From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Dec 1 07:36:18 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:36:18 -0200 Subject: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! In-Reply-To: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> References: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <50B9F9C2.4010508@cafonso.ca> A few qualifications are in order: - Marco Civil says the news of his killing are greatly exaggerated :) Seriously, it is not "killed". If there is anything we DO NOT need now is propagating this negative view of the situation. The fight continues. - The lobby of the telco multinationals (mostly European, affiliated with ETNO) who dominate the Brazilian telco market is understandably very strong. They are mobilizing the (usually right-wing) evangelical churches against the Marco Civil -- something like Marco Civil is an expression of the Devil himself and so on. - The head of the Brazilian delegation to WCIT in Dubai is Paulo Bernardo, the minister of Communications (MiniCom). MiniCom regulates broadcasting, while Anatel (our FCC) regulates (or is regulated by) telcos, but this separation is fuzzy in practice. Mr Bernardo leads the government side of the lobbying process *against* Marco Civil, in sync with the telco lobby. There are strong divergences within the federal gov on this. - So, in Dubai, it is fundamental that civil society organizations and all the ones against the ETNO proposal as well as Russia's/China's proposal to turn addressing into a UN function heavily question Mr Bernardo in every opportunity at the event (unfortunately I will not be there). - Caveat: Anatel might have a somewhat distinct position, I am still checking on this, as they are as well :) -- this is very relevant, as they are the official BR gov reps at the ITU. - The coincidence of the final steps of Marco Civil in Congress and the approaching WCIT/Dubai conf made things much harsher for MC, particularly in our efforts to defend the staying of net neutrality in it. - In the process, the same government forces against Marco Civil are also pressing for CGI.br possibly to be modified and lose its multistakeholder nature. The government has the power to do so by decree, and this risk has increased dramatically in the last few months. When we managed to approve CG as a multistakeholder governance structure in 2003, several gov sectors wished it to turn into a state entity, and these forces are re-emerging. In a worst case scenario, we could lose Marco Civil and the pluralist nature of CG. But I think things will not go that far. Or possibly will over my dead body. - The governmernt is not unanimous in this vision. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) is a staunch defender of Marco Civil as it was introduced to Congress a few months ago (like CGI.br is). So all is not lost. So, the situation is complicated, the odds are not good at all, but we did not lose the battle yet. Sorry to strongly emphasize this, but... WE NEED ALL THE HELP AND MOBILIZATION WE CAN FROM ALL OF YOU. fraternal regards --c.a. On 11/30/2012 08:21 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights | > UNCUT > http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/ > ------------------------------ > > Digital > > The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that would have > pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of > Rights.” > Feted by free-speech > activists > and > negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to > guarantee basic rights for internet > users, > content > creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not > responsible for user content. > [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA] > > Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA > > The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet , also > guaranteed net neutrality > — > a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent > internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of > internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates > for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge > either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of > internet traffic, such as movies. > > A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of Deputies > on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two months > that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to > agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil > from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning it > will not be bought back to the floor. > > The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the > issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro > Molon, who > sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication > companieslobbied > hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the > free market. > > Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders > were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries > who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties (companies > like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party > content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this > process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to > remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an > argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech. > > The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and made > it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. Although > industry lobbies were successful in watering > down > key > user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even > greater changes on the text. > > After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to society to > put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was also > critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco > Civil. > > Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and > Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to > Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties > having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s support of > Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from PMDB — > took issue with key elements. > > The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the > internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a > “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide > influence on free speech issues. > > “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and > dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. > Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically > killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said > Falkvingeon > his website. > > “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all > countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — and its > consequences”, said André Pase , Digital > Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre. > > “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily obsolete in > a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born all the > time.” > > *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo* > ------------------------------ > > (via Instapaper ) > > > Sent from my iPhone > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 1 07:38:51 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:38:51 -0200 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> <2124C4C7-D8E3-4FA6-B2F2-1250566D9946@istaff.org> <038801cdcf5f$860771d0$92165570$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50B9FA5B.50906@cafonso.ca> Just had a meeting at CGI.br with OECD folks from their ICCP division. Asked if OECD would have their own set of Internet principles, they said "no". --c.a. On 11/30/2012 11:06 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > The OECD actually makes for a more sensible choice for cs to support and endorse, given their willingness to listen across stakeholder groups. