from the day of the amounts owed by each rate of 20% per annum until paid. 3 Dismissed the plaintiff's remaining claim. 4 Litigation costs 3/4 of the plaintiff, and the rest shall be borne by the defendant. 5 Paragraphs 1 and 2 can be gajiphaeng -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Aug 26 19:55:19 2012 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:55:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B13088C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.sy r.edu> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B13088C@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: At 18:10 25/08/2012, Lee W McKnight wrote: >Several of us have been asking you to try again to come up with a >viable 'Third Way' model. Dear Lee, the pity is that the "third Way" model is quite simple: it is the one described by RFCs and supported but NOT implemented by ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/about/unique-authoritative-root). However, I acknowledge that the List of Content I maintain: http://iutf.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_-_RFCs is somewhat ill presented is somewhat awkward to read. jfc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sun Aug 26 20:52:18 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:52:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] ITU: Travel All The Way To Dubai... And Then We'll Decide If You Can Attend Our Meeting On Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483C951B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Fahd, thanks for the very specific pointer to this question in the ITU WCIT FAQ. Civil society and multistakeholder organizations still wear the scars of similar rulings in the past. In particular during the WSIS process they were left outside the room more than once. In some occasions they were admitted grudgingly. And even then, they found the room already stuffed with "astroturf" organizations which impeded any meaningful participation. The most memorable of these occasions was in a PrepCom for the Tunis stage in which Tunisian organizations did this trick in Geneva. (For non-US English speakers now) "Astroturf" means artificial grass, first used in the Astrodome stadium of US American football. Its political meaning refers to organizations which appear to be "grassroots", i.e. bottom-up, self-organized popular representations, but in fact are created or facilitated by those they oppose, such as big companies or especially governments. Traces of that behavior may appear for example in organizations which are nominally opposed to their governments's conduct but go around pushing governmental agendas, write papers for their governments without disclosing the funding, consulting, or other arrangements, etc. The suspicion that some organizations may be astroturf is very painful in the multistakeholder environment. Some serious analysts (I'll quote you some authors if need be) consider this lack of proof of legitimacy a serious weakness of NGOs. I've certainly gone through some processes in which anti-ICANN "NGOs" or "CSOs" or "think tanks" have been established and then disappeared without trace, and you can see a few of those operating in the new-gTLD environment. Back to the issue at hand, civil society and multistakeholder organizations would do well to press for guarantees of admittance and a real chance to speak in WCIT, if that is ever going to happen, before buying airplane tickets to Dubai. Another angle, of course, is to take precedent of a recent ITU meeting, the meeting of Plenipotentiary Ministers in 2010, in Guadalajara, Mexico, known as PP-10 and immortalized in the Twitter hashtag #PP10. In that meeting, a small number of rapporteurs from Sector Members and the press, as well as in national delegations, tweeted from the meetings. The reactions in the backchannel were significant enough to cause Dr. Touré to warn the meeting at some point that they risked becoming the laughing stock of the world if they didn't make more progress. We will always have Cyberspace. (apologies, Dominique, for leaving your comment aside; it goes to a different point of Fahd's conveyed message.) Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de Fahd A. Batayneh [fahd.batayneh at gmail.com] Enviado el: domingo, 26 de agosto de 2012 15:02 Hasta: IG Caucus Asunto: [governance] ITU: Travel All The Way To Dubai... And Then We'll Decide If You Can Attend Our Meeting On Internet Governance http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120821/21460320121/itu-travel-all-way-to-dubai-then-well-decide-if-you-can-attend-our-meeting-internet-governance.shtmlv Another interesting move from the ITU... Whatever that means! Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Aug 26 21:14:00 2012 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 03:14:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Modern Global Standards Paradigm In-Reply-To: References: <009c01cd8331$655f4130$301dc390$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: At 21:45 26/08/2012, IETF Chair wrote: >The version with the phrase deleted is now available: >http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-16.pdf The Internet is now commercial. And the IETF the first strategic opponent of the Civil Society. Great care should now be paid to the Patinum, Gold and Silver Member ISOC's affiliates IAB/IETF's positions as now revamped by this declaration. Previous RFCs on the matter (RFC 3869 and RFC 3935) said that network technology neutrality depended on Governments' funding of the Internet R&D and that the Internet technology was not to be the technology that's possible but the one that resonated with concepts and core values not mentionned any more and even probably opposed. This document refers to the *market*, *not* to the users *nor* to the people. 8/26 the Internet 9/11. The IETF Chair indicates that they want to publish this document as an RFC. I personnally intend to appeal this publication and/or join any collective appeal that could be formed. My personnal position is to defend the IETF "edge-user empowerment" core value documented in RFC 3935, Statement of Mission for the IETF. jfc >On Aug 24, 2012, at 11:11 AM, IETF Chair wrote: > > > Thank you for the lively discussion. Based on the great number > of messages, I judge that there is rough consensus for the IETF > Chair and the IAB Chair signing the Affirmation. The Last Call > asks for people to speak up if they have strong > objections. Despite the phrasing of the question, many people > spoke in favor of this action. > > > > A few people raised concerns about the process that lead to this > document. First, Bernard Aboba, acting as IAB Chair, sent the > statement out and asked for comment. Then, the document was > discussed in the plenary session on Vancouver. Finally, on August > 10th, I sent out the Last Call. Comments sent in reply to > Bernard's message and comments from the plenary discussion were > addresses prior to the Last Call. > > > > Here are the versions: > > Asked for comment: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-4.pdf > > Last Call: > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf > > > > This document is not intended for the standards track. The IAB > is considering publication as an Informational RFC to preserve the > document in the RFC series. > > > > Based on the comments received during the Last Call, one change > is being made to the document. The document said: > > > > 4. Availability. Standards specifications are made accessible to all for > > implementation and deployment. Affirming standards organizations > have defined > > procedures to develop specifications that can be implemented > under fair terms. > > Given market diversity, fair terms may vary from royalty-free > (especially where > > open source is commonplace) to fair, reasonable, and > non-discriminatory terms > > (FRAND). > > > > The Last Call raised a concern, asking for deletion of this phrase: > > > > (especially where open source is commonplace) > > > > Based on the Last Call discussion, this change was recommended to > the other signers. This change was accepted, and this phrase will be deleted. > > > > Thanks again, > > Russ Housley > > IETF Chair > > > > > > On Aug 10, 2012, at 11:19 AM, IETF Chair wrote: > > > >> > >> The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation > >> of the Modern Global Standards Paradigm, which can be found > >> here: > >> > >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-iesg-opsplenary-15.pdf > >> > >> An earlier version was discussed in plenary, and the IAB Chair called > >> for comments on the IETF mail list. This version includes changes > >> that address those comments. > >> > >> Th IETF 84 Administrative plenary minutes have been posted, so that > >> discussion can be reviewed if desired. The minutes are here: > >> > >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/minutes/minutes-84-iesg-opsplenary > >> > >> On 8 August 2012, the IEEE Standards Association Board of Governors > >> approved this version of the document. The approval process is > >> underway at the W3C as well. > >> > >> The IETF Chair and the IAB Chair intend to sign the Affirmation in the > >> next few weeks. Please send strong objections to the iab at iab.org > >> and the ietf at ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-08-24. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> Russ Housley > >> IETF Chair > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 26 21:23:09 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:23:09 +1200 Subject: [governance] ITU: Travel All The Way To Dubai... And Then We'll Decide If You Can Attend Our Meeting On Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483C951B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D483C951B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: > > > Back to the issue at hand, civil society and multistakeholder > organizations would do well to press for guarantees of admittance and a > real chance to speak in WCIT, if that is ever going to happen, before > buying airplane tickets to Dubai. > > One way to do it would be for the CSIGC to write officially to the IGF > Secretariat and request for an Invitation for two designated > representatives to the WCIT. I know that there are some who are on this > list who will attend in various other capacities. Just as every > organisation or board differs on the issues of meeting and speaking rights, > and especially in instances like this it is expected that only countries > represented through government representatives will have speaking rights. I > have never seen a United Nations General Assembly meeting being opened to > enable just about anyone to participate as there are structures in place. > The CSTD on the other hand make allowances for the involvement and > inclusion of civil society. On something like the review of Treaties, it is > not unusual to have only governments come to the table and if this is > opened, then it becomes a privilege and not a right. My personal view is > that even as an observer where we do not speak, one can at least taste the > air. The better strategy would be to communicate directly with > representatives within countries [to each man or woman his own country] as > they consolidate their national positions to take to the table. We can see > using the US for example, that the USG have invited US citizens to join > their mailing list and make contributions as they prepare to take their > positions to Dubai. I am sure civil society around the world are already > engaging with their representatives. Many roads lead to Rome. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Mon Aug 27 02:21:30 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:21:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> <5039B8C0.3010006@panamo.eu> Message-ID: Sala, On Aug 26, 2012, at 1:55 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: >> [...] Personally, I've always found it somewhat depressing that people in forums such as this focus on stuff like what TLDs will be created or who has the power to deny those TLDs when the _real_ "critical Internet resources" are things like fibers and base stations and electricity and environments that allow folks to interconnect their devices and networks together. None of these are in ICANN's purview, but I guess it is a lot easier for folks to throw rocks at ICANN and/or the USG than deal with the policies and infrastructures in their own countries. > I respectfully disagree with your comment about people not wanting to deal with policies and infrastructures in their own countries and would rather throw stones at ICANN. I'm not sure we disagree, rather we're talking about different actors. Having been to a couple of IGFs in the past (Rio and Sharm), numerous ICANN meetings (both as staff and not), and witness to discussion on this list for a couple of months, I've observed lots of discussion about who should allow what strings into the root zone, who permits/forbids what content, etc., but precious little discussion about how to improve the physical infrastructure and regulatory regimes that permit/promote Internet connectivity particularly in lesser served areas. Since the latter is sort of a pre-requisite for the former to be more than an academic exercise, I have always found this ... confusing. In my experience, the folks who are actually doing stuff to improve the connectivity situation (either infrastructure or policy) in their countries aren't the ones throwing rocks -- after all, they tend to be pragmatic "how to I get stuff done"-types and are generally too busy doing stuff (:-)). > The tLD market also affects us in the Pacific. Out of curiosity, in what way? Specifically, how does the current bottom-up consensus policy approach not work for folks in the Pacific -- I can imagine some challenges, particular related to travel/communications, but I'd be interested in understanding more about the issues from those directly involved. > I would not be surprised that this is a view commonly held by many as the issues and complexities of small island developing states are not rarely known because it is often seen as insignificant in the grand scheme of things. I won't bore you with my background, but I suspect I might have a bit more understanding of issues in the Pacific than most. In fact, my knowledge of the difficulties and costs in building infrastructure in the AP region in particular has been one reason I've gotten frustrated at IGFs/etc: the priorities seem skewed to me -- what is the point in arguing about TLDs (etc) when entire countries can't get reliable/affordable connectivity to query those TLDs? > The recent Pacific Broadband Forum which was facilitated by the ITU gave us the opportunity to hear first hand from countries in the Pacific and this included the Private Sector and Government. While at ICANN, I was asked to speak at a Pacific Islands Telecommunications Association (http://www.pita.org.fj) meeting and found one of the more interesting parts of the meeting to be when various folks from all over the Pacific got up and spoke about the various issues they were having and the ways they got around those issues. It's nice to know the ITU is facilitating similar meetings although I suspect it'd be nicer for folks travel budgets if the facilitators of the various regional meetings could cooperate in order to coalesce at the same time/place (e.g., it would be cool to get an APRICOT meeting, a PITA meeting, and a PBF meeting co-resident). > That's exactly why WCIT-12 in Dubai has to deal with some Internet matters. Not all, but it's part. I'm pleased to hear that basic infrastructure issues for lesser served economies will be a topic for WCIT-12. However, one of the past complaints of those sorts of meetings (at least from Internet folk) is that they have tended to try to reinforce existing policy regimes (or even to rewind the clock to past regimes) instead of looking to see how telecoms infrastructure and policy can be adapted to rapidly changing technology. Perhaps this meeting will be different. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 27 07:28:55 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 06:28:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] visas for azerbaijan on arrival In-Reply-To: References: <5028E26F.6020805@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Has anyone received the described letter for the visa on arrival, after emailing visainquiries at igf2012.az ? I emailed August 13, but have had no response. Does anyone have more information? I don't want to re-send if it is just a matter of giving them time... I refer to: b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation of registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host country's IGF visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az Thanks, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque Foreigners or stateless persons coming to the Republic of Azerbaijan for Internet Governance Forum-2012, which will be held in Baku, can receive visas from the structural sections of the Consular Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which are located in the Baku Heydar Aliyev International Airport or from the Consular Depatments of the Republic of Azerbaijan located in foreign countries. *The upon arrival visa application period starts from 15 October to 8 November, 2012. There are two supporting documents which will serve as the basis for granting the visa:* a) ‘Confirmation of registration’-form which will be provided by the IGF Secretariat at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ and b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation of registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host country's IGF visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 14 August 2012 04:56, Adam Peake wrote: > Baudouin, Hi. > > > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Baudouin Schombe > wrote: > > Hello, > > For countries that have no diplomatic representation, is it possible to > have > > the visa on arrival? > > > > Yes, exactly. If your country does not have and Azerbaijan > embassy/consular office you can get a visa on arrival. > > See the link Carlos provided > for more > information about the forms you need. > > Adam > > > > > > > I think these are provisions that must be considered! > > > > Baudouin > > > > 2012/8/13 Mawaki Chango > >> > >> [Sigh of relief] Thanks! > >> > >> m. > >> > >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: > >> >> Hi people, > >> >> > >> >> Maybe most of you have already seen this info. > >> >> > >> >> I've just got confirmation email of my registration for Baku IGF > >> >> reminding me of the info regarding visas in the IGF 2012 website. I > >> >> think the issues regarding visas are settled now (see below). There > is > >> >> no info on costs though. > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > My understanding is that the visa will be free. However, checking > >> > this and will get back with confirmation. > >> > > >> > Adam > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> frt rgds > >> >> > >> >> --c.a. > >> >> > >> >> http://igf2012.com/?mod=content&sub=bottom&id=116&lang=en > >> >> > >> >> General information > >> >> > >> >> Foreigners or stateless persons coming to the Republic of Azerbaijan > >> >> for > >> >> Internet Governance Forum-2012, which will be held in Baku, can > receive > >> >> visas from the structural sections of the Consular Department of the > >> >> Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which are > >> >> located in the Baku Heydar Aliyev International Airport or from the > >> >> Consular Depatments of the Republic of Azerbaijan located in foreign > >> >> countries. > >> >> > >> >> The upon arrival visa application period starts from 15 October to 8 > >> >> November, 2012. There are two supporting documents which will serve > as > >> >> the basis for granting the visa: > >> >> > >> >> a) ‘Confirmation of registration’-form which will be provided by the > >> >> IGF > >> >> Secretariat at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ > >> >> and > >> >> b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the > >> >> participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation of > >> >> registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host > country's > >> >> IGF visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> >> > >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> >> > >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> > To be removed from the list, visit: > >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: > >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 27 07:33:12 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 23:33:12 +1200 Subject: [governance] visas for azerbaijan on arrival In-Reply-To: References: <5028E26F.6020805@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, I emailed them immediately after receiving my confirmation of registration from the IGF Secretariat and got a reply within two hours. They said that my request was received and was being processed. I assume that it's in some sort of queue as technically the processing does not start till later as per the information on the website. Best, Sala On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Has anyone received the described letter for the visa on arrival, after > emailing visainquiries at igf2012.az ? > I emailed August 13, but have had no response. > Does anyone have more information? I don't want to re-send if it is just a > matter of giving them time... > > I refer to: > > b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the > participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation of > registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host country's IGF > visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az > > Thanks, > Ginger > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > > > Foreigners or stateless persons coming to the Republic of Azerbaijan for > Internet Governance Forum-2012, which will be held in Baku, can receive > visas from the structural sections of the Consular Department of the > Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which are > located in the Baku Heydar Aliyev International Airport or from the > Consular Depatments of the Republic of Azerbaijan located in foreign > countries. > > *The upon arrival visa application period starts from 15 October to 8 > November, 2012. > There are two supporting documents which will serve as the basis for > granting the visa:* > > a) ‘Confirmation of registration’-form which will be provided by the IGF > Secretariat at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ > and > b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the > participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation of > registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host country's IGF > visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > ** > ** > > > > On 14 August 2012 04:56, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Baudouin, Hi. >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Baudouin Schombe >> wrote: >> > Hello, >> > For countries that have no diplomatic representation, is it possible to >> have >> > the visa on arrival? >> > >> >> Yes, exactly. If your country does not have and Azerbaijan >> embassy/consular office you can get a visa on arrival. >> >> See the link Carlos provided >> for more >> information about the forms you need. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> > >> > I think these are provisions that must be considered! >> > >> > Baudouin >> > >> > 2012/8/13 Mawaki Chango >> >> >> >> [Sigh of relief] Thanks! >> >> >> >> m. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Carlos A. Afonso >> wrote: >> >> >> Hi people, >> >> >> >> >> >> Maybe most of you have already seen this info. >> >> >> >> >> >> I've just got confirmation email of my registration for Baku IGF >> >> >> reminding me of the info regarding visas in the IGF 2012 website. I >> >> >> think the issues regarding visas are settled now (see below). There >> is >> >> >> no info on costs though. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > My understanding is that the visa will be free. However, checking >> >> > this and will get back with confirmation. >> >> > >> >> > Adam >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> frt rgds >> >> >> >> >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> >> >> >> http://igf2012.com/?mod=content&sub=bottom&id=116&lang=en >> >> >> >> >> >> General information >> >> >> >> >> >> Foreigners or stateless persons coming to the Republic of Azerbaijan >> >> >> for >> >> >> Internet Governance Forum-2012, which will be held in Baku, can >> receive >> >> >> visas from the structural sections of the Consular Department of the >> >> >> Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which are >> >> >> located in the Baku Heydar Aliyev International Airport or from the >> >> >> Consular Depatments of the Republic of Azerbaijan located in foreign >> >> >> countries. >> >> >> >> >> >> The upon arrival visa application period starts from 15 October to 8 >> >> >> November, 2012. There are two supporting documents which will serve >> as >> >> >> the basis for granting the visa: >> >> >> >> >> >> a) ‘Confirmation of registration’-form which will be provided by the >> >> >> IGF >> >> >> Secretariat at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ >> >> >> and >> >> >> b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the >> >> >> participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation >> of >> >> >> registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host >> country's >> >> >> IGF visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> > >> >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> > >> >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To 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 >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Aug 27 07:47:37 2012 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:47:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Visas for Azerbaijan on arrival In-Reply-To: <1233847693-1345694050-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-81397604-@b2.c17.bise7.blackberry> References: <1339523721.34336.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>,,<1344796262.95828.YahooMailNeo@web120903.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>,,<1233847693-1345694050-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-81397604-@b2.c17.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: Hi GingerPls find below the response that I got. Not sure whether this is the confirmation letter they talk about. RgdsGrace Subject: Re: Request for invitation letter for IGF 2012 To: ggithaiga at hotmail.com; visainquiries at igf2012.az From: igf2012visa at gmail.com Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 03:54:08 +0000 Dear Grace Githaiga, It is accepted for processing.Best Regards, Murad Maksudov IGF Host Country Secretariat, Visa Department +994702100900 Sent from mobile device, apologies for any typos.From: Grace Githaiga Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:44:52 +0000To: Cc: ggithaiga at hotmail.comSubject: Request for invitation letter for IGF 2012 Dear Sir/Madam I would like to request for an invitation letter to the 2012 IGF. Find attached my passport details as requested, as well as my registration confirmation. Looking forward to hearing from you.RgdsGrace -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 27 07:53:42 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 06:53:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Visas for Azerbaijan on arrival In-Reply-To: References: <1339523721.34336.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1344796262.95828.YahooMailNeo@web120903.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1233847693-1345694050-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-81397604-@b2.c17.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: Thanks Sala and Grace. I did not get that email, so I have re-sent. Thanks! Cheers, Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 27 August 2012 06:47, Grace Githaiga wrote: > Hi Ginger > Pls find below the response that I got. Not sure whether this is the > confirmation letter they talk about. > Rgds > Grace > > ------------------------------ > Subject: Re: Request for invitation letter for IGF 2012 > To: ggithaiga at hotmail.com; visainquiries at igf2012.az > From: igf2012visa at gmail.com > Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 03:54:08 +0000 > > Dear Grace Githaiga, > > It is accepted for processing. > Best Regards, > > Murad Maksudov > IGF Host Country Secretariat, > Visa Department > +994702100900 > > Sent from mobile device, apologies for any typos. > ------------------------------ > *From: * Grace Githaiga > *Date: *Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:44:52 +0000 > *To: * > *Cc: *ggithaiga at hotmail.com > *Subject: *Request for invitation letter for IGF 2012 > > > Dear Sir/Madam > > I would like to request for an invitation letter to the 2012 IGF. Find > attached my passport details as requested, as well as my registration > confirmation. > > Looking forward to hearing from you. > Rgds > Grace > > ** > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Aug 27 08:31:58 2012 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 13:31:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] List subscriber options - NOTHING works Message-ID: Dear List Managers I would like to set my list delivery option to "nomail", but .... On the options on the left, I can see "subscribe", "unsubcribe" and a few others, but nothing about "subscription options". Reading the help page, says I must log on. However, I cannot recall my password and the authentication option does nothing - if you click on it, it just reloads the page that you are on. If you try to deliberately login without a password, it should automatically get you to an error page with help options - it does not. Any suggestions? Best regards, Rui -- _________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Work Consultant Bridge to Angola - Angola Liaison Consultant Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 _______________ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 27 14:25:42 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 18:25:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <5038BD70.7080909@itforchange.net> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5038BD70.7080909@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22082FD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Parminder, No, it will make European/ Indian decision applicable *only* to ICM registry and *not* to the ICANN. This is a straight forward and obvious fact despite your very clever attempt to twist it to suit you. Ø don't assume everyone is trying to apologize for imperialism when they are Ø simply explaining things to you. I know it's sometimes embarrassing to be wrong Ø in public, but it happens to all of us. Ø Ø If ICANN - which, like Google or Microsoft, also operates in Europe - was found to be a Ø co-conspirator to dominate the market for porn with a domain name registry then Ø European antitrust law would be as applicable as US law. See how EU antitrust actions Ø have affected Intel, MSFT and, potentially, Google. Ø Ø But of course, it IS true that if ICANN is found to violate California Corporation law Ø then California law would be applicable in special ways that no other jurisdiction would have. Ø However, by this standard people like me outside of California are as disenfranchised as Ø you are. In other words, I have no more say and representation in California law than you do. Ø I do not vote for its legislature, I do not pay it taxes (thank God). Ø Now, either you are forced to admit that 80% of the US is subject to the same injustice as Ø you or (as I suspect will happen) you will continue to play the US card because that kind Ø Of identity politics is more effective at getting people lathered up, just like Japanese/Chinese/ Ø Korean nationalism over small dead rocks in the sea And your solution to this problem is? As a key political actor in this space you must have some kind of a possible solution, and a possible roadmap to it. Ø Read my book Ø (sorry Bill, did it again. But in this case, perhaps warranted?) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Aug 28 03:49:49 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:49:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22082FD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5038BD70.7080909@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22082FD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2B5A2D4F-A85E-4A04-A0D4-BCA4D42E78B5@uzh.ch> On Aug 27, 2012, at 8:25 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Parminder, > > > No, it will make European/ Indian decision applicable *only* to ICM registry and *not* to the ICANN. This is a straight forward and obvious fact despite your very clever attempt to twist it to suit you. > > Ø don't assume everyone is trying to apologize for imperialism when they are > Ø simply explaining things to you. I know it's sometimes embarrassing to be wrong > Ø in public, but it happens to all of us. > Ø > Ø If ICANN - which, like Google or Microsoft, also operates in Europe - was found to be a > Ø co-conspirator to dominate the market for porn with a domain name registry then > Ø European antitrust law would be as applicable as US law. See how EU antitrust actions > Ø have affected Intel, MSFT and, potentially, Google. > Ø > Ø But of course, it IS true that if ICANN is found to violate California Corporation law > Ø then California law would be applicable in special ways that no other jurisdiction would have. > Ø However, by this standard people like me outside of California are as disenfranchised as > Ø you are. In other words, I have no more say and representation in California law than you do. > Ø I do not vote for its legislature, I do not pay it taxes (thank God). > Ø Now, either you are forced to admit that 80% of the US is subject to the same injustice as > Ø you or (as I suspect will happen) you will continue to play the US card because that kind > Ø Of identity politics is more effective at getting people lathered up, just like Japanese/Chinese/ > Ø Korean nationalism over small dead rocks in the sea > > And your solution to this problem is? As a key political actor in this space you must have some kind of a possible solution, and a possible roadmap to it. > > Ø Read my book > Ø (sorry Bill, did it again. But in this case, perhaps warranted?) Uh, well, er…maybe that and some other sources (and no, not just your blog). Bill Warren's Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism comes to mind :-) Anyway, wake me when we get past 2003 and small dead rocks. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 28 04:11:50 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 20:11:50 +1200 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> <5039B8C0.3010006@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 6:21 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Sala, > > On Aug 26, 2012, at 1:55 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> [...] Personally, I've always found it somewhat depressing that people > in forums such as this focus on stuff like what TLDs will be created or who > has the power to deny those TLDs when the _real_ "critical Internet > resources" are things like fibers and base stations and electricity and > environments that allow folks to interconnect their devices and networks > together. > I apologise for the delayed response. One of the four Policy areas being as the *Infrastructure and Management of Critical Internet Resources*described within the WGIG 2005 Report and I enclose the link for those new to the list and new to IG discussions ( http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf) page 5 Part III para 13:- "(a) Issues relating to infrastructure and the management of critical Internet resources, including administration of the domain name system and Internet protocol addresses (IP addresses), administration of the root server system, technical standards, *peering and interconnection, telecommunications infrastructure, * *including innovative and convergent technologies*, as well as multilingualization. These issues are matters of direct relevance to Internet governance and fall within the ambit of existing organizations with responsibility for these matters; " It is not unusual to have discussions on any of these aspects. I agree that there is not alot of space within the IGF to have sufficient discussions and "air time" on these. I do know that Packet Clearing House along with ARIN and ISOC on Peering and IXPs which I thought was very relevant to the issue of "Access". There are some diverse challenges globally and it would seem to me that the IGF is a fantastic place to raise and share best practices lessons so that when these stakeholders return can leapfrog. I agree with you in this regard. That does not mean however that there are no discussions on other aspects. I will just use two examples, to make my point. - Whois Look Ups is a significant issue especially when it comes to accuracy of records and at the end of the day it becomes incumbent on Registrars to properly manage these. - Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 etc [poor anti dumping laws, and general lack of awareness can make Telcos in the Pacific region vulnerable targets especially when procuring supposedly v6 compatible equipment that do not meet certain standards. There are lessons to be learnt from across the world so that errors are not repeated - for the industry this can mean huge cost savings which is plus especially in countries where resources are severely constrained; I personally think that the RIRs are already doing an excellent job in engaging with all stakeholders especially in the region. My sense that they are an excellent role model for other Internet Stakeholders. I perceive them to be not "political" but just purely operational and technical. > None of these are in ICANN's purview, but I guess it is a lot easier for > folks to throw rocks at ICANN and/or the USG than deal with the policies > and infrastructures in their own countries. > > I respectfully disagree with your comment about people not wanting to > deal with policies and infrastructures in their own countries and would > rather throw stones at ICANN. > > I'm not sure we disagree, rather we're talking about different actors. Yes I may have misunderstood what you wrote earlier. Having been to a couple of IGFs in the past (Rio and Sharm), numerous ICANN > meetings (both as staff and not), and witness to discussion on this list > for a couple of months, I've observed lots of discussion about who should > allow what strings into the root zone, who permits/forbids what content, > etc., but precious little discussion about how to improve the physical > infrastructure and regulatory regimes that permit/promote Internet > connectivity particularly in lesser served areas. Since the latter is sort > of a pre-requisite for the former to be more than an academic exercise, I > have always found this ... confusing. > > I suppose people are free to write about what interests them. Please feel free to generate discussions on any topic of your choice as long as it's related to Internet Governance or if you can link it or have spin off one of the IG policy areas as people have done with the recent Assange ;) In my experience, the folks who are actually doing stuff to improve the > connectivity situation (either infrastructure or policy) in their countries > aren't the ones throwing rocks -- after all, they tend to be pragmatic "how > to I get stuff done"-types and are generally too busy doing stuff (:-)). > I agree and you also have the exception as is with life in general...:) > > > The tLD market also affects us in the Pacific. > > Out of curiosity, in what way? The tLD market affects the Pacific just as it affects the rest of the world. > Specifically, how does the current bottom-up consensus policy approach not > work for folks in the Pacific I never said it did'nt. > - > > > I would not be surprised that this is a view commonly held by many as > the issues and complexities of small island developing states are not > rarely known because it is often seen as insignificant in the grand scheme > of things. > > I won't bore you with my background, but I suspect I might have a bit more > understanding of issues in the Pacific than most. In fact, my knowledge of > the difficulties and costs in building infrastructure in the AP region in > particular has been one reason I've gotten frustrated at IGFs/etc: the > priorities seem skewed to me -- what is the point in arguing about TLDs > (etc) when entire countries can't get reliable/affordable connectivity to > query those TLDs? > Your statement is again premised on developing countries focusing on rolling out infrastructure and not raise issues if it is TLD related. I think they can and should do both otherwise they will be left behind. I hear what you are saying but I also think that generally countries are competent in raising their issues and prioritising what they see fit. Within the Pacific region, I know that currently Prime Ministers are gathering in Cook Islands as they do every year to discuss regional priorities. > > > The recent Pacific Broadband Forum which was facilitated by the ITU gave > us the opportunity to hear first hand from countries in the Pacific and > this included the Private Sector and Government. > > While at ICANN, I was asked to speak at a Pacific Islands > Telecommunications Association (http://www.pita.org.fj) meeting and of > the more interesting parts of the meeting to be when various folks from all > over the Pacific got up and spoke about the various issues they were having > and the ways they got around those issues. It's nice to know the ITU is > facilitating similar meetings although I suspect it'd be nicer for folks > travel budgets if the facilitators of the various regional meetings could > cooperate in order to coalesce at the same time/place (e.g., it would be > cool to get an APRICOT meeting, a PITA meeting, and a PBF meeting > co-resident). > The ITU facilitated the meeting with PITA, SPC and others. Yes this was also raised during the Pacific Broadband Forum to have all key meetings back to back, not only would that save costs but it would increase collaboration, remove duplication etc. To be frank, there is so much work to be done that no single stakeholder can do it on their own. > > > That's exactly why WCIT-12 in Dubai has to deal with some Internet > matters. Not all, but it's part. > > I'm pleased to hear that basic infrastructure issues for lesser served > economies will be a topic for WCIT-12. However, one of the past complaints > of those sorts of meetings (at least from Internet folk) is that they have > tended to try to reinforce existing policy regimes (or even to rewind the > clock to past regimes) instead of looking to see how telecoms > infrastructure and policy can be adapted to rapidly changing technology. > Perhaps this meeting will be different. > Regards, > -drc > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 28 06:38:22 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 06:38:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> <5039B8C0.3010006@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 6:21 PM, David Conrad wrote: > >> Sala, >> >> On Aug 26, 2012, at 1:55 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> [...] Personally, I've always found it somewhat depressing that people >> in forums such as this focus on stuff like what TLDs will be created or who >> has the power to deny those TLDs when the _real_ "critical Internet >> resources" are things like fibers and base stations and electricity and >> environments that allow folks to interconnect their devices and networks >> together. >> > > I apologise for the delayed response. One of the four Policy areas being > as the *Infrastructure and Management of Critical Internet Resources*described within the WGIG 2005 Report and I enclose the link for those new > to the list and new to IG discussions ( > http://www.wgig.org/docs/WGIGREPORT.pdf) page 5 Part III para 13:- > > "(a) Issues relating to infrastructure and the management of critical > Internet > resources, including administration of the domain name system and Internet > protocol addresses (IP addresses), administration of the root server > system, technical > standards, *peering and interconnection, telecommunications > infrastructure, * > *including innovative and convergent technologies*, as well as > multilingualization. > These issues are matters of direct relevance to Internet governance and > fall within > the ambit of existing organizations with responsibility for these matters; > " > Just FYI and AFAIK, there is no existing org which has responsibility for peering. > > It is not unusual to have discussions on any of these aspects. I agree > that there is not alot of space within the IGF to have sufficient > discussions and "air time" on these. I do know that Packet Clearing House > along with ARIN and ISOC on Peering and IXPs which I thought was very > relevant to the issue of "Access". > > There are some diverse challenges globally and it would seem to me that > the IGF is a fantastic place to raise and share best practices lessons so > that when these stakeholders return can leapfrog. I agree with you in this > regard. That does not mean however that there are no discussions on other > aspects. I will just use two examples, to make my point. > > - Whois Look Ups is a significant issue especially when it comes to > accuracy of records and at the end of the day it becomes incumbent on > Registrars to properly manage these. > - Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 etc [poor anti dumping laws, and > general lack of awareness can make Telcos in the Pacific region vulnerable > targets especially when procuring supposedly v6 compatible equipment that > do not meet certain standards. > > Do you have any evidence of this? I have always suspected that this is a red-herring when I have heard this idea being touted in Africa. Lots (much/most) of routing gear has been v6 ready for over a decade. CPEs excluded. -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 28 06:42:18 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:42:18 +1200 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> <5039B8C0.3010006@panamo.eu> Message-ID: > > > Just FYI and AFAIK, there is no existing org which has responsibility for > peering. > > True > >> >> It is not unusual to have discussions on any of these aspects. I agree >> that there is not alot of space within the IGF to have sufficient >> discussions and "air time" on these. I do know that Packet Clearing House >> along with ARIN and ISOC on Peering and IXPs which I thought was very >> relevant to the issue of "Access". >> >> There are some diverse challenges globally and it would seem to me that >> the IGF is a fantastic place to raise and share best practices lessons so >> that when these stakeholders return can leapfrog. I agree with you in this >> regard. That does not mean however that there are no discussions on other >> aspects. I will just use two examples, to make my point. >> >> - Whois Look Ups is a significant issue especially when it comes to >> accuracy of records and at the end of the day it becomes incumbent on >> Registrars to properly manage these. >> - Transitioning from IPv4 to IPv6 etc [poor anti dumping laws, and >> general lack of awareness can make Telcos in the Pacific region vulnerable >> targets especially when procuring supposedly v6 compatible equipment that >> do not meet certain standards. >> >> > Do you have any evidence of this? I have always suspected that this is a > red-herring when I have heard this idea being touted in Africa. Lots > (much/most) of routing gear has been v6 ready for over a decade. CPEs > excluded. > > From personal experience, which is why I like how RIPE NCC publish a list > of vendors on their site. > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 28 06:53:52 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:53:52 +1200 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> <5039B8C0.3010006@panamo.eu> Message-ID: Do you have any evidence of this? I have always suspected that this is a >> red-herring when I have heard this idea being touted in Africa. Lots >> (much/most) of routing gear has been v6 ready for over a decade. CPEs >> excluded. >> >> From personal experience, which is why I like how RIPE NCC publish a list >> of vendors on their site. >> > This is the link I was referring to: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/mirjam/ipv6-cpe-survey-updated-january-2011/?searchterm=None > -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 28 11:23:51 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:23:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] What are Cyber Command / NSA up to ? Message-ID: A politically correct answer http://csis.org/event/cybersecurity-discussion-general-keith-b-alexander-director-national-security-agency Incorrect questions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw42HnhlGNo http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/xf3uw/general_keith_alexander_nsa_boss_wants_the/ Enjoy, Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 28 11:32:37 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:32:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU definition of "telecommunication" and importance of "Best Bits" In-Reply-To: <20120817153816.37a59cf4@quill5.bollow.ch> References: <20120817123721.60badca4@quill5.bollow.ch> <20120817153816.37a59cf4@quill5.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 9:38 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Yes, I'm quite aware of this. My suggestion that, contrary to this > trend, a limiting definition of "telecommunication" should be included > in the ITRs is because this is the only way that I can see to > > (1) avoid continuation of the blatant discrepancy between what the ITRs > say and today's reality (by removing from the declared scope of > the ITRs the part of reality to which the provisions of the ITRs are > not applicable ), and to > > (2) prevent the ITU from gradually but continuously increasing its > power over Internet governance without any real public interest > representation, and without any real checks and balances. > http://inetaria.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/itu-extreme-agendas-v1-2-1.pdf is a really interesting background piece on these issues. Thanks, norbert, i like the way you are thinking about this! -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jstyre at jstyre.com Tue Aug 28 11:55:45 2012 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 08:55:45 -0700 Subject: [governance] What are Cyber Command / NSA up to ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00bd01cd8535$97dc98f0$c795cad0$@jstyre.com> But did you know that Gen. Alexander is a member of EFF? Well, no, he really isn't. Indeed, we're suing NSA on account of the illegal domestic spying program run by NSA. Which made it darn funny when, while speaking at Def Con last month, he was spotted wearing an EFF t-shirt. '-) https://plus.google.com/photos/+eff/albums/5772560096534997249/5772560413258328802 -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org From: pouzin at gmail.com [mailto:pouzin at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Louis Pouzin (well) Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 8:24 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] What are Cyber Command / NSA up to ? A politically correct answer http://csis.org/event/cybersecurity-discussion-general-keith-b-alexander-director-national -security-agency Incorrect questions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw42HnhlGNo http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/xf3uw/general_keith_alexander_nsa_boss_wants_t he/ Enjoy, Louis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Aug 28 11:59:04 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 10:59:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Visas for Azerbaijan on arrival In-Reply-To: References: <1339523721.34336.YahooMailNeo@web160605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1344796262.95828.YahooMailNeo@web120903.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1233847693-1345694050-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-81397604-@b2.c17.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: Update: I re-sent my email, and got a confirmation that it is either accepted or in processing. If you do not get a confirmation email, it might be a good idea to re-send. thanks for the help. gp Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 27 August 2012 06:53, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks Sala and Grace. > I did not get that email, so I have re-sent. Thanks! > Cheers, Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu > Diplo Foundation > Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme > www.diplomacy.edu/ig > ** > ** > > > > On 27 August 2012 06:47, Grace Githaiga wrote: > >> Hi Ginger >> Pls find below the response that I got. Not sure whether this is the >> confirmation letter they talk about. >> Rgds >> Grace >> >> ------------------------------ >> Subject: Re: Request for invitation letter for IGF 2012 >> To: ggithaiga at hotmail.com; visainquiries at igf2012.az >> From: igf2012visa at gmail.com >> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 03:54:08 +0000 >> >> Dear Grace Githaiga, >> >> It is accepted for processing. >> Best Regards, >> >> Murad Maksudov >> IGF Host Country Secretariat, >> Visa Department >> +994702100900 >> >> Sent from mobile device, apologies for any typos. >> ------------------------------ >> *From: * Grace Githaiga >> *Date: *Wed, 22 Aug 2012 16:44:52 +0000 >> *To: * >> *Cc: *ggithaiga at hotmail.com >> *Subject: *Request for invitation letter for IGF 2012 >> >> >> Dear Sir/Madam >> >> I would like to request for an invitation letter to the 2012 IGF. Find >> attached my passport details as requested, as well as my registration >> confirmation. >> >> Looking forward to hearing from you. >> Rgds >> Grace >> >> ** >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Tue Aug 28 13:49:38 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 10:49:38 -0700 Subject: [governance] South Korean Constitutional Court declares Internet "Real Name Policy as Unconstitutional" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Quite an interesting move by the Korean government. I wonder how it will evolve on the long run. Fahd On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Source: > http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?artid=201208241354087&code=790101 accessed > 27/8/12 > > Internet "Real Name" Law Violates the Constitution, Of Course > Posted on : 2012-08-24 13:54 > > - Zoom > - > > - > > - l > - > - l > - > - l > - > - l > - > - l > - > - l > - > > The Constitutional Court has decided that the Internet "real name" policy > is unconstitutional. > > The judges unanimously voted that clause 5 of article 44 in the Act on > Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and > Information Protection, which requires websites with more than an average > of 100,000 visitors a day to verify the real name of the user when the > person posts on the website, violated the Constitution. > > We welcome the court's decision to protect the freedom of speech by > abolishing this anachronistic regulation. > > The court ruling was mainly supported by the fact that the real name > policy infringes the users' right to free speech and to determine personal > information, along with the operators' freedom of speech. The court pointed > out, "If we are to restrict freedom of expression, public interests we > would thereby acquire must be clear. > > On August 23 at the Constitutional Court, the judges are seated to > announce their decision that the Internet real name policy is > unconstitutional. From the left are the justices, Lee Jung-Mi, Song > Doo-Hwan, Lee Dong-Heub, Kim Jong-Dae, Lee Kang-Kuk, Min Hyeong-Ki, Mok > Young-Jun, Park Han-Chul. Yonhap news > > > We have yet to see a sharp decline in illegal postings, and with users > fleeing to overseas websites, the policy has caused reverse discrimination > between domestic and overseas businesses. Taking these factors into > consideration, it is difficult to say that we have contributed to public > interest." > > Apparently, the court has agreed with most of the arguments made by the > civic society in their efforts to abolish the real name system. > > The real name policy was introduced in 2007 to prevent harmful > consequences of vicious comments made anonymously. Originally, it was > targeted to websites with more than 300,000 visitors a day, but in 2009 the > number was lowered to 100,000 visitors, forcing most major websites to > follow the policy. > > However, people criticized the system, questioning its effectiveness and > claiming that it only obstructed free speech. As a series of large scale > hacking incidents occurred at sites run by Auction, SK Communications, and > KT, people pointed out that the policy only encouraged leaks in personal > information. > > Since the candlelight rallies, the Lee Myung-bak government has constantly > tried to put a gag on the Internet by reinforcing the real name system and > by arresting the Internet columnist known as Minerva. They claimed that > they were preventing libel, but underneath their claims is an > anti-democratic mind that is trying to muzzle unfavorable press coverage. > > Why else would *The New York Times* point out, "Online anonymity is > essential for political dissidents... and for corporate whistle-blowers," > criticizing Korea's real name policy last year? > > Hiding behind online anonymity and spreading false rumors or slandering > someone with abusive words is clearly an act of violence. However, the > court's decision has confirmed that implementing a real name policy to > control these actions is like burning the house down to roast the pig. > > Some are concerned that this decision may have side effects, such as the > defamation of celebrities online. However, these wrongdoings can be > punished by tracing the Internet address of the user. > > The increase in freedom of speech may bring some discomfort for the time > being, but still it is something we should bear. As the Constitutional > Court pointed out, "The freedom of expression is an important > constitutional value, which is the basis of democracy." > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 28 18:07:45 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:07:45 +1200 Subject: [governance] South Korean Constitutional Court declares Internet "Real Name Policy as Unconstitutional" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Fahd, Caveat being that I have not seen the Judgment, however, based on the Report in the media, this is a win for civil society in South Korea in that privacy and freedom of expression is protected. As for its evolution (comments from an outsider looking in), I would assume that their constitution is supreme law and therefore in overruling arbitrary legislative provisions where such inconsistencies clash with human rights provisions inspire confidence within the community and also is an excellent stimulus for the business environment especially foreign investors etc in that the judicial system is independent from its legislative body. It follows therefore that even if arbitrary legislative mechanisms pertaining to the Internet were instituted threatening things like privacy and freedom of expression, that they can be subject to judicial review or constitutional redress. That being said, you are right Fahd in wondering how it will evolve because if the Entertainment Industry and politicians become subject to the watchful eye of the wonderful Korean people, the real test is maintaining would be the separation of powers. I understand that there are some who may think what "Separation of Powers" and the "Rule of Law" have to do with an open and free internet - I would say virtually alot. Consider the example that Fouad posted not too long ago in relation to the a Politician in Pakistan arbitrarily exercising his power and exerting his influence on the Regulators who had to "censor" content. Thoughts from the far seas, Sala On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > Quite an interesting move by the Korean