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 01-Dec-2012, at 6:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> +1 >> >> And I think the just released statement by the US delegation to WCIT begins some significant movement in the direction of those processes… >> >> Now how to capitalize on this and its general support for the "Best Bits statement" (which includes that "Fundamental to the framing of public policy (for the Internet) must be the pursuit of the public interest and fundamental human rights..."); perhaps starting by revisiting the OECD Internet policy principles to resolve the areas of CS concern which led to CS not signing onto the final OECD document; and also beginning a process of becoming more globally inclusive in this development (as for example using the IRP statement of Internet Rights & Principles which have a strong anchor in Human Rights/the UDHRD as a conceptual/normative foundation). >> >> Beginning with the above but then initiating a much broader and more inclusive global norm-setting process as for example, through a reformed and much more inclusive IGF (designed to be something other than a place to swap business cards and chat) or towards an update of the WSIS declaration in light of what has transpired in the last ten years or so… >> >> M >> >> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] >> Sent: Friday, November 30, 2012 2:15 PM >> To: michael gurstein >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127 >> >> On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:26 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> >> That challenge is to find a way that we all globally, can allow the Internet to fulfill the possibilities for all of us that it presents (and in ways that are meaningful to all of us in our global diversity) -- and that means finding a way to reconcile sometimes extremely divergent interests and perspectives concerning for example, what issues are important/necessary to resolve and where they can be resolved and who/how should be involved in resolving them. >> >> Agreed. >> >> The challenge is that the Internet is truly a global system, and we lack good mechanisms >> for development of true agreement on public policy issues when applied to a global scope. >> There are some feedback loops which operate reasonable well in the context of a single >> country. (For example, the response of consumers, and civil society on their behalf, to >> "bad" decisions by businesses with respect to privacy results in lots of attention, and >> sometimes even results changes to the errant business practices.) >> >> In an ideal world, there would be a way to encourage productive discussion of the various >> public policy principles that should be applicable to Internet communications on a global >> scope, and such discussions would multistakeholder in nature, open in participation, and >> transparent in the processes used to reach outcomes (there is a little bit of a challenge in >> accomplishing such, since making the final determinations of what is appropriate public >> policy is one of areas that has been considered the realm of governments, and yet we are >> collectively unsure if that model continues to work in our new highly connected world) >> >> If we could produce clear statements of public policy principles, and the statements were >> made known to existing Internet governance institutions, then they would quite likely be >> considered in development of the various technical standards and policies that we need >> to keep the Internet running. Likewise, if folks working on such standards and policies >> took significant measures to keep governments and civil society aware of the ongoing >> developments, it would help in avoiding conflicts between Internet practices and the >> globally accepted principles in any given public policy area. >> >> /John >> >> p.s. Disclaimers apply. My views alone. Use of this email may trigger visions and/or >> produce delusions, paranoia, and schizophrenia-like symptoms. Use sparingly and >> seek appropriate medical treatment as needed. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Sat Dec 1 07:50:27 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 19:50:27 +0700 Subject: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! In-Reply-To: <50B9F9C2.4010508@cafonso.ca> References: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> <50B9F9C2.4010508@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <50B9FD13.7020902@gmx.net> Thanks for the update, Carlos. We hope with you... Norbert Klein = On 12/1/2012 7:36 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > A few qualifications are in order: > > - Marco Civil says the news of his killing are greatly exaggerated :) > Seriously, it is not "killed". If there is anything we DO NOT need now > is propagating this negative view of the situation. The fight continues. > > - The lobby of the telco multinationals (mostly European, affiliated > with ETNO) who dominate the Brazilian telco market is understandably > very strong. They are mobilizing the (usually right-wing) evangelical > churches against the Marco Civil -- something like Marco Civil is an > expression of the Devil himself and so on. > > - The head of the Brazilian delegation to WCIT in Dubai is Paulo > Bernardo, the minister of Communications (MiniCom). MiniCom regulates > broadcasting, while Anatel (our FCC) regulates (or is regulated by) > telcos, but this separation is fuzzy in practice. Mr Bernardo leads > the government side of the lobbying process *against* Marco Civil, in > sync with the telco lobby. There are strong divergences within the > federal gov on this. > > - So, in Dubai, it is fundamental that civil society organizations and > all the ones against the ETNO proposal as well as Russia's/China's > proposal to turn addressing into a UN function heavily question Mr > Bernardo in every opportunity at the event (unfortunately I will not > be there). > > - Caveat: Anatel might have a somewhat distinct position, I am still > checking