government. I wonder how it will > evolve on the long run. > > Fahd > > On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Source: >> http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?artid=201208241354087&code=790101 accessed >> 27/8/12 >> >> Internet "Real Name" Law Violates the Constitution, Of Course >> Posted on : 2012-08-24 13:54 >> >> - Zoom >> - >> >> - >> >> - l >> - >> - l >> - >> - l >> - >> - l >> - >> - l >> - >> - l >> - >> >> The Constitutional Court has decided that the Internet "real name" policy >> is unconstitutional. >> >> The judges unanimously voted that clause 5 of article 44 in the Act on >> Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and >> Information Protection, which requires websites with more than an average >> of 100,000 visitors a day to verify the real name of the user when the >> person posts on the website, violated the Constitution. >> >> We welcome the court's decision to protect the freedom of speech by >> abolishing this anachronistic regulation. >> >> The court ruling was mainly supported by the fact that the real name >> policy infringes the users' right to free speech and to determine personal >> information, along with the operators' freedom of speech. The court pointed >> out, "If we are to restrict freedom of expression, public interests we >> would thereby acquire must be clear. >> >> On August 23 at the Constitutional Court, the judges are seated to >> announce their decision that the Internet real name policy is >> unconstitutional. From the left are the justices, Lee Jung-Mi, Song >> Doo-Hwan, Lee Dong-Heub, Kim Jong-Dae, Lee Kang-Kuk, Min Hyeong-Ki, Mok >> Young-Jun, Park Han-Chul. Yonhap news >> >> >> We have yet to see a sharp decline in illegal postings, and with users >> fleeing to overseas websites, the policy has caused reverse discrimination >> between domestic and overseas businesses. Taking these factors into >> consideration, it is difficult to say that we have contributed to public >> interest." >> >> Apparently, the court has agreed with most of the arguments made by the >> civic society in their efforts to abolish the real name system. >> >> The real name policy was introduced in 2007 to prevent harmful >> consequences of vicious comments made anonymously. Originally, it was >> targeted to websites with more than 300,000 visitors a day, but in 2009 the >> number was lowered to 100,000 visitors, forcing most major websites to >> follow the policy. >> >> However, people criticized the system, questioning its effectiveness and >> claiming that it only obstructed free speech. As a series of large scale >> hacking incidents occurred at sites run by Auction, SK Communications, and >> KT, people pointed out that the policy only encouraged leaks in personal >> information. >> >> Since the candlelight rallies, the Lee Myung-bak government has >> constantly tried to put a gag on the Internet by reinforcing the real name >> system and by arresting the Internet columnist known as Minerva. They >> claimed that they were preventing libel, but underneath their claims is an >> anti-democratic mind that is trying to muzzle unfavorable press coverage. >> >> Why else would *The New York Times* point out, "Online anonymity is >> essential for political dissidents... and for corporate whistle-blowers," >> criticizing Korea's real name policy last year? >> >> Hiding behind online anonymity and spreading false rumors or slandering >> someone with abusive words is clearly an act of violence. However, the >> court's decision has confirmed that implementing a real name policy to >> control these actions is like burning the house down to roast the pig. >> >> Some are concerned that this decision may have side effects, such as the >> defamation of celebrities online. However, these wrongdoings can be >> punished by tracing the Internet address of the user. >> >> The increase in freedom of speech may bring some discomfort for the time >> being, but still it is something we should bear. As the Constitutional >> Court pointed out, "The freedom of expression is an important >> constitutional value, which is the basis of democracy." >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 28 19:28:56 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:28:56 +1200 Subject: [governance] #Cell Phones not a Briefcase #Privacy #Portal Paradigm Message-ID: Dear All, It is interesting to see the shift in paradigms over what simple things like mobile phones in courts around the world. One such interesting one is what's happening in Toronto where the" Container Paradigm of Cellular devices vrs The Portal Paradigm of Cellular Devices" which has implications on privacy laws or the treatment therein, see what's cooking in Toronto via Regina v Fearon http://www.advocatedaily.com/2012/08/cell-phone-as-briefcase-analogy-no-longer-works-says-goldstein/. Note the Judgment is hyperlinked therein and makes interesting reading. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 28 23:10:56 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:10:56 +1200 Subject: [governance] Caribbean Internet Governance Forum [Lessons the world can learn] #Enhanced Cooperation Message-ID: Dear All, Some of you may be aware that the Caribbean will be hosting their Regional IGF soon. I think the world has alot to learn from the approach that the Caribbean is taking, remote participation is available but you need to register via: http://www.ctu.int/cigf8 It will run from the 29th -30th August, 2012. For those interested in seeing "enhanced cooperation" in action, please download a copy of the Caribbean Internet Governance Framework. You will see very clear the values based engagement that is apparent in the collaborative manner in which they are engaging. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Wed Aug 29 00:53:00 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:23:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India In-Reply-To: <503D97F9.5040704@itforchange.net> References: <503D97F9.5040704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <503DA02C.8020109@ITforChange.net> Some mails have questioned the notion of a 'global south'... NAM which was established during the cold war era as a bulwark against the two power blocs (US+ and USSR+) is one such institution/network for the global south ... and in our 'unipolar' world, groups like NAM, G77, IBSA have a role in resisting western (gov + corporate) hegemony... in the efforts to establish a more just world... (though global warming and IG, two most critical global governance issues which require global governance structure reform to be able to be effectively addressed, were not specifically mentioned) regards, Guru ps - The Indian Prime minister emphasised south-south cooperation... i suppose south-south cooperation requires there be a a global south:-) Global governance structure outdated, says India India on Tuesday said outdated global governance architecture has failed to meet contemporary challenges, including economic slowdown and the crisis in Syria. Even as the 16th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran is being seen as a diplomatic coup by Iran against the US, its allies in the west and Israel, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the 120-member-bloc of developing countries should take a greater role to reform global governance. “There is widespread recognition that the outdated structures of global governance have not been able to keep pace with contemporary political and economic challenges. Many of these challenges, such as the worsening situation in Syria, a persistent global economic slowdown, and other new and emerging threats, require credible trans-national action,” Singh said before leaving for Tehran to attend the NAM summit, an event where New Delhi is expected to walk the tightrope to balance its energy interests in Iran and its ties with the US. .... “I will stress that our movement should provide a strong political impetus to the ongoing efforts to reform and democratise global governance structures, whch are critical to tackle these challenges more effectively,” Singh said. Link: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/274934/global-governance-structure-outdated-says.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Wed Aug 29 06:55:58 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:25:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> <5032AE39.1020508@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <503DF53E.9010900@ITforChange.net> wonder what the cnn anchor would say on the series of US drone attacks during the festival of ramadan, a particularly horrible and horrifying act http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/19/us-drone-strikes-kill-pakistan Guru On Thursday 23 August 2012 05:07 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > and lets not forget unaltered schedule of drone attacks and thousands > of Pakistani's losing lives because of all the you know > what.........and people will sit and waste their time over > Julian........and act as if they are concerned.....and lets blame the > spread of instruments of chaos on the soviets.........and hollywood! > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> And right now I listen to CNN's anchor "horrified" because a Pakistani >> child (11-year old) has been arrested for blasphemy. This is indeed >> brutal, but I've never seen an American anchor horrified when the >> Americans arrest kids for downloading music. >> >> E la nave va... >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hakik at hakik.org Wed Aug 29 07:21:49 2012 From: hakik at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 12:21:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caribbean Internet Governance Forum [Lessons the world can learn] #Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Sala for sharing the news. The document clearly illustrated those five strategic areas, such as infrastructure, content management, awareness issue and research. Hope this event will be able to come up further with issues like DNS, IPv6, ccTLD, IDN and others (especially multi-stakeholders´ participation). Looking forward to take part remotely. Best regards, Hakikur Hope this event will further At 04:10 29-08-2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Dear All, > >Some of you may be aware that the Caribbean will >be hosting their Regional IGF soon. I think the >world has alot to learn from the approach that >the Caribbean is taking, remote participation is >available but you need to register via: >http://www.ctu.int/cigf8 >It will run from the 29th -30th August, 2012. > >For those interested in seeing "enhanced >cooperation" in action, please download a copy >of the Caribbean Internet Governance Framework. >You will see very clear the values based >engagement that is apparent in the collaborative >manner in which they are engaging. > >Kind Regards, > >-- >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 07:36:33 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 07:36:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India In-Reply-To: <503DA02C.8020109@ITforChange.net> References: <503D97F9.5040704@itforchange.net> <503DA02C.8020109@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > Some mails have questioned the notion of a 'global south'... > or at least the notion that one person can speak for such a diverse grouping of folk.... -- 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 29 08:28:48 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:28:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India In-Reply-To: References: <503D97F9.5040704@itforchange.net> <503DA02C.8020109@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <503E0B00.4080401@gmail.com> Sure there is lots to a definition of a group... except that the G77 on a daily basis at the UN in New York speaks... And claims for legitimacy in the 'Global South' also meet with the inevitable list of collaborators... so it is not easy, but in this case definitions can be reduced to mere platitudes... myself I prefer the unadjectivised 'South' On 2012/08/29 01:36 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Guru गुरु > wrote: > > Some mails have questioned the notion of a 'global south'... > > > or at least the notion that one person can speak for such a diverse > grouping of folk.... > > > -- > 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 29 09:05:13 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:05:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Caribbean Internet Governance Forum [Lessons the world can learn] #Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sadly we're having some technical difficulties, but hope to be up and running soon. Bear with us please. We are so happy to be offered the interest of the outside world for our discussions. Deirdre On 29 August 2012 07:21, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > Thanks Sala for sharing the news. The document clearly illustrated those > five strategic areas, such as infrastructure, content management, awareness > issue and research. Hope this event will be able to come up further with > issues like DNS, IPv6, ccTLD, IDN and others (especially > multi-stakeholders´ participation). > > Looking forward to take part remotely. > > Best regards, > Hakikur > > > Hope this event will further > At 04:10 29-08-2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > Some of you may be aware that the Caribbean will be hosting their Regional > IGF soon. I think the world has alot to learn from the approach that the > Caribbean is taking, remote participation is available but you need to > register via: http://www.ctu.int/cigf8 > It will run from the 29th -30th August, 2012. > > For those interested in seeing "enhanced cooperation" in action, please > download a copy of the Caribbean Internet Governance Framework. You will > see very clear the values based engagement that is apparent in the > collaborative manner in which they are engaging. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Wed Aug 29 09:22:29 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:22:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India In-Reply-To: <503E0B00.4080401@gmail.com> References: <503D97F9.5040704@itforchange.net> <503DA02C.8020109@ITforChange.net> <503E0B00.4080401@gmail.com> Message-ID: <503E1795.7070706@panamo.eu> Sorry, a very short and rapid insight, because I'm overbooked these days. myself I don't like a lot the geo-economied 'South'. Because a write rationale for peace and development could be supported also by Northern and Western organizations. Even by American organizations and famous personnalities. I should propose for example a Peace Group, because our concern, here in my European group, are: - the militarization of Internet - the strenght of quasi-monopoly positions of a group that will create great frustrations in a lot of countries - the privatization of everything, even words, that lead to war-minded processes. But still open to other proposals. @+, best -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 29/08/12 14:28, Riaz K Tayob a écrit : > Sure there is lots to a definition of a group... except that the G77 > on a daily basis at the UN in New York speaks... > > And claims for legitimacy in the 'Global South' also meet with the > inevitable list of collaborators... so it is not easy, but in this > case definitions can be reduced to mere platitudes... myself I prefer > the unadjectivised 'South' > > > On 2012/08/29 01:36 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Guru गुरु > > wrote: >> >> Some mails have questioned the notion of a 'global south'... >> >> >> or at least the notion that one person can speak for such a diverse >> grouping of folk.... >> >> >> -- >> 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 09:22:08 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:22:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India In-Reply-To: <503DA02C.8020109@ITforChange.net> References: <503D97F9.5040704@itforchange.net> <503DA02C.8020109@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220A07C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Guru "Non-aligned" meant "not aligned with the US/capitalist world nor the Soviet/communist world. Can you tell me what these countries are "not aligned" with today? --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Guru ???? > Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:53 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India > > Some mails have questioned the notion of a 'global south'... > > NAM which was established during the cold war era as a bulwark against > the two power blocs (US+ and USSR+) is one such institution/network for > the global south ... and in our 'unipolar' world, groups like NAM, G77, > IBSA have a role in resisting western (gov + corporate) hegemony... in > the efforts to establish a more just world... > > (though global warming and IG, two most critical global governance > issues which require global governance structure reform to be able to be > effectively addressed, were not specifically mentioned) > > regards, > Guru > ps - The Indian Prime minister emphasised south-south cooperation... i > suppose south-south cooperation requires there be a a global south:-) > > > Global governance structure outdated, says India > > India on Tuesday said outdated global governance architecture has failed > to meet contemporary challenges, including economic slowdown and the > crisis in Syria. > > Even as the 16th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran is > being seen as a diplomatic coup by Iran against the US, its allies in > the west and Israel, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the > 120-member-bloc of developing countries should take a greater role to > reform global governance. “There is widespread recognition that the > outdated structures of global governance have not been able to keep pace > with contemporary political and economic challenges. Many of these > challenges, such as the worsening situation in Syria, a persistent > global economic slowdown, and other new and emerging threats, require > credible trans-national action,” Singh said before leaving for Tehran to > attend the NAM summit, an event where New Delhi is expected to walk the > tightrope to balance its energy interests in Iran and its ties with the > US. .... “I will stress that our movement should provide a strong > political impetus to the ongoing efforts to reform and democratise > global governance structures, whch are critical to tackle these > challenges more effectively,” Singh said. > > Link: > http://www.deccanherald.com/content/274934/global-governance- > structure-outdated-says.html > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Wed Aug 29 09:32:16 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:32:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India In-Reply-To: <503E1795.7070706@panamo.eu> References: <503D97F9.5040704@itforchange.net> <503DA02C.8020109@ITforChange.net> <503E0B00.4080401@gmail.com> <503E1795.7070706@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <503E19E0.2060609@panamo.eu> PS. A right position cannot rise peoples one against another. We consider also that the American people is in a great danger. Only look at education and health concerns in the US nowadays. USA cannot recover by war and domination. That's the lesson of recent history. @+, Dom Le 29/08/12 15:22, Dominique Lacroix a écrit : > Sorry, a very short and rapid insight, because I'm overbooked these days. > > myself I don't like a lot the geo-economied 'South'. > Because a*right* rationale for peace and development could be supported also by Northern and Western organizations. Even by American organizations and famous personnalities. > > I should propose for example a Peace Group, because our concern, here in my European group, are: > - the militarization of Internet > - the strenght of quasi-monopoly positions of a group that will create great frustrations in a lot of countries > - the privatization of everything, even words, that lead to war-minded processes. > > But still open to other proposals. > > @+, best > -- > Dominique Lacroix > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > Le 29/08/12 14:28, Riaz K Tayob a écrit : >> Sure there is lots to a definition of a group... except that the G77 >> on a daily basis at the UN in New York speaks... >> >> And claims for legitimacy in the 'Global South' also meet with the >> inevitable list of collaborators... so it is not easy, but in this >> case definitions can be reduced to mere platitudes... myself I prefer >> the unadjectivised 'South' >> >> >> On 2012/08/29 01:36 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Guru गुरु >> > wrote: >>> >>> Some mails have questioned the notion of a 'global south'... >>> >>> >>> or at least the notion that one person can speak for such a diverse >>> grouping of folk.... >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Wed Aug 29 09:44:06 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:44:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220A07C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <503D97F9.5040704@itforchange.net> <503DA02C.8020109@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220A07C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <503E1CA6.1000705@panamo.eu> Personnaly, I understood neither US nor China that is supposed to take the leadership around 2020-30. Upon a gastronomic point of view, the case is not surely in favor of McDo ;-) Sorry, Milton. Just a bad joke: as a cooker, I got the bad habit to first evaluate a civilization with the taste of its cooking. @+, Dom Le 29/08/12 15:22, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > Guru > "Non-aligned" meant "not aligned with the US/capitalist world nor the Soviet/communist world. > Can you tell me what these countries are "not aligned" with today? > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- >> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Guru ???? >> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:53 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India >> >> Some mails have questioned the notion of a 'global south'... >> >> NAM which was established during the cold war era as a bulwark against >> the two power blocs (US+ and USSR+) is one such institution/network for >> the global south ... and in our 'unipolar' world, groups like NAM, G77, >> IBSA have a role in resisting western (gov + corporate) hegemony... in >> the efforts to establish a more just world... >> >> (though global warming and IG, two most critical global governance >> issues which require global governance structure reform to be able to be >> effectively addressed, were not specifically mentioned) >> >> regards, >> Guru >> ps - The Indian Prime minister emphasised south-south cooperation... i >> suppose south-south cooperation requires there be a a global south:-) >> >> >> Global governance structure outdated, says India >> >> India on Tuesday said outdated global governance architecture has failed >> to meet contemporary challenges, including economic slowdown and the >> crisis in Syria. >> >> Even as the 16th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran is >> being seen as a diplomatic coup by Iran against the US, its allies in >> the west and Israel, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the >> 120-member-bloc of developing countries should take a greater role to >> reform global governance. “There is widespread recognition that the >> outdated structures of global governance have not been able to keep pace >> with contemporary political and economic challenges. Many of these >> challenges, such as the worsening situation in Syria, a persistent >> global economic slowdown, and other new and emerging threats, require >> credible trans-national action,” Singh said before leaving for Tehran to >> attend the NAM summit, an event where New Delhi is expected to walk the >> tightrope to balance its energy interests in Iran and its ties with the >> US. .... “I will stress that our movement should provide a strong >> political impetus to the ongoing efforts to reform and democratise >> global governance structures, whch are critical to tackle these >> challenges more effectively,” Singh said. >> >> Link: >> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/274934/global-governance- >> structure-outdated-says.html -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Wed Aug 29 09:43:45 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 15:43:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Reviewing_CWG--WCIT12/TD=9664_Rev?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=2E1?= Message-ID: On reviewing doc WCIT 12/TD-64 it seems that some parts could (?) relate to services implemented through (or absent from) internet. Here is a list FYI. Best, Louis - - - *Document CWG--WCIT12/TD–64 Rev.1 18 June 2012 * CWG/54/3.11 international routing CWG/54/3.12 international correspondence tariffs CWG/54/3.28A international naming, numbering, addressing CWG/54/3.39 calling party identification CWG/54/4.14 terminals permitted to be connected to the network CWG/54/4.28A worldwide numbers CWG/54/5.4 safety of life telecommunications CWG/54/5.14 number of emergency services CWG/54/7.14 secrecy of telecommunications APPENDIX 1 general provisionsconcerning accounting RESOLUTION N° 1 dissemination of information concerning international telecommunications services available to the public RESOLUTION N° 2 cooperation of the members of the Union in implementing ITRs RESOLUTION N° B provisions of the Constitution and Convention related to ITRs - - - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 29 09:59:44 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:59:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Caribbean Internet Governance Forum [Lessons the world can learn] #Enhanced Cooperation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The problems are now resolved so please join us. Nigel Cassimire is currently discussing IPv6 and DNS Deirdre On 29 August 2012 09:05, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Sadly we're having some technical difficulties, but hope to be up and > running soon. > Bear with us please. > We are so happy to be offered the interest of the outside world for our > discussions. > Deirdre > > > On 29 August 2012 07:21, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > >> Thanks Sala for sharing the news. The document clearly illustrated those >> five strategic areas, such as infrastructure, content management, awareness >> issue and research. Hope this event will be able to come up further with >> issues like DNS, IPv6, ccTLD, IDN and others (especially >> multi-stakeholders´ participation). >> >> Looking forward to take part remotely. >> >> Best regards, >> Hakikur >> >> >> Hope this event will further >> At 04:10 29-08-2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Some of you may be aware that the Caribbean will be hosting their >> Regional IGF soon. I think the world has alot to learn from the approach >> that the Caribbean is taking, remote participation is available but you >> need to register via: http://www.ctu.int/cigf8 >> It will run from the 29th -30th August, 2012. >> >> For those interested in seeing "enhanced cooperation" in action, please >> download a copy of the Caribbean Internet Governance Framework. You will >> see very clear the values based engagement that is apparent in the >> collaborative manner in which they are engaging. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > -- “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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 10:51:47 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:21:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain In-Reply-To: <503DF53E.9010900@ITforChange.net> References: <502F5826.4000506@gmail.com> <50323028.7010006@cafonso.ca> <503265D5.70405@cafonso.ca> <5032AE39.1020508@cafonso.ca> <503DF53E.9010900@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: They cant say anything. Maybe just stare in numb shock. On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Guru गुरु wrote: > wonder what the cnn anchor would say on the series of US drone attacks > during the festival of ramadan, a particularly horrible and horrifying act > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/**world/2012/aug/19/us-drone-** > strikes-kill-pakistan > > Guru > > > On Thursday 23 August 2012 05:07 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > >> and lets not forget unaltered schedule of drone attacks and thousands >> of Pakistani's losing lives because of all the you know >> what.........and people will sit and waste their time over >> Julian........and act as if they are concerned.....and lets blame the >> spread of instruments of chaos on the soviets.........and hollywood! >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:38 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> And right now I listen to CNN's anchor "horrified" because a Pakistani >>> child (11-year old) has been arrested for blasphemy. This is indeed >>> brutal, but I've never seen an American anchor horrified when the >>> Americans arrest kids for downloading music. >>> >>> E la nave va... >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**______________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/**info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.**com/translate_t >>> >>> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 11:37:48 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:37:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Leading Global Standards Organizations Endorse 'OpenStand' Principles that Drive Innovation and Borderless Commerce References: <1346245938.124121609@apps.rackspace.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1B5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI Wolfgang Leading Global Standards Organizations Endorse 'OpenStand' Principles that Drive Innovation and Borderless Commerce IEEE, IAB, IETF, Internet Society and W3C Invite Other Standards Organizations, Governments and Companies to Support Modern Paradigm for Global, Open Standards [PISCATAWAY, N.J., and WASHINGTON, D.C., United States; GENEVA, Switzerland, and http://www.w3.org/ -29 August 2012]- Five leading global organizations-IEEE, Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet Society and World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)-today announced that they have signed a statement affirming the importance of a jointly developed set of principles establishing a modern paradigm for global, open standards. The shared "OpenStand" principles-based on the effective and efficient standardization processes that have made the Internet and Web the premiere platforms for innovation and borderless commerce-are proven in their ability to foster competition and cooperation, support innovation and interoperability and drive market success. IEEE, IAB, IETF, Internet Society and W3C invite other standards organizations, governments, corporations and technology innovators globally to endorse the principles, which are available at open-stand.org. The OpenStand principles strive to encapsulate that successful standardization model and make it extendable across the contemporary, global economy's gamut of technology spaces and markets. The principles comprise a modern paradigm in which the economics of global markets-fueled by technological innovation-drive global deployment of standards, regardless of their formal status within traditional bodies of national representation. The OpenStand principles demand: * cooperation among standards organizations; * adherence to due process, broad consensus, transparency, balance and openness in standards development; * commitment to technical merit, interoperability, competition, innovation and benefit to humanity; * availability of standards to all, and * voluntary adoption. "New dynamics and pressures on global industry have driven changes in the ways that standards are developed and adopted around the world," said Steve Mills, president of the IEEE Standards Association. "Increasing globalization of markets, the rapid advancement of technology and intensifying time-to-market demands have forced industry to seek more efficient ways to define the global standards that help expand global markets. The OpenStand principles foster the more efficient international standardization paradigm that the world needs." Added Leslie Daigle, chief Internet technology officer with the Internet Society: "International standards development for borderless economics is not ad hoc; rather, it has a paradigm-one that has demonstrated agility and is driven by technical merit. The OpenStand principles convey the power of bottom-up collaboration in harnessing global creativity and expertise to the standards of any technology space that will underpin the modern economy moving forward." Standards developed and adopted via the OpenStand principles include IEEE standards for the Internet's physical connectivity, IETF standards for end-to-end global Internet interoperability and the W3C standards for the World Wide Web. "The Internet and World Wide Web have fueled an economic and social transformation, touching billions of lives. Efficient standardization of so many technologies has been key to the success of the global Internet," said Russ Housley, IETF chair. "These global standards were developed with a focus toward technical excellence and deployed through collaboration of many participants from all around the world. The results have literally changed the world, surpassing anything that has ever been achieved through any other standards-development model." Globally adopted design-automation standards, which have paved the way for a giant leap forward in industry's ability to define complex electronic solutions, provide another example of standards developed in the spirit of the OpenStand principles. Another technology space that figures to demand such standards over the next decades is the global smart-grid effort, which seeks to augment regional facilities for electricity generation, distribution, delivery and consumption with a two-way, end-to-end network for communications and control. "Think about all that the Internet and Web have enabled over the past 30 years, completely transforming society, government and commerce," said W3C chief executive officer Jeff Jaffe. "It is remarkable that a small number of organizations following a small number of principles have had such a huge impact on humanity, innovation and competition in global markets." Bernard Aboba, chair of the IAB: "The Internet has been built on specifications adopted voluntarily across the globe. By valuing running code, interoperability and deployment above formal status, the Internet has democratized the development of standards, enabling specifications originally developed outside of standards organizations to gain recognition based on their technical merit and adoption, contributing to the creation of global communities benefiting humanity. We now invite standards organizations, as well as governments, companies and individuals to join us at open-stand.org in order to affirm the principles that have nurtured the Internet and underpin many other important standards-and will continue to do so." About IEEE IEEE, a large, global technical professional organization is dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. Through its highly cited publications, conferences, technology standards, and professional and educational activities, IEEE is the trusted voice on a wide variety of areas ranging from aerospace systems, computers and telecommunications to biomedical engineering, electric power and consumer electronics. Learn more at http://www.ieee.org . About the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) The IAB is chartered both as a committee of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and as an advisory body of the Internet Society (ISOC). Its responsibilities include architectural oversight of IETF activities, Internet Standards Process oversight and appeal, and the appointment of the RFC Editor. The IAB is also responsible for the management of the IETF protocol parameter registries. About the Internet Engineering Task Force The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large open international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet. It is open to any interested individual. The IETF is an organised activity of the Internet Society. About the Internet Society The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet information and thought leadership from around the world. With its principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. For more information, visit www.internetsociety.org. About the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international consortium where Member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to develop Web standards. W3C primarily pursues its mission through the creation of Web standards and guidelines designed to ensure long-term growth for the Web. Over 375 organizations are Members of the Consortium. W3C is jointly run by the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (MIT CSAIL) in the USA, the European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics (ERCIM) headquartered in France and Keio University in Japan, and has additional Offices worldwide. For more information see http://www.w3.org/. _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 12:24:31 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:24:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Business Class for Human Rights? References: <1346245938.124121609@apps.rackspace.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1B5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Will the ETNO/WCIT proposal lead to a mechanism where we have different classes for use of the human right to freedom of expression and to communicate? And even more: If you introduce a "business class" you have to introduce a checkpoint to seperate business from eceonomy and this can be done only via content control and DPI and leads directly to censorship. Any comments? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57501754-38/euro-isps-defend-new-fees-as-business-class-internet-q-a/ Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Aug 29 12:39:06 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 18:39:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India In-Reply-To: <503E1795.7070706@panamo.eu> References: <503D97F9.5040704@itforchange.net> <503DA02C.8020109@ITforChange.net> <503E0B00.4080401@gmail.com> <503E1795.7070706@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <503E45AA.2090102@gmail.com> Dominique Labels at this level tend to be imprecise. So concepts like South, Third World, Global South are NOT to be dogmatically affirmed in all circumstances. However in many instances there is a South/TW/GS position that stands counterposed to the developed countries, Group B, G7/8... for instance in CIR while there were some exceptions it would not be out of order to put it into a North-South context... What is important from a civil society point of view for me is that the Third World and concepts like this serve as an organising principle. And On Milton's query Non-Aligned from what is a query that has historical roots, but that is given shape by the uber-neoliberalisers (for others and themselves, but for themselves they are a little fussy) or the dominant or hegemons - or what have you, typically but not always the North. And yes, good initiatives can come from the North, hence it is not to be dogmatically affirmed. However, some of us do choose to "look a gift horse in the mouth" like GMO corn for Zambia during a famine or CIR. Institutions have a lag in adapting to change - like the UN Security Council. Another institution of interest to the North would be the G7, in charge of maintaining financial stability ; ) (yea go figure...) Riaz On 2012/08/29 03:22 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > Sorry, a very short and rapid insight, because I'm overbooked these days. > > myself I don't like a lot the geo-economied 'South'. > Because a write rationale for peace and development could be supported also by Northern and Western organizations. Even by American organizations and famous personnalities. > > I should propose for example a Peace Group, because our concern, here in my European group, are: > - the militarization of Internet > - the strenght of quasi-monopoly positions of a group that will create great frustrations in a lot of countries > - the privatization of everything, even words, that lead to war-minded processes. > > But still open to other proposals. > > @+, best > -- > Dominique Lacroix > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > Le 29/08/12 14:28, Riaz K Tayob a écrit : >> Sure there is lots to a definition of a group... except that the G77 >> on a daily basis at the UN in New York speaks... >> >> And claims for legitimacy in the 'Global South' also meet with the >> inevitable list of collaborators... so it is not easy, but in this >> case definitions can be reduced to mere platitudes... myself I prefer >> the unadjectivised 'South' >> >> >> On 2012/08/29 01:36 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Guru गुरु >> > wrote: >>> >>> Some mails have questioned the notion of a 'global south'... >>> >>> >>> or at least the notion that one person can speak for such a diverse >>> grouping of folk.... >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 13:24:23 2012 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 14:24:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] Business Class for Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1346245938.124121609@apps.rackspace.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1B5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: The fact that the European ISPs proposal (as Gambardella himself explained) is similar to that made by AT&T and Verizon should tip everyone off to their actual intent. My favorite part was his answer to why they didn't take their wonderful proposal to somewhere other than the ITU: "First, ICANN is not easy to work with. Second, ICANN is linked more to the Internet governance domain. They don't deal with such (topics)." Of course telcos don't want civil society and academia worrying about such trivial topics as net neutrality... Ivar On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:24 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Will the ETNO/WCIT proposal lead to a mechanism where we have different > classes for use of the human right to freedom of expression and to > communicate? And even more: If you introduce a "business class" you have to > introduce a checkpoint to seperate business from eceonomy and this can be > done only via content control and DPI and leads directly to censorship. Any > comments? > > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57501754-38/euro-isps-defend-new-fees-as-business-class-internet-q-a/ > > Wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 13:57:35 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:57:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Business Class for Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1346245938.124121609@apps.rackspace.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1B5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <8CF5426E7AB97D8-1D94-45CBC@webmail-d157.sysops.aol.com> Dear Wolfgang -- I fully agree with you. How would one classify media businesses in a setup like this ? I think we should reinforce the idea that all elements of society have an interest in protecting and furthering freedom of expression. Bests, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolf gang" To: governance Sent: Wed, Aug 29, 2012 6:38 pm Subject: [governance] Business Class for Human Rights? Will the ETNO/WCIT proposal lead to a mechanism where we have different classes for use of the human right to freedom of expression and to communicate? And even more: If you introduce a "business class" you have to introduce a checkpoint to seperate business from eceonomy and this can be done only via content control and DPI and leads directly to censorship. Any comments? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57501754-38/euro-isps-defend-new-fees-as-business-class-internet-q-a/ Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 17:38:51 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:38:51 +1200 Subject: [governance] # U.S.-China Economic Relationship #Intellectual Property #Trade #International Relations Message-ID: There are some interesting things in things in the remarks below. Economic, Energy, Agricultural and Trade Issues: Fostering a Rules-Based System in the U.S.-China Economic Relationship 08/29/2012 03:23 PM EDT Fostering a Rules-Based System in the U.S.-China Economic Relationship Remarks Jose W. Fernandez Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs American Chamber of Commerce Hong Kong August 3, 2012 ------------------------------ *I. Introduction and Roadmap* Thank you very much. It’s great to be here today. A long time ago, I wrote a travel article about Hong Kong in a travel magazine that you will be happy to hear is now defunct. Two things stood out to me then, the juxtaposition of Western and Asian cultures in Hong Kong, and the energy that makes my hometown of New York City feel like a country town. While a lot has changed dramatically here since my first visit, these two things have remained constant throughout the decades. Hong Kong is truly Asia’s World City and sits as a symbol of prosperity in a region rich in trade, innovation, and ideas. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said here in Hong Kong almost exactly a year ago, “increasingly, economic progress depends on strong diplomatic ties and diplomatic progress depends on strong economic ties.” This is why Hong Kong is so vital. *Its history and geography make it inevitably a bridge between East and West, and its diplomatic and economic importance to the United States cannot be overstated.* It is inspiring how companies here from all around the globe compete in a transparent system, subject to good governance, rule of law, freedom of the press, an independent judiciary, and a vibrant civil society. This open, competitive system has served the U.S.-Hong Kong economic relationship well. There are more than 1,300 U.S.-affiliated companies in Hong Kong, and AmCham Hong Kong is one of the most active chambers in Asia. We are grateful for all the energetic work of the AmCham members here. We very much value your leadership, expertise, and contributions to global economic growth, as well as the role you play in bringing American businesses to Hong Kong and Asia. In no small part because of your efforts, today Hong Kong is the United States’ 10th largest export market for goods. It is also our 7th largest market for agricultural products. In fact, in the past two years, U.S. exports to Hong Kong grew the fastest—at 73 percent—among all of our top 20 export markets. *II. U.S.-Hong Kong Economic Relationship and the Pivot to Asia* Secretary Clinton’s visit here last year and my visit now are part of a broader and deeper economic relationship between the United States and the countries of the Asia-Pacific; a relationship that is key as we in the United States are pursuing our own economic recovery and growth. And as we look to promote recovery and growth at home in the United States, we also realize that we depend on our economic relations abroad. In this part of the world, our involvement is nothing new. The United States has long been deeply engaged in developments in the Asia-Pacific region. Our contributions to regional security have played a role in creating the conditions that brought more people out of poverty faster than anywhere else in history. That engagement continues today. We know that the futures of the United States and the Asia-Pacific are inextricably linked. And as Secretary Clinton highlighted, we are not just a diplomatic or military power here. We are also an economic force. In 2010 alone, our exports to the Pacific Rim were $320 billion, supporting 850,000 American jobs. *III. U.S.-China Economic Relationship* Now we cannot talk about U.S. economic relations with Asia without discussing our economic relationship with China. China’s economic achievement in recent years is remarkable and is justifiably a source of pride as it has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, urbanized, and modernized. China is returning to the world stage in a big way, with millennia of experience as a global leader behind it. The economic relationship between the United States and China provides significant benefits to both our nations, just as it does to Hong Kong. China has benefitted greatly from its integration into the global, rules-based trading system that the United States championed following the end of World War II. As the world’s second largest and fastest-growing major economy, China also offers huge opportunities for U.S. businesses, workers, farmers, and ranchers. But as we work toward a system that both of our countries can compete in and prosper from, as our futures are ever-more linked, we need to address challenges to our common goals of prosperity and economic growth. We need to agree on the basic rules that apply to all countries in the international commercial arena. For our part, we are committed to expanding opportunities for U.S. companies to export to and do business in China. And this means that our policies pursue four basic objectives that I’d like to talk to you about today. These are (1) a strong commitment to protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, (2) adherence to the full array of norms that govern international trade and finance, (3) the creation of a level playing field in which all companies can compete under the same rules, and (4) expanding mutual investment. I would like to touch on each of these four tenets individually before closing with the tools we have at our disposal to encourage progress. (1) Intellectual Property Rights Improving the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights—or IPR—in China remains a top priority for the United States. In fact, I’d say no issue is more fundamental to maintaining a mutually beneficial trade relationship between both our countries, not just the U.S. China’s own innovators and creative industries seek, and would benefit greatly from, stronger IPR protection and enforcement. In addition, a strong intellectual property regime is critical to ensuring that safe products reach both U.S. and Chinese citizens. And of course, strong IPR protection standards and enforcement mechanisms, similar to those we have adopted under the World Trade Organization, are vital to bilateral trade and investment. But leaving aside its importance to international trade generally, IPR observance is also critical to the U.S. economy and our recovery. And that’s why we are so adamant that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. According to a 2010 report on trade, Chinese intellectual property rights infringement and indigenous innovation policies largely block U.S. companies from China’s enormous government procurement opportunities, which I will discuss shortly. In 2009, these policies cost the U.S. economy nearly $50 billion in sales, royalties, or license fees. The report also found that if China raised its intellectual property rights standards to those of the United States, it could translate into well over 900,000 new jobs in U.S. intellectual property intensive firms. As you can see, the stakes for the United States in maintaining a rule-based system for IPR are extremely high. But instead we face an issue that colors our economic relationship and that we need to overcome. Corporate spying or trade secret theft has led to a huge number of losses for U.S. companies operating in China in recent years. Companies doing business in biotechnology, telecommunications, and nanotechnology have had billions of dollars worth of technology stolen from servers and funneled to Chinese companies that use that technology without legal rights. One U.S. company was the victim of Chinese hackers who stole technology that cost $1 billion and 20 years to develop. Another company lost 40 percent of its value in a single day and 84 percent within five months, after theft of its technology came to light. This pattern does not just harm the individual companies; it discourages other companies from doing business in China. Ultimately, it hinders China’s ability to attract valuable technological investment. A related concern for us is the high rates of online piracy, business software theft, and market access barriers that hinder consumers’ purchases of legitimate goods. For example, a recent report from the Business Software Alliance showed that the software piracy rate in China was 77%, at a cost to producers of nearly $9 billion, while in Hong Kong the rate was 43%, which was only slightly above the global average of 42%. We are also very concerned with the continued trend of policies indicating China’s willingness to encourage domestic or “indigenous” innovation at the expense of foreign innovation and technologies. Let’s be clear: piracy is a euphemism for theft, plain and simple. Nevertheless, we also welcome positive steps China has taken in recent years. At last year’s Strategic and Economic Dialogue, for example, China agreed to strengthen its efforts to protect IPR in several areas. One of these was by intensifying efforts to ensure that Chinese government agencies at all levels use legitimate software. We are also very pleased to join China and 45 other countries in the signing of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Audiovisual Performers Treaty, also known as the Beijing Treaty. This treaty will expand protections to both U.S. and Chinese performers. (2) Norms and Government Procurement A second basic objective of our policy is to insist that China adhere to the full array of norms and standards that govern international trade and finance. This includes fulfilling its commitment to join the WTO Government Procurement Agreement, or GPA. Government procurement represents one of the most rapidly expanding areas of opportunity for traders of goods and services. All around the world, governments are announcing programs to spend tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars on new infrastructure investments. In fact, in many countries the government typically is the biggest single buyer of goods and services, with the value of these government purchases worth, on average, 10 to 15 percent of a country's GDP. So government tenders are big business throughout the world, including the United States. China committed to join the GPA during its accession to the WTO in 2001. It formally initiated negotiations in 2007 and submitted its most recent market access offer in November 2011. In this May’s U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, China committed to submit a new and comprehensive revised offer that responds to the requests of all he GPA parties, before the end of the year. The United States and other GPA parties are focused on ensuring that China’s offer is in line with coverage offered by other parties to this agreement. Opening one of the largest and fastest growing procurement markets would provide substantial opportunities for international suppliers, including those from Hong Kong, which is also a GPA party. In short, 11 years after China committed to joining the GPA, the time has come to fulfill that commitment. (3) Insistence on Competitive Neutrality and a Level Playing Field Third, we continue to press China’s state-owned enterprises to act more like commercial enterprises. If China wants to have state-owned enterprises, that is purely China’s own choice. But if those enterprises receive benefits that give them an artificial competitive advantage, then we have concerns, because we believe that the rules of economic engagement should apply equally to all companies, private or state-owned. No company should be given special benefits, such as subsidized export credit, discounted factory inputs like cheaper energy or land, below-market loan rates, or exemption from antitrust laws, unless all companies have access to those benefits. These benefits and preferential treatment distort the playing field for other companies. And why do we care if the playing field is distorted? Because we want companies to win based on better performance, business practices, and innovation, not based on government support. History shows that when companies based on external assistance and not on their own merits, they often have unearned competitive advantages and ultimately this leads to inefficient, bloated, and uncompetitive firms. As Secretary Clinton stated recently, U.S. companies today have the best, most productive workers in the world. They have the best technology, the most talented innovators. And many of them are sitting on large cash reserves. They play in the most competitive markets and win. Yet they are still disadvantaged relative to certain foreign state-owned enterprises, because they have to pay taxes, dividends, rent, get loans at market rates, and still remain competitive in global markets. Our strategy to meet the state capitalism challenge involves a deployment of a robust set of policy tools that will level the playing field and open markets for fair competition. We are working to implement free trade agreements, bilateral investment treaties, and WTO accession commitments. These policies will counter measures abroad that distort markets and limit market access and competition. (4) Investment Finally, mutual investment in both of our countries will allow us to balance the economic interests of what are—and will be for the foreseeable future—the two largest economies in the world. We want U.S. companies to expand their businesses to China and we want Chinese investment in the United States. We made good progress during the U.S.