on this, as they are as well :) -- this is very relevant, as > they are the official BR gov reps at the ITU. > > - The coincidence of the final steps of Marco Civil in Congress and > the approaching WCIT/Dubai conf made things much harsher for MC, > particularly in our efforts to defend the staying of net neutrality in > it. > > - In the process, the same government forces against Marco Civil are > also pressing for CGI.br possibly to be modified and lose its > multistakeholder nature. The government has the power to do so by > decree, and this risk has increased dramatically in the last few > months. When we managed to approve CG as a multistakeholder governance > structure in 2003, several gov sectors wished it to turn into a state > entity, and these forces are re-emerging. In a worst case scenario, we > could lose Marco Civil and the pluralist nature of CG. But I think > things will not go that far. Or possibly will over my dead body. > > - The governmernt is not unanimous in this vision. The Ministry of > Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) is a staunch defender of > Marco Civil as it was introduced to Congress a few months ago (like > CGI.br is). So all is not lost. > > So, the situation is complicated, the odds are not good at all, but we > did not lose the battle yet. > > Sorry to strongly emphasize this, but... WE NEED ALL THE HELP AND > MOBILIZATION WE CAN FROM ALL OF YOU. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 11/30/2012 08:21 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >> Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of >> Rights | >> UNCUT >> http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/ >> ------------------------------ >> >> Digital >> >> The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that >> would have >> pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of >> Rights.” >> >> Feted by free-speech >> activists >> >> and >> negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to >> guarantee basic rights for internet >> users, >> >> content >> creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not >> responsible for user content. >> [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA] >> >> Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA >> >> The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet >> , also >> guaranteed net >> neutrality >> — >> a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent >> internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of >> internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates >> for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge >> either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of >> internet traffic, such as movies. >> >> A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of >> Deputies >> on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two >> months >> that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to >> agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil >> from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning it >> will not be bought back to the floor. >> >> The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the >> issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro >> Molon, who >> sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication >> companieslobbied >> >> hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the >> free market. >> >> Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders >> were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries >> who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties >> (companies >> like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party >> content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this >> process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to >> remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an >> argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech. >> >> The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and >> made >> it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. >> Although >> industry lobbies were successful in watering >> down >> >> key >> user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even >> greater changes on the text. >> >> After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to >> society to >> put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was >> also >> critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco >> Civil. >> >> Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and >> Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to >> Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties >> having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s >> support of >> Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from >> PMDB — >> took issue with key elements. >> >> The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the >> internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a >> “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide >> influence on free speech issues. >> >> “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and >> dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. >> Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically >> killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said >> Falkvingeon >> >> his website. >> >> “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all >> countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — >> and its >> consequences”, said André Pase , Digital >> Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre. >> >> “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily >> obsolete in >> a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born >> all the >> time.” >> >> *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo* >> ------------------------------ >> >> (via Instapaper ) >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From everton.mre at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 08:06:01 2012 From: everton.mre at gmail.com (Everton Lucero) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 11:06:01 -0200 Subject: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! In-Reply-To: <50B9F9C2.4010508@cafonso.ca> References: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> <50B9F9C2.4010508@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <00FDFF10-6FD4-4C97-B8E7-0ADC6B1CA666@gmail.com> Excellent analysis, C.A.! I entirely agree and would just add that the Ministry of Justice is also a strong promoter and supporter of Marco Civil Bill. And so is the Foreign Ministry, for not approving it means destroying carefully built foreign policy positions on Internet Governance. As you know, we've been saying abroad that the Law should first address the issue of limits to civil liabilities of different actors, and only after that another Law could fill in the gaps to criminalize specific illicit acts. It is not different internationally, as we first need to develop universal principles, based on which