-China Investment Forum in Washington, DC in April, and we hope to continue that trend. The United States consistently ranks at the top of most major indicators for its attractive business and investment climate. The FDI flow into the United States in 2010 was more than double the flow into any other country at nearly $230 billion. This number was nearly 50 percent greater than FDI flow in 2009. In order to continue this promising trend, President Obama launched SelectUSA in January 2011. SelectUSA coordinates government activities in order to complement the activities of our 50 states, which are the primary drivers of economic development, to attract investment to the United States. If you are interested in investing in the United States, we and SelectUSA can direct your queries to the different states’ economic development agencies, making sure you get connected to the right partners for your investment selection process. We see a great opportunity for more investment from China and Hong Kong, which is why the U.S. Government designated both places as top markets for SelectUSA outreach. For example, from 2005 to 2010, China was America’s fastest-growing source of FDI at over 50 percent average growth per year. Meanwhile Hong Kong’s $4.3 billion of FDI in the United States is only slightly less than Mainland China’s $6 billion in FDI. One positive example of Mainland Chinese investment was Dalian Wangda Group’s decision in May this year to purchase America’s second-largest movie theater company – AMC theaters – for $2.6 billion. We want to continue this trend, and in that vein, I want to highlight the important Chinese Overseas Investment Summit in Hong Kong on August 22nd and 23rd. In particular, on the afternoon of August 23rd, AmCham and U.S. service providers will have dedicated sessions to discuss the nuts and bolts of investing in the United States. Since I have been in Hong Kong I have heard much about the final point I would like to speak on. It is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS. I often hear the misconception that CFIUS is some all-powerful organization determined to impede any foreign investment. This is obviously not true based on the numbers I just cited. CFIUS is simply an interagency committee of the U.S. government – of which I am a member – authorized to review mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers from foreign companies that could affect the national security of the United States. It does not cover new or greenfield investments in the United States. And by law CFIUS can only look at national security, not economic or other policies, and it must apply the same rules and clearance standards to all investors, regardless of country. Let me repeat, CFIUS only considers national security and does not consider economic or other policies, and it must apply the same rules and clearance standards to all investors, regardless of country. CFIUS regularly clears investments from both private and state-owned Chinese companies, often within a month. All of its rules are public and explained in detail. Let me give a few facts. When a potential business deal is submitted to CFIUS the committee has 30 days to review the case, and can ask for a 45 day extension if needed. Of the thousands of foreign investments into the United States from 2008 to 2010, only 313 deals required CFIUS review. Of those only 16 required any form of mitigation or adjustment to be approved. CFIUS is transparent, limited in scope, and equally applied to all foreign investments. I wish all countries had such a focused and streamlined foreign direct investment process. *IV. Tools For Progress* This is certainly not the first time I am raising these four key issues—intellectual property rights, government procurement, a level playing field, and mutual investment. Fortunately, we have good vehicles for progress through steady and constructive engagement in all of these areas. One of these is the Strategic and Economic Dialogue I alluded to earlier. Our countries recently held the fourth Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Beijing in early May. The U.S. remains committed to a long-term investment in building mutual trust and understanding between China and the United States, and we see the S&ED as an important tool to achieve results. And we need progress because while these problems aren’t new, they can’t continue forever. In May China made key commitments to (1) improving market access and leveling the playing field, (2) improving intellectual property rights enforcement and protection, (3) reducing trade secret misappropriation, and (4) committing to treating IPR owned or developed in the United States the same as IPR owned or developed in China. China also agreed to intensive discussions on the implementation of its commitment that technology transfer is to be decided by firms independently and not to be used by the Chinese government as a pre-condition for market access. We welcome these commitments and look forward to concrete steps in the right direction in the near future. They will go a long way in addressing the issue I’ve just discussed. *V. Conclusion* Using vehicles such as the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, we can work through our differences to strengthen our commonalities. Neither the United States nor China can fulfill its economic potential without the cooperation of the other. We are global partners, and in that partnership, all of you here in Hong Kong are indispensable players. Thank you. ------------------------------ This email was sent to salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com using GovDelivery, on behalf of: U.S. Department of State · 2210 C Street NW · Washington, DC 20520 [image: Powered by GovDelivery] -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 17:40:56 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:40:56 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: # U.S.-China Economic Relationship #Intellectual Property #Trade #International Relations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There are some interesting things in things in the remarks below. Apologies for the Typos meant to say: > "There are some interesting things in the remarks below"..Problem with multitasking... > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 18:51:18 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 10:51:18 +1200 Subject: [governance] #Rojadirecta #Domain Name Seizures #Open Internet Message-ID: Dear All, Some interesting developments in relation to Rojadirecta: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/government-goes-0-2-admits-defeat-in-rojadirecta-domain-forfeit-case/ What are the implications of an improper siezure? What is an improper siezure? When is it lawful to sieze any part of the infrastructure? Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 29 19:19:28 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:19:28 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: #Rojadirecta #Domain Name Seizures #Open Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: An Article by Julie Samuels of EFF on the same matter https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/rojadirecta-government-reverses-course-and-returns-domains-without-explanation Sala -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Aug 29 20:18:33 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:18:33 -0700 Subject: [governance] Did ICANN Just Shorten the Deadline for Filing New gTLD Objections? Message-ID: http://isenbergondomains.com/2012/08/21/did-icann-just-shorten-the-deadline-for-filing-new-gtld-objections/ And the controversy goes on and on... Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Guru at ITforChange.net Wed Aug 29 22:48:14 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:18:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220A07C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <503D97F9.5040704@itforchange.net> <503DA02C.8020109@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220A07C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <503ED46E.1010207@ITforChange.net> On Wednesday 29 August 2012 06:52 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Guru > "Non-aligned" meant "not aligned with the US/capitalist world nor the Soviet/communist world. > Can you tell me what these countries are "not aligned" with today? > > --MM in my mail: and in our 'unipolar' world, groups like NAM, G77, IBSA have a role in resisting western (gov + corporate) hegemony... in the efforts to establish a more just world... >> -----Original Message----- >> From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- >> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Guru ???? >> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:53 AM >> To:governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India >> >> Some mails have questioned the notion of a 'global south'... >> >> NAM which was established during the cold war era as a bulwark against >> the two power blocs (US+ and USSR+) is one such institution/network for >> the global south ... and in our 'unipolar' world, groups like NAM, G77, >> IBSA have a role in resisting western (gov + corporate) hegemony... in >> the efforts to establish a more just world... >> >> (though global warming and IG, two most critical global governance >> issues which require global governance structure reform to be able to be >> effectively addressed, were not specifically mentioned) >> >> regards, >> Guru >> ps - The Indian Prime minister emphasised south-south cooperation... i >> suppose south-south cooperation requires there be a a global south:-) >> >> >> Global governance structure outdated, says India >> >> India on Tuesday said outdated global governance architecture has failed >> to meet contemporary challenges, including economic slowdown and the >> crisis in Syria. >> >> Even as the 16th summit of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Tehran is >> being seen as a diplomatic coup by Iran against the US, its allies in >> the west and Israel, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said the >> 120-member-bloc of developing countries should take a greater role to >> reform global governance. “There is widespread recognition that the >> outdated structures of global governance have not been able to keep pace >> with contemporary political and economic challenges. Many of these >> challenges, such as the worsening situation in Syria, a persistent >> global economic slowdown, and other new and emerging threats, require >> credible trans-national action,” Singh said before leaving for Tehran to >> attend the NAM summit, an event where New Delhi is expected to walk the >> tightrope to balance its energy interests in Iran and its ties with the >> US. .... “I will stress that our movement should provide a strong >> political impetus to the ongoing efforts to reform and democratise >> global governance structures, whch are critical to tackle these >> challenges more effectively,” Singh said. >> >> Link: >> http://www.deccanherald.com/content/274934/global-governance- >> structure-outdated-says.html >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 30 02:21:16 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:51:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> <503A3454.3080309@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <503F065C.8080003@itforchange.net> David, I will cut out both the chaff and the detail, sticking to the main issue we are discussing here. Your scenario building does show that 'it is possible' that as a result of the current court case on .xxx, this gtld 'may' need to be removed from the root. You also show that it can lead to a situation that threatens splitting of the root. We all know that the very meaning of a court case being admitted, and its maintainability being expressly confirmed by the court, is that the decision can indeed go either way. You would agree that, in a similar way that you would prepare for the security of your house without waiting for a break in to actually happen, governance systems need to be built with this kind of possible eventualities in mind. This to me is a convincing case that we should develop and propose a clear alternative for CIR management that is not dependent on the laws and executive authority of one country. Basically, in the circumstances, the only option is to base ICANN on international law, with a host country agreement and immunities for its functions vis a vis its physical location. And the only way to make international law is for all countries to get together and make it, while it being a fully open and participative process for everyone else. (In the same way as the 'only' process for making law in the US is for its legislature to make it). Now, if someone has an alternative, doable, process of making international law, one must come up with it (Milton's mysterious solution in his mysterious book notwithstanding). parminder On Monday 27 August 2012 01:09 AM, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > On Aug 26, 2012, at 7:36 AM, parminder > wrote: >> On Sunday 26 August 2012 10:48 AM, David Conrad wrote: >>> I was specifically asking for a reference to where any "ICANN >>> apologist claim[s] so" so I can understand their rationale. Your >>> statement is rather bald, so presumably you can back it up. I'm >>> asking for a reference. Can you provide one? >> I dont want to dig up all emails and get into a long discussion on >> you said this, what i meant was this and so on........ > > So, I gather you choose not to back up your assertion. Useful to know > for future discussions. > >>> If you assume that the "wishes of the US state" are codified in >>> corporate law, I suppose so, but this seems to be a bit of a reach >>> to me. >> Why? Doest US state make the corporate law? > > Yes, but corporate law is a tiny subset of the "wishes of the US state". > >>> For example, my impression the USG wasn't particularly excited >>> about the creation of .XXX yet ICANN seems to have gone ahead and >>> allowed for its creation, no? >> How many time can this one example to used to show the purity of the >> US state... > > Until it is demonstrated it is inapplicable, I suspect it will > continue to be used. There are others, e.g., processing requests from > countries in which it is illegal (as in criminal felony, decades in > jail, millions in fines) for US citizens to do business. > >>> As for abiding by the constraints of executive authority, ICANN, at >>> least in theory, abides by policies created by a bottom-up open >>> process, not by the dictates from the USG executive branch. >> In theory, the hierarchy between the two above kinds of control over >> the ICANN is clear. US laws and general US authority will prevail >> whether they have exercised it in any strong manner till now or not. >> And this is not acceptable. > > If you say so. I eagerly await a full proposal of your alternative > that describes an operational entity that exists above nation-state law. > >> BTW, why dont I get the answer to the main question which started >> this thread, and is in its subject line. *What happens if the US >> court, having accepted it as a maintainable case, declares .xxx >> registry agreement to be in contravention of US laws*? *Does the >> ICANN system with its chimera of global legitimacy simply unravels >> that moment? How do you see such a scenario?* > > Despite you being seemingly unwilling to answer my simple question, > I'll take a stab at this from an operational perspective (since I'm > not a lawyer): > > If a court were to decide .XXX violated US law (somehow), it could > direct ICANN to remove it. However, ICANN, as the IANA functions > operator, can't do the job (at least usefully -- the most ICANN can do > unilaterally is remove the Whois entry for XXX, but I doubt many > people would care). ICANN can at most send a request for a > de-delegation to DoC for authorization. Assuming DoC authorizes that > request, it would then go to Verisign who would likely remove the > entry from the root zone (since DoC authorized it, they'd be silly not > to). The XXX-less zone would then get signed and put onto the > distribution master where the root server operators would pull it down > and serve it to the world's resolvers. > > I suspect where things might get a bit complicated is in the DoC > authorization step. My guess is that DoC would not authorize the > request as it would be done outside of documented policies. This in > turn would likely result in the lawsuit being redirected to DoC. > Assuming the USG allowed the suit to proceed and the judgement was > against the DoC, DoC could be forced to authorize the request. > > It would then run into the other complicated bit -- whether or not the > root server operators accept and serve the XXX-less zone. Opinions > differ. > > Does ICANN's legitimacy unravel if this were to occur? Not really, > IMHO. The illusion that some (including yourself, I gather) have > ICANN is actually in control of anything other than providing a venue > in which consensus policies are derived and implemented might unravel, > but that would (again, IMHO) be a good thing. > >>> I figure when you are talking about mucking about with a working >>> albeit imperfect global infrastructure upon which people, nations, >>> and economies are increasingly dependent, you need a bit more than >>> "but the current system is undemocratic!". >> All my political and democratic sensibilities make me feel that your >> sentence above is self contradictory. > > Then you may need to adjust either your sensibilities or your perception. > >> You say that Internet has become too important an issue to subject to >> the democratic criterion !? > > Nope. I'm saying pretty much exactly the opposite. The Internet has > become too important to go mucking about with before exposing exactly > how and why you're going to be mucking about to the people who are > going to be affected by that mucking about. > > Regards, > -drc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 30 02:48:03 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:18:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22082FD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5038BD70.7080909@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22082FD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <503F0CA3.3020801@itforchange.net> Milton On Monday 27 August 2012 11:55 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Parminder, > > No, it will make European/ Indian decision applicable *only* to ICM > registry and *not* to the ICANN. This is a straight forward and > obvious fact despite your very clever attempt to twist it to suit you. > > Ødon't assume everyone is trying to apologize for imperialism when > they are > > Øsimply explaining things to you. I know it's sometimes embarrassing > to be wrong > > Øin public, but it happens to all of us. > > Ø > > ØIf ICANN - which, like Google or Microsoft, also operates in Europe - > was found to be a > > Øco-conspirator to dominate the market for porn with a domain name > registry then > > ØEuropean antitrust law would be as applicable as US law. See how EU > antitrust actions > > Øhave affected Intel, MSFT and, potentially, Google. > First, and I have said this twice already but you are not able to come up with a better example, EU anti trust actions will apply "only" to EU area and not globally. On the contrary, any US law constraining or dictating ICANN's action to that extent directly applies globally. This is a simple straight forward fact. Please also see David's scenario building about a possible adverse .xxx decision and the likely global impacts. Secondly, I am surprised that you are equating a governance system providing a 'monopoly' public service with companies providing commercial services. They are very different. > Ø > > ØBut of course, it IS true that if ICANN is found to violate > California Corporation law > > Øthen California law would be applicable in special ways that no other > jurisdiction would have. > > ØHowever, by this standard people like me outside of California are as > disenfranchised > Yes, you are. Would not non californians mind if california was making laws that, like federal law, apply to whole of US. They should if they are not. > as > > Øyou are. In other words, I have no more say and representation in > California law than you do. > > ØI do not vote for its legislature, I do not pay it taxes (thank God). > > ØNow, either you are forced to admit that 80% of the US is subject to > the same injustice as > > Øyou or (as I suspect will happen) > To the extent California law applies to ICANN, yes, but a lot of federal law and executive powers also apply to ICANN in which case, not... Again straightforward stuff. > you will continue to play the US card because that kind > > ØOf identity politics is more effective at getting people lathered up, > just like Japanese/Chinese/ > > ØKorean nationalism over small dead rocks in the sea > :). You are getting desperate here. I aint playing identity politics ( not that all identity politics is wrong). I am pointing to location of illegitimate power, and, now since you provoke me :) , to some of its desperate defenders, who want to have their cake (enjoy and take benefits from the power) and eat it too (look like just and fair people in the global public sphere). > > And your solution to this problem is? As a key political actor in this > space you must have some kind of a possible solution, and a possible > roadmap to it. > > ØRead my book > I must say, a very high handed response. BTW, If you cant put its gist and outlines in 3-4 paras I very much doubt that your book contains the solution. But you are welcome to prove me wrong. Why dont you oblige this group by briefly describing your solution here. That just may make many/ some of us read your book... parminder PS: I did buy your book but did not get around to reading it yet. > Ø(sorry Bill, did it again. But in this case, perhaps warranted?) > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 30 02:59:25 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:29:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <2B5A2D4F-A85E-4A04-A0D4-BCA4D42E78B5@uzh.ch> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5038BD70.7080909@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22082FD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2B5A2D4F-A85E-4A04-A0D4-BCA4D42E78B5@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <503F0F4D.3040901@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 28 August 2012 01:19 PM, William Drake wrote: > > On Aug 27, 2012, at 8:25 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> SNIP >> And your solution to this problem is? As a key political actor in >> this space you must have some kind of a possible solution, and a >> possible roadmap to it. >> ØRead my book >> Ø(sorry Bill, did it again. But in this case, perhaps warranted?) > > Uh, well, er…maybe that and some other sources (and no, not just your > blog). Bill Warren's Imperialism: Pioneer of Capitalism comes to mind :-) > > Anyway, wake me when we get past 2003 and small dead rocks. > > Bill So, Bill and Milton, you think questioning the legitimacy of application of US law and executive power over the supposedly global governance system of ICANN is very 2003 and some kind of a nationalist/ identity politics jingo.... Well, I am sure you will have to eat your words in not very distant a future. And I will save this email to jog your memory at that time :) parminder > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 30 03:26:53 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:26:53 +1200 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <503F0F4D.3040901@itforchange.net> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5038BD70.7080909@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22082FD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2B5A2D4F-A85E-4A04-A0D4-BCA4D42E78B5@uzh.ch> <503F0F4D.3040901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear All, In the Pacific, we sometimes use parables or stories to relay a point. The ongoing debate reminds me of a story of two women who had just given birth to their babies at the same time. It so happened one night that they went off to sleep and one of them rolled over their baby and of course one of the babies died. It so happened that the lady who had had unknowingly killed her baby made the switch and of course there was conflict in the morning as the ladies fought and argued over whose baby had died. The story goes that they went before a king to petition over who was the mother of the living child as the other woman was also laying claim to the child. The king in his wisdom asked for a sword and proceeded to cut the baby in two and told them what he was about to do. One of the mothers immediately cried out and said, "Stop" give the child to the other lady just don't kill the child. The king of course immediately stopped and ordered the child to be given to the woman who protested recognising that only a mother would want to protect her child at all costs. There are many lessons from the story but what is important is that the focus was not the "mothers" but the child. It almost feels to me that the Internet is that child who is being fought over and subjected to all kinds of political forces. Yet like a child it also is vulnerable and needs to be nurtured. An open and free internet is critical for the stability of the Internet. Any transition forced or otherwise will only create more harm than good. For those who have been involved in technological transitions, they are well aware of the social, economic, human cost that accompanies transition. I can foresee challenges to the developing world that would come from a forced transition and it does not look good. I like Dominique's suggestion when she used "peace" in one of her other posts. Why can't we take a page from the Caribbean and see how no one is hungry for more control and the level of collaboration that is deployed as evidenced from their strategic framework within their regional IGF. If we remove labels and tags and treat the Internet as a "baby" that should be nurtured, protected, what then must we do? I want the Internet to remain #open and #free....For some of us, it's about the "baby". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Thu Aug 30 05:14:10 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:14:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] Leading Global Standards Organizations Endorse 'OpenStand' Principles that Drive Innovation and Borderless Commerce In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1B5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1346245938.124121609@apps.rackspace.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1B5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Dear Wolfgang, Thank you very much for this information. I think it would be great to translate this text for our Third Ukrainian IGF (Kiev, 28 September). What link to the original version we have to give? Best regards, Oksana 2012/8/29 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > > FYI > > Wolfgang > > > > Leading Global Standards Organizations Endorse 'OpenStand' Principles that Drive Innovation and Borderless Commerce > > IEEE, IAB, IETF, Internet Society and W3C Invite Other Standards Organizations, Governments and Companies to Support Modern Paradigm for Global, Open Standards > > [PISCATAWAY, N.J., and WASHINGTON, D.C., United States; GENEVA, Switzerland, and http://www.w3.org/ -29 August 2012]- Five leading global organizations-IEEE, Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet Society and World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)-today announced that they have signed a statement affirming the importance of a jointly developed set of principles establishing a modern paradigm for global, open standards. The shared "OpenStand" principles-based on the effective and efficient standardization processes that have made the Internet and Web the premiere platforms for innovation and borderless commerce-are proven in their ability to foster competition and cooperation, support innovation and interoperability and drive market success. > > IEEE, IAB, IETF, Internet Society and W3C invite other standards organizations, governments, corporations and technology innovators globally to endorse the principles, which are available at open-stand.org. > > The OpenStand principles strive to encapsulate that successful standardization model and make it extendable across the contemporary, global economy's gamut of technology spaces and markets. The principles comprise a modern paradigm in which the economics of global markets-fueled by technological innovation-drive global deployment of standards, regardless of their formal status within traditional bodies of national representation. The OpenStand principles demand: > > * cooperation among standards organizations; > > * adherence to due process, broad consensus, transparency, balance and openness in standards development; > > * commitment to technical merit, interoperability, competition, innovation and benefit to humanity; > > * availability of standards to all, and > > * voluntary adoption. > > "New dynamics and pressures on global industry have driven changes in the ways that standards are developed and adopted around the world," said Steve Mills, president of the IEEE Standards Association. "Increasing globalization of markets, the rapid advancement of technology and intensifying time-to-market demands have forced industry to seek more efficient ways to define the global standards that help expand global markets. The OpenStand principles foster the more efficient international standardization paradigm that the world needs." > > Added Leslie Daigle, chief Internet technology officer with the Internet Society: "International standards development for borderless economics is not ad hoc; rather, it has a paradigm-one that has demonstrated agility and is driven by technical merit. The OpenStand principles convey the power of bottom-up collaboration in harnessing global creativity and expertise to the standards of any technology space that will underpin the modern economy moving forward." > > Standards developed and adopted via the OpenStand principles include IEEE standards for the Internet's physical connectivity, IETF standards for end-to-end global Internet interoperability and the W3C standards for the World Wide Web. > > "The Internet and World Wide Web have fueled an economic and social transformation, touching billions of lives. Efficient standardization of so many technologies has been key to the success of the global Internet," said Russ Housley, IETF chair. "These global standards were developed with a focus toward technical excellence and deployed through collaboration of many participants from all around the world. The results have literally changed the world, surpassing anything that has ever been achieved through any other standards-development model." > > Globally adopted design-automation standards, which have paved the way for a giant leap forward in industry's ability to define complex electronic solutions, provide another example of standards developed in the spirit of the OpenStand principles. Another technology space that figures to demand such standards over the next decades is the global smart-grid effort, which seeks to augment regional facilities for electricity generation, distribution, delivery and consumption with a two-way, end-to-end network for communications and control. > > "Think about all that the Internet and Web have enabled over the past 30 years, completely transforming society, government and commerce," said W3C chief executive officer Jeff Jaffe. "It is remarkable that a small number of organizations following a small number of principles have had such a huge impact on humanity, innovation and competition in global markets." > > Bernard Aboba, chair of the IAB: "The Internet has been built on specifications adopted voluntarily across the globe. By valuing running code, interoperability and deployment above formal status, the Internet has democratized the development of standards, enabling specifications originally developed outside of standards organizations to gain recognition based on their technical merit and adoption, contributing to the creation of global communities benefiting humanity. We now invite standards organizations, as well as governments, companies and individuals to join us at open-stand.org in order to affirm the principles that have nurtured the Internet and underpin many other important standards-and will continue to do so." > > About IEEE > > IEEE, a large, global technical professional organization is dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. Through its highly cited publications, conferences, technology standards, and professional and educational activities, IEEE is the trusted voice on a wide variety of areas ranging from aerospace systems, computers and telecommunications to biomedical engineering, electric power and consumer electronics. Learn more at http://www.ieee.org . > > About the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) > > The IAB is chartered both as a committee of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and as an advisory body of the Internet Society (ISOC). Its responsibilities include architectural oversight of IETF activities, Internet Standards Process oversight and appeal, and the appointment of the RFC Editor. The IAB is also responsible for the management of the IETF protocol parameter registries. > > About the Internet Engineering Task Force > > The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large open international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet. It is open to any interested individual. The IETF is an organised activity of the Internet Society. > > About the Internet Society > > The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet information and thought leadership from around the world. With its principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. For more information, visit www.internetsociety.org. > > About the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international consortium where Member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to develop Web standards. W3C primarily pursues its mission through the creation of Web standards and guidelines designed to ensure long-term growth for the Web. Over 375 organizations are Members of the Consortium. W3C is jointly run by the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (MIT CSAIL) in the USA, the European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics (ERCIM) headquartered in France and Keio University in Japan, and has additional Offices worldwide. For more information see http://www.w3.org/. > > > > _______________________________________________ > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > https://portal.isoc.org/ > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 30 05:50:34 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:50:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India In-Reply-To: <503ED46E.1010207@ITforChange.net> References: <503D97F9.5040704@itforchange.net> <503DA02C.8020109@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220A07C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <503ED46E.1010207@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <1CD6114F-BFD5-49E5-9748-084C2609C17E@uzh.ch> Hi Guru On Aug 30, 2012, at 4:48 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > On Wednesday 29 August 2012 06:52 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Guru >> "Non-aligned" meant "not aligned with the US/capitalist world nor the Soviet/communist world. >> Can you tell me what these countries are "not aligned" with today? >> >> --MM > in my mail: > > and in our 'unipolar' world, We must live on different planets. Mine's not even multipolar, it's heteropolar. Power is varyingly dispersed in different policy spaces across a growing range of actors, state and non-state. > groups like NAM, G77, > IBSA have a role in resisting western (gov + corporate) hegemony... in > the efforts to establish a more just world… Given that NAM's members include all Reporters Without Borders' Enemies of the Internet and almost all of its Countries Under Surveillance http://en.rsf.org/beset-by-online-surveillance-and-12-03-2012,42061.html (including India) it will certainly be an interesting development if it begins to play a leading role in efforts to establish a more just world with respect to the issues that are nominally the focus of this list. Issuing a declaration incanting the Peoples Daily of China editorial would not be evidence of movement in that direction. 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Aug 30 05:55:05 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:25:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India In-Reply-To: <1CD6114F-BFD5-49E5-9748-084C2609C17E@uzh.ch> References: <503D97F9.5040704@itforchange.net> <503DA02C.8020109@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220A07C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <503ED46E.1010207@ITforChange.net> <1CD6114F-BFD5-49E5-9748-084C2609C17E@uzh.ch> Message-ID: +1 on the heteropolar bit Bill! On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:20 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Guru > > On Aug 30, 2012, at 4:48 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: > > On Wednesday 29 August 2012 06:52 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Guru > > "Non-aligned" meant "not aligned with the US/capitalist world nor the > Soviet/communist world. > > Can you tell me what these countries are "not aligned" with today? > > > --MM > > in my mail: > > and in our 'unipolar' world, > > > We must live on different planets. Mine's not even multipolar, it's > heteropolar. Power is varyingly dispersed in different policy spaces > across a growing range of actors, state and non-state. > > groups like NAM, G77, > IBSA have a role in resisting western (gov + corporate) hegemony... in > the efforts to establish a more just world… > > > Given that NAM's members include all Reporters Without Borders' Enemies of > the Internet and almost all of its Countries Under Surveillance > http://en.rsf.org/beset-by-online-surveillance-and-12-03-2012,42061.html (including > India) it will certainly be an interesting development if it begins to play > a leading role in efforts to establish a more just world with respect to > the issues that are nominally the focus of this list. Issuing a > declaration incanting the Peoples Daily of China editorial would not be > evidence of movement in that direction. > > Cheers > > Bill > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 30 07:21:16 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:21:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India In-Reply-To: References: <503D97F9.5040704@itforchange.net> <503DA02C.8020109@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220A07C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <503ED46E.1010207@ITforChange.net> <1CD6114F-BFD5-49E5-9748-084C2609C17E@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <503F4CAC.4030109@gmail.com> Funny how the biggest "can do" "kick ass" nation gets lost in the crowd... if everything is all the same or all different, then the categories are well, not categories... so this may be true at some level of abstraction, on others - as in CIR - it is clear (at least to some of us) who/what the score is... On 2012/08/30 11:55 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > +1 on the heteropolar bit Bill! > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 30 07:23:25 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:23:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <503F0CA3.3020801@itforchange.net> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5038BD70.7080909@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22082FD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <503F0CA3.3020801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <503F4D2D.6070904@gmail.com> Behaviour of EU corporations (and largely US, but subject to correction) is exempt from competition law... otherwise what they do in agriculture (exporting famine ofttimes) would be regulated and more people could be productive as well as have access to food... meanwhile, obesity is an increasing problem in the north... (and Global North - for what that is worth)... On 2012/08/30 08:48 AM, parminder wrote: > > First, and I have said this twice already but you are not able to come > up with a better example, EU anti trust actions will apply "only" to > EU area and not globally. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Aug 30 09:18:06 2012 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:18:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] Global governance structure outdated, says India In-Reply-To: References: <503D97F9.5040704@itforchange.net> <503DA02C.8020109@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220A07C@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <503ED46E.1010207@ITforChange.net> <1CD6114F-BFD5-49E5-9748-084C2609C17E@uzh.ch> Message-ID: +1 from me too, on the reality, optimism and challenge of heteropolar... Ginger (Virginia) Paque VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu Diplo Foundation Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme www.diplomacy.edu/ig ** ** On 30 August 2012 04:55, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > +1 on the heteropolar bit Bill! > > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:20 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Guru >> >> On Aug 30, 2012, at 4:48 AM, Guru गुरु wrote: >> >> On Wednesday 29 August 2012 06:52 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Guru >> >> "Non-aligned" meant "not aligned with the US/capitalist world nor the >> Soviet/communist world. >> >> Can you tell me what these countries are "not aligned" with today? >> >> >> --MM >> >> in my mail: >> >> and in our 'unipolar' world, >> >> >> We must live on different planets. Mine's not even multipolar, it's >> heteropolar. Power is varyingly dispersed in different policy spaces >> across a growing range of actors, state and non-state. >> >> groups like NAM, G77, >> IBSA have a role in resisting western (gov + corporate) hegemony... in >> the efforts to establish a more just world… >> >> >> Given that NAM's members include all Reporters Without Borders' Enemies >> of the Internet and almost all of its Countries Under Surveillance >> http://en.rsf.org/beset-by-online-surveillance-and-12-03-2012,42061.html (including >> India) it will certainly be an interesting development if it begins to play >> a leading role in efforts to establish a more just world with respect to >> the issues that are nominally the focus of this list. Issuing a >> declaration incanting the Peoples Daily of China editorial would not be >> evidence of movement in that direction. >> >> Cheers >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 30 09:28:58 2012 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 06:28:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5038BD70.7080909@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22082FD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2B5A2D4F-A85E-4A04-A0D4-BCA4D42E78B5@uzh.ch> <503F0F4D.3040901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <68DAFB2C-DCB5-4738-B410-541DE998AB02@telus.net> An open and free Internet is critical to the stability of the planet and the resilience of community in society GG On 2012-08-30, at 12:26 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > An open and free internet is critical for the stability of the Internet -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 30 09:43:26 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:43:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Business Class for Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1346245938.124121609@apps.rackspace.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1B5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: The EU has released an schematic position paper on the ITRs http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0430:FIN:EN:PDF. I leave it to expert speakers of Brusselsian to explain how the language on traffic prices based on commercial negotiations in a free and fair marketplace fits with the ETNO proposal. I've invited Luigi to speak in the CIR main session in Baku, so maybe we'll be able to probe this a little then if there's not been concrete pronouncements in the meanwhile… Bill On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:24 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Will the ETNO/WCIT proposal lead to a mechanism where we have different classes for use of the human right to freedom of expression and to communicate? And even more: If you introduce a "business class" you have to introduce a checkpoint to seperate business from eceonomy and this can be done only via content control and DPI and leads directly to censorship. Any comments? > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57501754-38/euro-isps-defend-new-fees-as-business-class-internet-q-a/ > > Wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Aug 30 09:46:28 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:16:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Business Class for Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1346245938.124121609@apps.rackspace.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1B5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: That's Dutch/French. If there were a language called Brusselsian the people there would be Brussels Sprouts ;) -C On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 7:13 PM, William Drake wrote: > The EU has released an schematic position paper on the ITRs > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0430:FIN:EN:PDF. > I leave it to expert speakers of Brusselsian to explain how the language > on traffic prices based on commercial negotiations in a free and fair > marketplace fits with the ETNO proposal. I've invited Luigi to speak in > the CIR main session in Baku, so maybe we'll be able to probe this a little > then if there's not been concrete pronouncements in the meanwhile… > > Bill > > > > On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:24 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > Will the ETNO/WCIT proposal lead to a mechanism where we have different > classes for use of the human right to freedom of expression and to > communicate? And even more: If you introduce a "business class" you have to > introduce a checkpoint to seperate business from eceonomy and this can be > done only via content control and DPI and leads directly to censorship. Any > comments? > > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57501754-38/euro-isps-defend-new-fees-as-business-class-internet-q-a/ > > Wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Thu Aug 30 12:29:53 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:29:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Starving the Future Message-ID: <503F9501.8090201@panamo.eu> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/opinion/blow-starving-the-future.html @+, Dom -- Dominique Lacroix Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Thu Aug 30 14:24:46 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 01:24:46 +0700 Subject: [governance] Jurisdiction on the Internet Message-ID: <503FAFEE.7080901@gmx.net> Problems With Defining Jurisdiction on the Internet * Aug 27, 2012, By *David Maher* http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120827_problems_with_defining_jurisdiction_on_the_internet/ Norbert Klein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From charityg at diplomacy.edu Thu Aug 30 15:51:05 2012 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:51:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Starving the Future In-Reply-To: <503F9501.8090201@panamo.eu> References: <503F9501.8090201@panamo.eu> Message-ID: Hi, Just my comments on the article. We are not "really" starving our children. The food program is based on district budget which a school district may or may not use. Sadly, how districts save money is for them to cut on food subsidy in schools. Schools also compete for grants and you are looking at $6 Million dollars for 3 years budget in one school alone, not a district (the grant writer for district I used to work for got a cut of $90,000 just for writing the grant). From experience, it is easier to use those federal grant money for technology because they are directly used inside the classrooms. Teacher training is also another feasible way to spend that money. Yes, our heart breaks when we have students who are hungry coming to school. But half of the time students do not even eat the food being served - breakfast is cereal, milk, fruit, yogurt/pop tarts and cheese string. They do not like that so they throw the food away. State laws require that each student is handed out the complete meal whether they eat it or not. If they don't want it even if it's untouched/unopened, it has to be thrown away. Because of this, it's a waste of money so that's why most school districts do away with giving out food. We cannot serve them the food they want like pizza, cheetos or soda because the Department of Agriculture already has those food calories counted. Schools are only allowed to give out candies during Christmas, Halloween and Valentine's Day. Other than that they have to watch out because people from the Dept. of Agriculture can make surprise visits and look at the trash cans then literally check them for any candy wrappers or soda cans. It gets ridiculous like that. Another thing is there is MONEY for technology. Districts have already allocated budgets for online study builders (districts pay companies like studyisland.com based on how computers can access the online classroom) and just about any technology needed to suit each student's multiple intelligences. What is soaring nowadays in the US is the increasing number of learning disabilities among this generation. I work on the university student disability services so these students with learning disabilities pay $1200/semester to be accommodated in the university level. That means they get their own personal tutor. But not everyone can afford that. So some just don't go to college because it's too difficult. They would rather pick jobs that require a HS diploma or a GED, get married and have babies - well, it's a cycle. Drop outs are hurting taxpayers money. If they drop out, they have to pay back their student loans. If they can't get a job, they go to public assistance programs. Now that's too easy to fall back into. Bottom line - is to change the culture of entitlement. We work hard to have this technology for this generation. Life is too easy for them. Maybe it's our fault. Professors who are too stubborn to use technology are now forced to re-arrange their teaching to suit these digital natives. I just think that because the food or SNAP program might soon dissipate with a different administration it's the end of the world and we are starving these children so hence they're too hungry to compete with the rest of the world. How many times have I informed my students that these food programs are not meant for long term assistance. They are temporary. You can't keep on extending unemployment and pass good jobs because you like getting your cheque every month without having to work. What we want to do now is change the culture where students can be self-sufficient and productive. It's actually called Work and it's been there for a long time. Regards, Charity Gamboa-Embley Texas Tech University - Student Disability Services CE Instructor - Goodwill Industries of Northwest Texas/South Plains College On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/**08/25/opinion/blow-starving-** > the-future.html > > @+, Dom > > -- > Dominique Lacroix > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Aug 30 16:31:01 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:31:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <68DAFB2C-DCB5-4738-B410-541DE998AB02@telus.net> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5038BD70.7080909@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22082FD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <2B5A2D4F-A85E-4A04-A0D4-BCA4D42E78B5@uzh.ch> <503F0F4D.3040901@itforchange.net> <68DAFB2C-DCB5-4738-B410-541DE998AB02@telus.net> Message-ID: <503FCD85.6070109@gmail.com> +1 And improved governance and legitimacy are essential for long term stability (and a single root ; ) On 2012/08/30 03:28 PM, Garth Graham wrote: > An open and free Internet is critical to the stability of the planet and the resilience of community in society > > GG > > On 2012-08-30, at 12:26 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > >> An open and free internet is critical for the stability of the Internet -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Aug 30 17:40:16 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:40:16 -0700 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <503F065C.8080003@itforchange.net> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> <503A3454.3080309@itforchange.net> <503F065C.8080003@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <74E6E47E-4A41-41F4-B8AD-496CE37AF925@virtualized.org> Parminder, On Aug 29, 2012, at 11:21 PM, parminder wrote: > I will cut out both the chaff and the detail, sticking to the main issue we are discussing here. Actually, I was attempting to understand the rationale someone might use to assert ICANN is not subject to US law since you stated ICANN apologists did this, but I get that you don't want to talk about your earlier statement. > This to me is a convincing case that we should develop and propose a clear alternative for CIR management that is not dependent on the laws and executive authority of one country. I suspect many, if not all, of the folks you deride as "status quoists" would simply respond with "great idea, now where's that proposal for a clear alternative again?" > Basically, in the circumstances, the only option is to base ICANN on international law, with a host country agreement and immunities for its functions vis a vis its physical location. As this is not my area of expertise, can you point to a similar case where a private organization has been based on international law and granted immunities? I'm curious as to how such organizations originated and evolved. > And the only way to make international law is for all countries to get together and make it, while it being a fully open and participative process for everyone else. I thought most (all?) international law was the result of treaties between governments which may or may not be the result of "a fully open and participative process for everyone else". In fact, my impression has been that most international law was sort of the opposite of "fully open and participative". Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Aug 30 17:45:11 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 14:45:11 -0700 Subject: [governance] Leading Global Standards Organizations Endorse 'OpenStand' Principles that Drive Innovation and Borderless Commerce In-Reply-To: References: <1346245938.124121609@apps.rackspace.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1B5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Here you go Oksana http://www.internetsociety.org/news/leading-global-standards-organizations-endorse-%E2%80%98openstand%E2%80%99-principles-drive-innovation-and Fahd On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 2:14 AM, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > Dear Wolfgang, > > Thank you very much for this information. I think it would be great to > translate this text for our Third Ukrainian IGF (Kiev, 28 September). What > link to the original version we have to give? > > Best regards, > Oksana > > 2012/8/29 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > : > > > > FYI > > > > Wolfgang > > > > > > > > Leading Global Standards Organizations Endorse 'OpenStand' Principles > that Drive Innovation and Borderless Commerce > > > > IEEE, IAB, IETF, Internet Society and W3C Invite Other Standards > Organizations, Governments and Companies to Support Modern Paradigm for > Global, Open Standards > > > > [PISCATAWAY, N.J., and WASHINGTON, D.C., United States; GENEVA, > Switzerland, and http://www.w3.org/ -29 August 2012]- Five leading global > organizations-IEEE, Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Engineering > Task Force (IETF), Internet Society and World Wide Web Consortium > (W3C)-today announced that they have signed a statement affirming the > importance of a jointly developed set of principles establishing a modern > paradigm for global, open standards. The shared "OpenStand" > principles-based on the effective and efficient standardization processes > that have made the Internet and Web the premiere platforms for innovation > and borderless commerce-are proven in their ability to foster competition > and cooperation, support innovation and interoperability and drive market > success. > > > > IEEE, IAB, IETF, Internet Society and W3C invite other standards > organizations, governments, corporations and technology innovators globally > to endorse the principles, which are available at open-stand.org. > > > > The OpenStand principles strive to encapsulate that successful > standardization model and make it extendable across the contemporary, > global economy's gamut of technology spaces and markets. The principles > comprise a modern paradigm in which the economics of global markets-fueled > by technological innovation-drive global deployment of standards, > regardless of their formal status within traditional bodies of national > representation. The OpenStand principles demand: > > > > * cooperation among standards organizations; > > > > * adherence to due process, broad consensus, transparency, balance and > openness in standards development; > > > > * commitment to technical merit, interoperability, competition, > innovation and benefit to humanity; > > > > * availability of standards to all, and > > > > * voluntary adoption. > > > > "New dynamics and pressures on global industry have driven changes in > the ways that standards are developed and adopted around the world," said > Steve Mills, president of the IEEE Standards Association. "Increasing > globalization of markets, the rapid advancement of technology and > intensifying time-to-market demands have forced industry to seek more > efficient ways to define the global standards that help expand global > markets. The OpenStand principles foster the more efficient international > standardization paradigm that the world needs." > > > > Added Leslie Daigle, chief Internet technology officer with the Internet > Society: "International standards development for borderless economics is > not ad hoc; rather, it has a paradigm-one that has demonstrated agility and > is driven by technical merit. The OpenStand principles convey the power of > bottom-up collaboration in harnessing global creativity and expertise to > the standards of any technology space that will underpin the modern economy > moving forward." > > > > Standards developed and adopted via the OpenStand principles include > IEEE standards for the Internet's physical connectivity, IETF standards for > end-to-end global Internet interoperability and the W3C standards for the > World Wide Web. > > > > "The Internet and World Wide Web have fueled an economic and social > transformation, touching billions of lives. Efficient standardization of so > many technologies has been key to the success of the global Internet," said > Russ Housley, IETF chair. "These global standards were developed with a > focus toward technical excellence and deployed through collaboration of > many participants from all around the world. The results have literally > changed the world, surpassing anything that has ever been achieved through > any other standards-development model." > > > > Globally adopted design-automation standards, which have paved the way > for a giant leap forward in industry's ability to define complex electronic > solutions, provide another example of standards developed in the spirit of > the OpenStand principles. Another technology space that figures to demand > such standards over the next decades is the global smart-grid effort, which > seeks to augment regional facilities for electricity generation, > distribution, delivery and consumption with a two-way, end-to-end network > for communications and control. > > > > "Think about all that the Internet and Web have enabled over the past 30 > years, completely transforming society, government and commerce," said W3C > chief executive officer Jeff Jaffe. "It is remarkable that a small number > of organizations following a small number of principles have had such a > huge impact on humanity, innovation and competition in global markets." > > > > Bernard Aboba, chair of the IAB: "The Internet has been built on > specifications adopted voluntarily across the globe. By valuing running > code, interoperability and deployment above formal status, the Internet has > democratized the development of standards, enabling specifications > originally developed outside of standards organizations to gain recognition > based on their technical merit and adoption, contributing to the creation > of global communities benefiting humanity. We now invite standards > organizations, as well as governments, companies and individuals to join us > at open-stand.org in order to affirm the principles that have nurtured > the Internet and underpin many other important standards-and will continue > to do so." > > > > About IEEE > > > > IEEE, a large, global technical professional organization is dedicated > to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. Through its highly > cited publications, conferences, technology standards, and professional and > educational activities, IEEE is the trusted voice on a wide variety of > areas ranging from aerospace systems, computers and telecommunications to > biomedical engineering, electric power and consumer electronics. Learn more > at http://www.ieee.org . > > > > About the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) > > > > The IAB is chartered both as a committee of the Internet Engineering > Task Force (IETF) and as an advisory body of the Internet Society (ISOC). > Its responsibilities include architectural oversight of IETF activities, > Internet Standards Process oversight and appeal, and the appointment of the > RFC Editor. The IAB is also responsible for the management of the IETF > protocol parameter registries. > > > > About the Internet Engineering Task Force > > > > The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large open international > community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers > concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth > operation of the Internet. It is open to any interested individual. The > IETF is an organised activity of the Internet Society. > > > > About the Internet Society > > > > The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet > information and thought leadership from around the world. With its > principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet > Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future > development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. > Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet > Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for > everyone. For more information, visit www.internetsociety.org. > > > > About the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > > > > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international consortium where > Member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to > develop Web standards. W3C primarily pursues its mission through the > creation of Web standards and guidelines designed to ensure long-term > growth for the Web. Over 375 organizations are Members of the Consortium. > W3C is jointly run by the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence > Laboratory (MIT CSAIL) in the USA, the European Research Consortium for > Informatics and Mathematics (ERCIM) headquartered in France and Keio > University in Japan, and has additional Offices worldwide. For more > information see http://www.w3.org/. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, > > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: > > https://portal.isoc.org/ > > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Thu Aug 30 19:02:01 2012 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 01:02:01 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Business Class for Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1346245938.124121609@apps.rackspace.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1B5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <010601cd8703$78391170$68ab3450$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Wolfgang, Operators already have and use the capabilities of DPI to distinguish between different services. So, yes, this presumably would be used even more with different service classes. As long as this is done content-agnostic, and packets simply analysed to prioritize certain traffic over other, without any storage or further analysis, then human rights should not be affected. But you never know how this would be handled in countries with a less than stellar human rights record overall. My opinion is that as long as there is sufficient competition amongst operators, so that the end user can pick and chose, then the average user will continue to select a service plan with an operator who will offer the current “best effort” Internet service, whereas some – let’s say, an automobile manufacturer who wants to do online design in real time between different locations – would chose a business or platinum service to assure not just best effort, but 99.9999999% availability and speed etc. Commercial agreements in a free and fair marketplace should be no problem, as long as there is sufficient competition and user choice. However, we should still analyse the long-term systemic effects that such introduction of user or service classes would have. Bill, The suggested wording of the EU proposal sounds good so far, especially the text of the annex proposing the EU positions, and in particular these two articles: (c) Support proposals that seek to ensure that the revised ITRs remain high level, strategic and technology neutral and oppose proposals to make ITU recommendations binding on ITU member states and operating agencies; (d) Support any proposals to maintain the current scope of the ITRs and the current mandate of the ITU, oppose any proposals to extend the scope to areas such as the routing of Internetbased traffic, content-related issues; (c) is particularly important, as there are proposals in the draft to make ITU recommendations binding. Having the EU (and hopefully CEPT) oppose such wording should be helpful. Also helpful should be support to keep ITRs on a high level, not on the details of regulation. (d) is in line with general consensus that ITU should not expand on its mandate to include the Internet, and should stick to its mandate of telecommunications. Closer reading and comparison of the EU treaty (and subsequent common legislation stemming therefrom) with the proposed ITR changes should shed further light on this, but I have no yet begun doing such an analysis and would hope that some Brussels-based business reps could do such analysis. Best, Peter Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: 30 August 2012 15:43 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Betreff: Re: [governance] Business Class for Human Rights? The EU has released an schematic position paper on the ITRs http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0430:FIN:EN:P DF. I leave it to expert speakers of Brusselsian to explain how the language on traffic prices based on commercial negotiations in a free and fair marketplace fits with the ETNO proposal. I've invited Luigi to speak in the CIR main session in Baku, so maybe we'll be able to probe this a little then if there's not been concrete pronouncements in the meanwhile Bill On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:24 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: Will the ETNO/WCIT proposal lead to a mechanism where we have different classes for use of the human right to freedom of expression and to communicate? And even more: If you introduce a "business class" you have to introduce a checkpoint to seperate business from eceonomy and this can be done only via content control and DPI and leads directly to censorship. Any comments? http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57501754-38/euro-isps-defend-new-fees-as-b usiness-class-internet-q-a/ Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Thu Aug 30 21:01:50 2012 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 22:01:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] Business Class for Human Rights? In-Reply-To: <503ff113.89d70e0a.2d87.42e5SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> References: <1346245938.124121609@apps.rackspace.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1B5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <503ff113.89d70e0a.2d87.42e5SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: "Commercial agreements in a free and fair marketplace should be no problem, as long as there is sufficient competition and user choice." Information to consumers is vital. The meaning and relevance of net neutrality is completely unknown and/or difficult to understand for probably 95% of broadband consumers. Ivar On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds < peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu> wrote: > Wolfgang, **** > > ** ** > > Operators already have and use the capabilities of DPI to distinguish > between different services. So, yes, this presumably would be used even > more with different service classes. As long as this is done > content-agnostic, and packets simply analysed to prioritize certain traffic > over other, without any storage or further analysis, then human rights > should not be affected. But you never know how this would be handled in > countries with a less than stellar human rights record overall. My opinion > is that as long as there is sufficient competition amongst operators, so > that the end user can pick and chose, then the average user will continue > to select a service plan with an operator who will offer the current “best > effort” Internet service, whereas some – let’s say, an automobile > manufacturer who wants to do online design in real time between different > locations – would chose a business or platinum service to assure not just > best effort, but 99.9999999% availability and speed etc.**** > > ** ** > > Commercial agreements in a free and fair marketplace should be no problem, > as long as there is sufficient competition and user choice. However, we > should still analyse the long-term systemic effects that such introduction > of user or service classes would have.**** > > ** ** > > Bill,**** > > ** ** > > The suggested wording of the EU proposal sounds good so far, especially > the text of the annex proposing the EU positions, and in particular these > two articles:**** > > ** ** > > (c) Support proposals that seek to ensure that the revised ITRs remain > high level, strategic and**** > > technology neutral and oppose proposals to make ITU recommendations > binding on ITU**** > > member states and operating agencies;**** > > ** ** > > (d) Support any proposals to maintain the current scope of the ITRs and > the current mandate**** > > of the ITU, oppose any proposals to extend the scope to areas such as the > routing of Internetbased**** > > traffic, content-related issues;**** > > ** ** > > (c) is particularly important, as there are proposals in the draft to make > ITU recommendations binding. Having the EU (and hopefully CEPT) oppose such > wording should be helpful. Also helpful should be support to keep ITRs on a > high level, not on the details of regulation.**** > > ** ** > > (d) is in line with general consensus that ITU should not expand on its > mandate to include the Internet, and should stick to its mandate of > telecommunications.**** > > ** ** > > Closer reading and comparison of the EU treaty (and subsequent common > legislation stemming therefrom) with the proposed ITR changes should shed > further light on this, but I have no yet begun doing such an analysis and > would hope that some Brussels-based business reps could do such analysis.* > *** > > ** ** > > Best,**** > > Peter **** > > ** ** > > *Von:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *William Drake > *Gesendet:* 30 August 2012 15:43 > *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > *Betreff:* Re: [governance] Business Class for Human Rights?**** > > ** ** > > The EU has released an schematic position paper on the ITRs > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0430:FIN:EN:PDF. > I leave it to expert speakers of Brusselsian to explain how the language > on traffic prices based on commercial negotiations in a free and fair > marketplace fits with the ETNO proposal. I've invited Luigi to speak in > the CIR main session in Baku, so maybe we'll be able to probe this a little > then if there's not been concrete pronouncements in the meanwhile…**** > > ** ** > > Bill**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:24 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:**** > > > > **** > > Will the ETNO/WCIT proposal lead to a mechanism where we have different > classes for use of the human right to freedom of expression and to > communicate? And even more: If you introduce a "business class" you have to > introduce a checkpoint to seperate business from eceonomy and this can be > done only via content control and DPI and leads directly to censorship. Any > comments? > > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57501754-38/euro-isps-defend-new-fees-as-business-class-internet-q-a/ > > Wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t**** > > ** ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Fri Aug 31 01:48:03 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:48:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] Leading Global Standards Organizations Endorse 'OpenStand' Principles that Drive Innovation and Borderless Commerce In-Reply-To: References: <1346245938.124121609@apps.rackspace.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1B5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Thanks a lot, Fahd! 2012/8/31 Fahd A. Batayneh : > Here you go Oksana > > http://www.internetsociety.org/news/leading-global-standards-organizations-endorse-%E2%80%98openstand%E2%80%99-principles-drive-innovation-and > > Fahd > > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 2:14 AM, Oksana Prykhodko > wrote: >> >> Dear Wolfgang, >> >> Thank you very much for this information. I think it would be great to >> translate this text for our Third Ukrainian IGF (Kiev, 28 September). What >> link to the original version we have to give? >> >> Best regards, >> Oksana >> >> 2012/8/29 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >> : >> > >> > FYI >> > >> > Wolfgang >> > >> > >> > >> > Leading Global Standards Organizations Endorse 'OpenStand' Principles >> > that Drive Innovation and Borderless Commerce >> > >> > IEEE, IAB, IETF, Internet Society and W3C Invite Other Standards >> > Organizations, Governments and Companies to Support Modern Paradigm for >> > Global, Open Standards >> > >> > [PISCATAWAY, N.J., and WASHINGTON, D.C., United States; GENEVA, >> > Switzerland, and http://www.w3.org/ -29 August 2012]- Five leading global >> > organizations-IEEE, Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Engineering >> > Task Force (IETF), Internet Society and World Wide Web Consortium >> > (W3C)-today announced that they have signed a statement affirming the >> > importance of a jointly developed set of principles establishing a modern >> > paradigm for global, open standards. The shared "OpenStand" principles-based >> > on the effective and efficient standardization processes that have made the >> > Internet and Web the premiere platforms for innovation and borderless >> > commerce-are proven in their ability to foster competition and cooperation, >> > support innovation and interoperability and drive market success. >> > >> > IEEE, IAB, IETF, Internet Society and W3C invite other standards >> > organizations, governments, corporations and technology innovators globally >> > to endorse the principles, which are available at open-stand.org. >> > >> > The OpenStand principles strive to encapsulate that successful >> > standardization model and make it extendable across the contemporary, global >> > economy's gamut of technology spaces and markets. The principles comprise a >> > modern paradigm in which the economics of global markets-fueled by >> > technological innovation-drive global deployment of standards, regardless of >> > their formal status within traditional bodies of national representation. >> > The OpenStand principles demand: >> > >> > * cooperation among standards organizations; >> > >> > * adherence to due process, broad consensus, transparency, balance and >> > openness in standards development; >> > >> > * commitment to technical merit, interoperability, competition, >> > innovation and benefit to humanity; >> > >> > * availability of standards to all, and >> > >> > * voluntary adoption. >> > >> > "New dynamics and pressures on global industry have driven changes in >> > the ways that standards are developed and adopted around the world," said >> > Steve Mills, president of the IEEE Standards Association. "Increasing >> > globalization of markets, the rapid advancement of technology and >> > intensifying time-to-market demands have forced industry to seek more >> > efficient ways to define the global standards that help expand global >> > markets. The OpenStand principles foster the more efficient international >> > standardization paradigm that the world needs." >> > >> > Added Leslie Daigle, chief Internet technology officer with the Internet >> > Society: "International standards development for borderless economics is >> > not ad hoc; rather, it has a paradigm-one that has demonstrated agility and >> > is driven by technical merit. The OpenStand principles convey the power of >> > bottom-up collaboration in harnessing global creativity and expertise to the >> > standards of any technology space that will underpin the modern economy >> > moving forward." >> > >> > Standards developed and adopted via the OpenStand principles include >> > IEEE standards for the Internet's physical connectivity, IETF standards for >> > end-to-end global Internet interoperability and the W3C standards for the >> > World Wide Web. >> > >> > "The Internet and World Wide Web have fueled an economic and social >> > transformation, touching billions of lives. Efficient standardization of so >> > many technologies has been key to the success of the global Internet," said >> > Russ Housley, IETF chair. "These global standards were developed with a >> > focus toward technical excellence and deployed through collaboration of many >> > participants from all around the world. The results have literally changed >> > the world, surpassing anything that has ever been achieved through any other >> > standards-development model." >> > >> > Globally adopted design-automation standards, which have paved the way >> > for a giant leap forward in industry's ability to define complex electronic >> > solutions, provide another example of standards developed in the spirit of >> > the OpenStand principles. Another technology space that figures to demand >> > such standards over the next decades is the global smart-grid effort, which >> > seeks to augment regional facilities for electricity generation, >> > distribution, delivery and consumption with a two-way, end-to-end network >> > for communications and control. >> > >> > "Think about all that the Internet and Web have enabled over the past 30 >> > years, completely transforming society, government and commerce," said W3C >> > chief executive officer Jeff Jaffe. "It is remarkable that a small number of >> > organizations following a small number of principles have had such a huge >> > impact on humanity, innovation and competition in global markets." >> > >> > Bernard Aboba, chair of the IAB: "The Internet has been built on >> > specifications adopted voluntarily across the globe. By valuing running >> > code, interoperability and deployment above formal status, the Internet has >> > democratized the development of standards, enabling specifications >> > originally developed outside of standards organizations to gain recognition >> > based on their technical merit and adoption, contributing to the creation of >> > global communities benefiting humanity. We now invite standards >> > organizations, as well as governments, companies and individuals to join us >> > at open-stand.org in order to affirm the principles that have nurtured the >> > Internet and underpin many other important standards-and will continue to do >> > so." >> > >> > About IEEE >> > >> > IEEE, a large, global technical professional organization is dedicated >> > to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. Through its highly >> > cited publications, conferences, technology standards, and professional and >> > educational activities, IEEE is the trusted voice on a wide variety of areas >> > ranging from aerospace systems, computers and telecommunications to >> > biomedical engineering, electric power and consumer electronics. Learn more >> > at http://www.ieee.org . >> > >> > About the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) >> > >> > The IAB is chartered both as a committee of the Internet Engineering >> > Task Force (IETF) and as an advisory body of the Internet Society (ISOC). >> > Its responsibilities include architectural oversight of IETF activities, >> > Internet Standards Process oversight and appeal, and the appointment of the >> > RFC Editor. The IAB is also responsible for the management of the IETF >> > protocol parameter registries. >> > >> > About the Internet Engineering Task Force >> > >> > The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large open international >> > community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers >> > concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth >> > operation of the Internet. It is open to any interested individual. The IETF >> > is an organised activity of the Internet Society. >> > >> > About the Internet Society >> > >> > The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet >> > information and thought leadership from around the world. With its >> > principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet >> > Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future >> > development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. >> > Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society >> > enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. For >> > more information, visit www.internetsociety.org. >> > >> > About the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >> > >> > The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international consortium where >> > Member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to >> > develop Web standards. W3C primarily pursues its mission through the >> > creation of Web standards and guidelines designed to ensure long-term growth >> > for the Web. Over 375 organizations are Members of the Consortium. W3C is >> > jointly run by the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence >> > Laboratory (MIT CSAIL) in the USA, the European Research Consortium for >> > Informatics and Mathematics (ERCIM) headquartered in France and Keio >> > University in Japan, and has additional Offices worldwide. For more >> > information see http://www.w3.org/. >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, >> > please log into the ISOC Member Portal: >> > https://portal.isoc.org/ >> > Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 31 01:55:57 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 11:25:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - day 2, discussion of ITRs] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <504051ED.9090208@itforchange.net> Dear Peng Hwa, Sorry, didnt respond to this earlier. Your email on another elist reminded me so. On Sunday 12 August 2012 11:01 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > > Dear Parminder, > > Thank you for your email. I cannot imagine ignoring your email. (In > fact, the 2011 email shows that neither you nor the issue was ever > "completely ignored.") As the evidence in the email trail and the > conversations you agreed we show that neither you nor the issue have > been ignored. It's on the record. > I dont think we will agree on this. However, the email trail does not at all show the issues that I had raised have 'not been ignored', which is the same as 'they have not been addressed'. Almost none of them have been. (Do you think telling me, well we should talk about these issues some time f2f amount to addressing these issues) Like: you have not told me if you did approach AP UN regional commission or not, and if not why so, and whether you do intend to approach it in future? No information has been forthcoming about direct questions I asked - who are the funders, was the participation of some participants funded, if so, whose and on which criteria (all the the questions that we regularly ask the UN IGF) Who sets up the advisory or steering committee, and on what basis. You havent even declared the names of the members of this committee even on my persistent asking. As someone living in AP area, I have at least a basic right to know such simple things about something which purports to, in some way, represent me. How is your handing over of the ownership of what you call as the regional IGF to a group of technical community organisations (not that I have ever been clear what this term means) makes it 'community owned' and thus self legitimising. And all those old questions/ issues that I have raised about why did you not perhaps start with civil society groups that were active at WSIS, and then build upwards, which would be a really participative excercise, and as you claim your initiative to be, *really* civil society led. I understand that it is entirely up to you to respond to these questions / issues or not ... However please do not claim that there is a 'record' of the fact that you have addressed these issues. snip > > You havent told me why UNESCAP was not approached when most other > regional IGF involve the regional UN commissions, > > I reacted to this right away when you told me this the first time in > 2010 by emailing you either immediately or very soon after I got your > email. I remember you saying that with the endorsement of UNESCAP we > could then use the IGF logo. I also remember asking with astonishment > why we had to get the endorsement of UNESCAP in order to use the IGF > moniker. There was no rule for or against holding an IGF.We spoke at > the APrIGF in Hongkong and I remember asking you who says so. You > could not give me a good answer. > This does not correspond to my recollection of our exchange, at least certainly of what I was saying. I have associated closely enough the UN IGF processes to know that there is no such rule. I only said that such connecting to established 'public' regional instutions gives the initiative the kind of credibility which is needed for anyone to call it an AP regional IGF. Reminding you again that in both the existing regional IGFs in developing regions of the world, Africa and Latin America, the regional UN regional commissions play an important part. It is you who must really have a good reason to exclude the UN regional commission in AP region. best regards, parminder > In my mind therefore, you and I had therefore come to a stalemate > (glass half-empty POV) or an understanding (glass half-full POV). That > was why I sent you the invite in 2011. > > Now, before you hasten to think that I am being especially non > understanding and harsh on you, pl know that I ask the same questions > from the global IGF (in fact IGC has been doing it consistently) and > I/ we also did our best to get much of this into the report of the > CSTD WG on IGF improvements. So, if I dont ask these question vis a > vis an event calling itself the regional AP IGF, I will be being very > inconsistent (which unfortunately, some people on this list are being) > > With the greatest of due respect, I think your consistency is > misplaced. The first two APrIGFs were in essence startups. For the > 2010 meeting, Edmon was raising funds, organizing logistics, chairing > the programme committee, designing the website, sending out the > publicity, etc. And Edmon actually had three overlapping meetings > happening in that week. In the followingyear, Edmon certainly helped > but most of what he did the year earlier was handed over to me. > > With any new effort, it is natural that people are cautious about how > much weight to give to it. The most obvious group to appeal to are > those directly involved in the more technical matters of the Internet. > It is the also a point of having a regional meeting—to publicise > Internet governance to the larger community. > > This year was a lot better as there were three different groups—the > local organising committee in Tokyo to handle logistics, the > secretariat handled by Edmon’s dotAsia and the programme committee > that I chaired. With the workload more spread out, it’s easier to give > more thought to some of the issues you have raised. > > In this background, your claim that your AP rIGF is legitimate because > 'now' it is under a loose unclear technical community umbrella group > sounds to me rather revisionist from a civil society point of view. > > What do you propose as a solution then? > > > >1.This year, there was a call for panels and some of the panelists > were funded. The next APrIGF will have a similar CFP. > > No, that is not enough. There has to a representative, > participative, transparent process from the very start. I am most > surprised that you are still not committing to one. You are just > saying there was a call for proposals, and next year too there > will be one. Also, I want information of which panels were funded > and on what creteria. > > Who can disagree with representative participation and a transparent > process? > > Fwiw, the organisers of the 2012 meeting will have meeting to discuss > ways to improve the APrIGF. Izumi has been at the forefront in > sending the group a wish list of things that the next committee should > look into. You are welcome to send us your wish list. > > > Regards, > > Peng Hwa > > > PS. For those who want to know more about AP*, the APStar.org website > gives more details about the group. AP* is a loose grouping of mostly > technical associations in the Asia Pacific region involved with the > Internet, a sort of association of associations. > > > > From: Parminder Singh > > Date: Thursday, August 2, 2012 4:18 PM > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org > " >, AngPH >, Izumi Aizu > > Subject: Re: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF - > day 2, discussion of ITRs] > > Peng Hwa (and Izumi) > > On Tuesday 24 July 2012 05:17 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: >> Parminder, >> >> Back from a meeting between the emails. >> >> First things first. Thank you for your email. I cannot imagine >> ignoring your email. (In fact, the 2011 email shows that neither >> you nor the issue was ever "completely ignored.") > > It is not about ignoring me. It is about the issues that not only > were ignored, they are still being ignored. You still havent > answered, any of the questions that I raised in my 2010 > conversations, 2011 email or even in the present exchange. You > havent told me why UNESCAP was not approached when most other > regional IGF involve the regional UN commissions, you havent told > me why efforts were not made to connect to non-technical community > NGOs before preparation begun, including those persons/ groups who > were involved with WSIS Asia Pacific caucus for instance, why > almost no government seems to be involved, i have no clear > information on who were on the organising committee (simple > information, isnt it, why not share it), who set up the organising > committee, who all funded the event, how many and which all > participants to the event were funded and on what criteria etc...... > > Now, before you hasten to think that I am being especially non > understanding and harsh on you, pl know that I ask the same > questions from the global IGF (in fact IGC has been doing it > consistently) and I/ we also did our best to get much of this into > the report of the CSTD WG on IGF improvements. So, if I dont ask > these question vis a vis an event calling itself the regional AP > IGF, I will be being very inconsistent (which unfortunately, some > people on this list are being) > >> I like to think that I would have answered at least some of your >> suggestions but I honestly cannot recall it now. > > No, you did not. The proof of it is, you still havent even when I > ask again. >> >> Be that as it may, I may have felt that you were "mollified" (aka >> agree to disagree) because at that time, you had questioned the >> legitimacy of the APrIGF. I had said that the legitimacy argument >> would in fact play into the hands of those who question the >> legitimacy of civil society, an argument that I thought you >> accepted. Hence the friendly invite for 2011. >> >> I'm wondering if the debate is now moot because: >> >> 1. The IGF Secretariat has now come up with the guidelines for >> what a regional or national IGF should contain. (The >> Secretariat itself clearly has no problems with others using >> the IGF to indicate their national or regional IGF is part of >> the UN-level IGF.) This is a rather low bar and the APrIGF >> meets it. >> > > It is not enough if they set the bar low , it is not that civil > society is just sitting to receive with fulsome gratitude > whatever the IGF secretariat does or communicates (no, that is not > how we have worked traditionally) .We make and let know our > positions. The question is, are you fine with the low bar set for > regional IGFs? If so, why did we fight so much for raising the bar > for the global IGF through our engagements with the WG on IGF > improvements, Will be very grateful for an answer, especially from > Izumi who was on the WG. > > >> 1. The APrIGF is now under AP*. Some processes have been put in >> place for approval of the venue, chair of the PC, etc. >> > > I dont think many people here know what AP* is, and therefore you > will have to elaborate. I see it as a group > largelyoforganisations that tend to see themselves as the > technical community, right! So, perhaps, the equivalent of what > you are declaring as the grounds of legitimacy for the so call AP > IGF will be someone saying global IGF is now very fine and immune > from criticism because' it is now under ISOC'..... I dont know > whether you are aware of it or not, but some such proposal, to put > IGF under the ISOCs, were mooted during the IGF, but most civil > society strongly opposed it. > > In this background, your claim that your AP rIGF is legitimate > because 'now' it is under a loose unclear technical community > umbrella group sounds to me rather revisionist from a civil > society point of view. > >> 1. This year, there was a call for panels and some of the >> panelists were funded. The next APrIGF will have a similar CFP. >> > > No, that is not enough. There has to be a representative, > participative, transparent process from the very start. I am most > surprised that you are still not committing to one. You are just > saying there was a call for proposals, and next year too there > will be one. Also, I want information of which panels were funded > and on what creteria. > > thanks for your engagement, > > parminder >> You can expect the APrIGF to be more transparent in the future. >> And of course your suggestions to improve its governance and >> processes are always welcome. >> >> Regards, >> Peng Hwa >> >> >> >> From: Parminder Singh > > >> Date: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:30 PM >> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> " >> > >, AngPH > > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Completely Ignored [was East Africa IGF >> - day 2, discussion of ITRs] >> >> Peng Hwa, >> >> You have mentioned in your email how I had raised a number of issues when you had first organised the so-called APrIGF in Hongkong in 2010. Indeed, after a few exchanges IT for Change agreed to be present at the meeting on the condition that we would basically say the same things at the meeting about its legitimacy etc as we had been arguing. You kindly consented and we did attend the meeting and made our point. >> >> However, what surprises me is your conclusion that we were somehow mollified by our conversations with you at Hongkong and then at Vilnius. There is no question of such mollification without the issues we raised being addressed, and as is evident, they never were. >> >> What is even more surprising are your comments, quote below from your email of the last week, about the second so called APrIGF in Singapore. >> >> >> "When I organized the meeting in Singapore, you did not raise any objection." and, again later in the email " In Singapore, you did not raise any objections. And I thought that's where the issue stood." (Peng Hwa) >> >> It has obviously entirely skipped your memory, but when you wrote to me inviting me for the Singapore meeting, I wrote a detailed email to you which not only raised the same issues that I had raised earlier, but also suggested, in considerable detail, what in our opinion is the right way to go about organising the APrIGF (so much so for all this talk from various parties that I should be constructive etc, which I must say is a more than a bit patronising). I reproduce below my email to you before Singapore. I would not make your response public which is up to you to decide whatever to do about. I however must say that I had even at that time asked for your permission to make my email public but was persuaded not to, pending further f2f discussions etc which never happened. >> parminder >> >> *My email in response to an invitation to attend the Singapore so called APrIGF is below.*On 5/3/11 12:36 AM, "Parminder Singh" wrote: >> >> Dear Peng Hwa, >> >> It is always nice to hear from you, and hope you are >> doing well! >> >> Thank you for inviting me to chair a session during the >> proposed meeting. I do quite appreciate the utmost >> sincerely and serious application that you bring to your >> efforts to keep a dialogue on Internet Governance alive >> in the Asia Pacific region. However, for the reason >> mentioned below in some detail , I am constrained to >> decline your kind invitation. >> >> As mentioned in our conversations before the similar >> meeting last year, I do not think it legitimate to call >> any meeting as a regional IGF without a minimum standard >> of broad participation and 'ownership', especially of >> public interest actors. Last year I was told that it was >> the first time and the meeting has been planned in haste, >> and that things should improve for subsequent meetings. >> However, in this invite for the 2011 meeting I see no >> indication about who all are on the organizing committee, >> how was the agenda and speaker selection arrived at, etc. >> >> Apart from the basic legitimacy question, holding of >> such meetings under the banner of national/regional IGFs >> has a negative reverse impact on the global IGF to make >> it look like it too was just another annual conference on >> IG, which I do not think it is (though some people do) . >> I think that the global IGF is, or at least is supposed >> to be, an innovative experiment in deliberative and >> participatory democracy for global governance of the >> Internet. At least some basic features of the global IGF >> suggests the possibility that the global IGF can, if we >> have the political will for it, hopefully evolve to be >> something close to this ideal. These features are; strong >> mooring in a public institution - or a set of them, a >> good amount of public funding (though not at all of the >> kind, and extent, that can be considered satisfactory), a >> multistakeholder group deciding the agenda of the meeting >> and the speakers through an intensively consultative >> process, and such. >> >> While some of us are struggling to ensure that the >> annual IGF has an even greater public and democratic >> character, organization of completely private meetings >> opaquely planned and executed, with unknown sponsors and >> key drivers, like the proposed meeting being called the >> Asia Pacific Regional IGF, is to us a retrograde step. It >> is for this reason that we cannot associate with it, and >> in fact oppose it to be held under its proposed name. >> >> I do understand how difficult it is to be innovative >> and entrepreneurial in such matters and actually pull an >> event like this together; and in relation how facile it >> may be considered to criticize such almost valiant >> efforts. I must therefore engage constructively and >> suggest what could alternatively have been done and >> would, in my opinion, have been the better option. Though >> I cannot suggest funding options right away, it is >> possible that the Asia Pacific UN regional commission >> (ESCAP) could have shown some interest in this event. Was >> it even approached at all? Funding from governments of >> some countries could also been explored apart from >> sourcing 'monopoly funds' (akin to Internet tax) that are >> collected by registrars and such registries that use the >> commons resources of geo-political expressions like >> ctlds. In any case, wider participation of public >> interest actors is always possible to seek. There was >> this Asia Pacific Civil Society Caucus at WSIS, which is >> now defunct but one can recollect some key names of those >> - individuals and organizations - who participated >> actively. Then there are Civil Society Internet >> Governance Caucus members from Asia Pacific quite active >> in the Internet Governance Caucus. There are also MAG >> members from this region. I have no indication that these >> actors had any role at all in shaping an activity which >> is being called the Asia Pacific Regional IGF. >> >> I must once again mention that I hold you and your >> sincere efforts towards a continued dialogue on Internet >> governance in our region in great esteem. And this >> statement is made most sincerely because I have known you >> and your work closely. The proposed meeting should simply >> have been named something like 'an regional dialogue on >> IG' or some such thing rather than a regional IGF. In >> this regard we have the example of EURODIG. I do hope >> that such a change can still be made so that it leaves no >> room for confusion regarding the nature of the proposed >> meeting. >> >> We should do nothing to contribute to promoting >> privatized realms of governance for such an important >> social, economic, political and cultural phenomenon as >> the Internet. We fear that through privatized governance >> models for the Internet, what is really being done is to >> challenge the very essentials of democratic thought and >> ideals for all aspects of our social life. >> >> I look forward to hear your response to the issues that >> I have raised, and discuss them at as much length as may >> be required. However, meanwhile, I may have to take the >> contents of this letter to the public domain, since it >> really is not a response to you individually but a much >> larger engagement with issues concerning democracy and >> public interest, specifically about the nature of >> institutions that can serve these ideals. >> >> With respect, and the very best regards >> >> Parminder >> >> On Thursday 28 April 2011 06:38 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) >> wrote: >> >> APrIGF >> Dear Parminder, >> >> Greetings from Singapore! >> >> I append below the draft programme for the coming >> APrIGF in Singapore. This will be jus before the >> ICANN meeting. >> >> >> 1. Can you make it? >> 2. Can you participate in a panel or chair one? We >> have the plenaries as well as the workshops. >> 3. >> >> >> Regards, >> Peng Hwa >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Aug 31 02:15:47 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:15:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Business Class for Human Rights? In-Reply-To: References: <1346245938.124121609@apps.rackspace.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1B5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <503ff113.89d70e0a.2d87.42e5SMTPIN_ADDED@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <50405693.4030900@gmail.com> On 2012/08/31 03:01 AM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann wrote: > free and fair marketplace What is this? Is this the definition in economic textbooks or of the practices of the rich countries or both? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Aug 31 02:13:59 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:13:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <74E6E47E-4A41-41F4-B8AD-496CE37AF925@virtualized.org> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <011001cd7fba$fbd55840$f38008c0$@jstyre.com> <5035C7C5.4030706@itforchange.net> <50388380.4000905@itforchange.net> <503A3454.3080309@itforchange.net> <503F065C.8080003@itforchange.net> <74E6E47E-4A41-41F4-B8AD-496CE37AF925@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <50405627.8030803@gmail.com> Comments below. On 2012/08/30 11:40 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Parminder, > > On Aug 29, 2012, at 11:21 PM, parminder > wrote: >> I will cut out both the chaff and the detail, sticking to the main >> issue we are discussing here. > > Actually, I was attempting to understand the rationale someone might > use to assert ICANN is not subject to US law since you stated ICANN > apologists did this, but I get that you don't want to talk about your > earlier statement. > >> This to me is a convincing case that we should develop and propose a >> clear alternative for CIR management that is not dependent on the >> laws and executive authority of one country. > > I suspect many, if not all, of the folks you deride as "status > quoists" would simply respond with "great idea, now where's that > proposal for a clear alternative again?" Are we still here? For me it means it is 1) performative (i.e. action in the making), 2) evolutionary (unless there is a crisis of "vision") > >> Basically, in the circumstances, the only option is to base ICANN on >> international law, with a host country agreement and immunities for >> its functions vis a vis its physical location. > > As this is not my area of expertise, can you point to a similar case > where a private organization has been based on international law and > granted immunities? I'm curious as to how such organizations > originated and evolved. WIPO, as stated previously. > >> And the only way to make international law is for all countries to >> get together and make it, while it being a fully open and >> participative process for everyone else. > > I thought most (all?) international law was the result of treaties > between governments which may or may not be the result of "a fully > open and participative process for everyone else". In fact, my > impression has been that most international law was sort of the > opposite of "fully open and participative". You are correct. In fact, much of multilateralism faces hegemonic bias of the "opposite of the third world" (i.e. the developed countries/EU+US+collaborators et al). Nowadays it is less so, but still very much the same. The faith that developing countries have in collective solutions shows a commitment to legitimacy/cooperation that rich countries rhetoric belies. > > Regards, > -drc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Aug 31 02:39:44 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 08:39:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Leading Global Standards Organizations Endorse 'OpenStand' Principles that Drive Innovation and Borderless Commerce In-Reply-To: References: <1346245938.124121609@apps.rackspace.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD1B5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <50405C30.9010608@gmail.com> Anyone know whether there are special procedures for standards adopted that are subject to intellectual property rights? On 2012/08/31 07:48 AM, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > Thanks a lot, Fahd! > > 2012/8/31 Fahd A. Batayneh : >> Here you go Oksana >> >> http://www.internetsociety.org/news/leading-global-standards-organizations-endorse-%E2%80%98openstand%E2%80%99-principles-drive-innovation-and >> >> Fahd -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 31 16:29:31 2012 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:29:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] visas for azerbaijan on arrival In-Reply-To: References: <5028E26F.6020805@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hello all, I received my Invitation Letter today. It is a scanned, signed PDF (in English) on a Ministry of Communications & Information Technologies letterhead addressed to me using my registration information and signed by the Deputy Minister, Elmir Velizadeh. The letter is dated (in handwriting) with today's date and also has a handwritten reference number. The letter, in summary, states, among other IGF pleasantries and logistical issues, that you can use it to get a Visa from any of the Azerbaijan Embassies or from the Consular Dept of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the Baku Airport. >From my interaction with the Internet Society on this issue, you will also need to bring your various registration documents, the Invitation Letter, and your passport (of course) and colour passport-style photos for issuance of the Visa. I believe these requirements are on the IGF website via http://igf2012.az/?mod=content&sub=bottom&id=116&lang=en (but not the information about the photos). I will walk with the photos just in case. Best wishes, Tracy On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ginger, > > I emailed them immediately after receiving my confirmation of registration > from the IGF Secretariat and got a reply within two hours. They said that > my request was received and was being processed. > > I assume that it's in some sort of queue as technically the processing > does not start till later as per the information on the website. > > Best, > Sala > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Has anyone received the described letter for the visa on arrival, after >> emailing visainquiries at igf2012.az ? >> I emailed August 13, but have had no response. >> Does anyone have more information? I don't want to re-send if it is just >> a matter of giving them time... >> >> I refer to: >> >> b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the >> participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation of >> registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host country's IGF >> visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az >> >> Thanks, >> Ginger >> Ginger (Virginia) Paque >> >> >> >> Foreigners or stateless persons coming to the Republic of Azerbaijan for >> Internet Governance Forum-2012, which will be held in Baku, can receive >> visas from the structural sections of the Consular Department of the >> Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which are >> located in the Baku Heydar Aliyev International Airport or from the >> Consular Depatments of the Republic of Azerbaijan located in foreign >> countries. >> >> *The upon arrival visa application period starts from 15 October to 8 >> November, 2012. >> There are two supporting documents which will serve as the basis for >> granting the visa:* >> >> a) ‘Confirmation of registration’-form which will be provided by the IGF >> Secretariat at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ >> and >> b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the >> participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation of >> registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host country's IGF >> visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az >> >> VirginiaP at diplomacy.edu >> Diplo Foundation >> Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme >> www.diplomacy.edu/ig >> ** >> ** >> >> >> >> On 14 August 2012 04:56, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Baudouin, Hi. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Baudouin Schombe >>> wrote: >>> > Hello, >>> > For countries that have no diplomatic representation, is it possible >>> to have >>> > the visa on arrival? >>> > >>> >>> Yes, exactly. If your country does not have and Azerbaijan >>> embassy/consular office you can get a visa on arrival. >>> >>> See the link Carlos provided >>> for more >>> information about the forms you need. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > I think these are provisions that must be considered! >>> > >>> > Baudouin >>> > >>> > 2012/8/13 Mawaki Chango >>> >> >>> >> [Sigh of relief] Thanks! >>> >> >>> >> m. >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >> > On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Carlos A. Afonso >>> wrote: >>> >> >> Hi people, >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Maybe most of you have already seen this info. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I've just got confirmation email of my registration for Baku IGF >>> >> >> reminding me of the info regarding visas in the IGF 2012 website. I >>> >> >> think the issues regarding visas are settled now (see below). >>> There is >>> >> >> no info on costs though. >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > My understanding is that the visa will be free. However, checking >>> >> > this and will get back with confirmation. >>> >> > >>> >> > Adam >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >> frt rgds >>> >> >> >>> >> >> --c.a. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> http://igf2012.com/?mod=content&sub=bottom&id=116&lang=en >>> >> >> >>> >> >> General information >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Foreigners or stateless persons coming to the Republic of >>> Azerbaijan >>> >> >> for >>> >> >> Internet Governance Forum-2012, which will be held in Baku, can >>> receive >>> >> >> visas from the structural sections of the Consular Department of >>> the >>> >> >> Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which >>> are >>> >> >> located in the Baku Heydar Aliyev International Airport or from the >>> >> >> Consular Depatments of the Republic of Azerbaijan located in >>> foreign >>> >> >> countries. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> The upon arrival visa application period starts from 15 October to >>> 8 >>> >> >> November, 2012. There are two supporting documents which will >>> serve as >>> >> >> the basis for granting the visa: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> a) ‘Confirmation of registration’-form which will be provided by >>> the >>> >> >> IGF >>> >> >> Secretariat at http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/ >>> >> >> and >>> >> >> b) Host Country’s Invitation letter which can be obtained by the >>> >> >> participant if they send an email request with their ‘confirmation >>> of >>> >> >> registration’-form and the scanned passport copy to the host >>> country's >>> >> >> IGF visa support desk at visainquiries at igf2012.az >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >> >> >>> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >> > >>> >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >> > >>> >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >> >>> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> >> To 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 >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Best Regards, Tracy F. Hackshaw | T&T Mobile: +1 868 678 8710 | US/Google Voice: +1 786 273 9344 | tracyhackshaw at gmail.com | www.OurFutureisNow.info | Skype: hackshawt | GTalk: tracyhackshaw | MSN: tracyhackshaw | Yahoo: tracyhackshaw ---------------------------- Social Footprint Google Me: http://goo.gl/p4xs6 | Google+: http://plus.ly/tracy | Google Profile: http://goo.gl/8j2xk | LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tracyhackshaw | Quora: http://www.quora.com/Tracy-Hackshaw| Twitter: @thackshaw | facebook: http://www.facebook.com/tracyhackshaw | Storify: http://storify.com/tracyhackshaw | Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/tracyhackshaw/ | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Aug 31 17:17:34 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 09:17:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] Microsoft NZ exposes TechEd delegates' passwords #Leaked Passwords #Global Unique Identifiers Message-ID: :( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/30/microsoft_new_zealand_exposes_teched_passwords/ -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Aug 31 17:44:44 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 21:44:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] Big Porn v. Big Web Ruling Could Spell Trouble for ICANN / was Re: new gTLDs In-Reply-To: <503F0CA3.3020801@itforchange.net> References: <50332E85.8060106@itforchange.net> <50333A5C.7060908@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD21F9B4D@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5038BD70.7080909@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22082FD@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <503F0CA3.3020801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD220B5DE@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> First, and I have said this twice already but you are not able to come up with a better example, EU antitrust actions will apply "only" to EU area and not globally. [Milton L Mueller] Well, this is wrong in so many ways. An EU antitrust action against ICANN and an EU-based ICM would have exactly the same impact as a US antitrust actions against ICANN and a US-based ICM. That was the basis of your original complaint, do you recall? One could say that U.S. antitrust actions will apply "only" to US area, just as you say that about the EU. But in fact, in both cases, because many of the markets involved are interdependent and virtually indivisible, actions that are proscribed in one major jurisdiction may affect all jurisdictions. The point is that your whole attempt to construct this antitrust lawsuit as an example of a major injustice imposed on the world by the U.S. and for the benefit of the U.S. is wrong. And your attempt to paint people who expose the perfectly honest errors in your thinking as "apologists for the ICANN system" is not only churlish but amusing, when one considers that you are talking to me. There are many things about the ICANN regime to criticize and change, but you keep missing the target. And then you blame the people who point out that you've missed the target (some of whom have holes in their virtual bodies as a result) that they are imperialist apologists for the status quo. Yes, there are apologists out there. Talking to me like I am one of them just makes you look silly. On the contrary, any US law constraining or dictating ICANN's action to that extent directly applies globally. [Milton L Mueller] Any law from ANY jurisdiction constraining or dictating ICANN's action would have global effect, insofar as the global Internet relies on ICANN to administer the DNS. The only unique thing about the US is the IANA contract. Please try to concentrate your fire on that. And if your solution is to have 192 governments share that power, I suggest it will be a long time before most people involved in Internet matters support you. Secondly, I am surprised that you are equating a governance system providing a 'monopoly' public service with companies providing commercial services. They are very different. [Milton L Mueller] It was decided when ICANN was created that it would NOT be immune from antitrust law. This was a Good Thing. It is an important kind of check on the power of the governance system, whether or not one considers it a 'natural' monopoly. This is actually one of the advantages of working with a private actor rather than a government or, as you would have it, 192 governments all claiming sovereign immunity. Would not non californians mind if california was making laws that, like federal law, apply to whole of US. They should if they are not. [Milton L Mueller] Actually in some product areas, such as automobiles and consumer liability, California state law forced companies to make improvements that were extended nationwide - a race to the top - because it didn't make business sense to have two different production lines, one for California and another for the rest of the states. There are also cases where bad things occur because of this interdependence. E.g., when States Attorneys General in one state force nationwide ISPs to censor certain things they sometimes just censor them throughout the country. And your solution to this problem is? As a key political actor in this space you must have some kind of a possible solution, and a possible roadmap to it. Ø Read my book BTW, If you cant put its gist and outlines in 3-4 paras I very much doubt that your book contains the solution. [Milton L Mueller] If you can't describe how to save the world in 3-4 paragraphs it can't possibly work! Really, you are satirizing yourself here, Parminder. Good joke! I am having a good laugh! PS: I did buy your book but did not get around to reading it yet. [Milton L Mueller] Do your homework, young man. No stars for you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Aug 31 22:19:15 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 07:49:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Microsoft NZ exposes TechEd delegates' passwords #Leaked Passwords #Global Unique Identifiers In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lol, one has to laugh at the proximity of this to our original Simon Travaglia - the creator of the BOFH. -C On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > :( > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/30/microsoft_new_zealand_exposes_teched_passwords/ > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk Mon Aug 20 20:11:17 2012 From: jonathan at jcave.eclipse.co.uk (jonathan) Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 01:11:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Julian Assange extradition: Ecuador 'willing to co-operate' with Britain Message-ID: <0dhsmcm24mu5bfpp931eno24.1345507771312@email.android.com> Penalties are very different in the two cases. But the piracy laws nor the blasphemy law are being used in such cases primarily to threaten groups yo whom those arrested belong. The UK press, at least, has expressed outrage at overweening prosecution of downloaders, as they have at US demands for extradition of the hacker Gary McKinnon. J. Sent from Samsung tablet "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: And right now I listen to CNN's anchor "horrified" because a Pakistani child (11-year old) has been arrested for blasphemy. This is indeed brutal, but I've never seen an American anchor horrified when the Americans arrest kids for downloading music. E la nave va... --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t