further rules could be created, if necessary. However, two Bills on cybercrime have just been approved by the Congress, which makes the approval of Marco Civil even more pressing and urgent. Regards, Everton Enviado via iPad Em 01/12/2012, às 10:36, "Carlos A. Afonso" escreveu: > A few qualifications are in order: > > - Marco Civil says the news of his killing are greatly exaggerated :) Seriously, it is not "killed". If there is anything we DO NOT need now is propagating this negative view of the situation. The fight continues. > > - The lobby of the telco multinationals (mostly European, affiliated with ETNO) who dominate the Brazilian telco market is understandably very strong. They are mobilizing the (usually right-wing) evangelical churches against the Marco Civil -- something like Marco Civil is an expression of the Devil himself and so on. > > - The head of the Brazilian delegation to WCIT in Dubai is Paulo Bernardo, the minister of Communications (MiniCom). MiniCom regulates broadcasting, while Anatel (our FCC) regulates (or is regulated by) telcos, but this separation is fuzzy in practice. Mr Bernardo leads the government side of the lobbying process *against* Marco Civil, in sync with the telco lobby. There are strong divergences within the federal gov on this. > > - So, in Dubai, it is fundamental that civil society organizations and all the ones against the ETNO proposal as well as Russia's/China's proposal to turn addressing into a UN function heavily question Mr Bernardo in every opportunity at the event (unfortunately I will not be there). > > - Caveat: Anatel might have a somewhat distinct position, I am still checking on this, as they are as well :) -- this is very relevant, as they are the official BR gov reps at the ITU. > > - The coincidence of the final steps of Marco Civil in Congress and the approaching WCIT/Dubai conf made things much harsher for MC, particularly in our efforts to defend the staying of net neutrality in it. > > - In the process, the same government forces against Marco Civil are also pressing for CGI.br possibly to be modified and lose its multistakeholder nature. The government has the power to do so by decree, and this risk has increased dramatically in the last few months. When we managed to approve CG as a multistakeholder governance structure in 2003, several gov sectors wished it to turn into a state entity, and these forces are re-emerging. In a worst case scenario, we could lose Marco Civil and the pluralist nature of CG. But I think things will not go that far. Or possibly will over my dead body. > > - The governmernt is not unanimous in this vision. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) is a staunch defender of Marco Civil as it was introduced to Congress a few months ago (like CGI.br is). So all is not lost. > > So, the situation is complicated, the odds are not good at all, but we did not lose the battle yet. > > Sorry to strongly emphasize this, but... WE NEED ALL THE HELP AND MOBILIZATION WE CAN FROM ALL OF YOU. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 11/30/2012 08:21 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >> Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights | >> UNCUT >> http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/ >> ------------------------------ >> >> Digital >> >> The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that would have >> pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of >> Rights.” >> Feted by free-speech >> activists >> and >> negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to >> guarantee basic rights for internet >> users, >> content >> creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not >> responsible for user content. >> [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA] >> >> Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA >> >> The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet , also >> guaranteed net neutrality >> — >> a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent >> internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of >> internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates >> for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge >> either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of >> internet traffic, such as movies. >> >> A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of Deputies >> on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two months >> that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to >> agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil >> from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning it >> will not be bought back to the floor. >> >> The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the >> issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro >> Molon, who >> sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication >> companieslobbied >> hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the >> free market. >> >> Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders >> were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries >> who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties (companies >> like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party >> content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this >> process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to >> remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an >> argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech. >> >> The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and made >> it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. Although >> industry lobbies were successful in watering >> down >> key >> user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even >> greater changes on the text. >> >> After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to society to >> put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was also >> critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco >> Civil. >> >> Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and >> Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to >> Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties >> having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s support of >> Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from PMDB — >> took issue with key elements. >> >> The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the >> internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a >> “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide >> influence on free speech issues. >> >> “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and >> dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. >> Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically >> killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said >> Falkvingeon >> his website. >> >> “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all >> countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — and its >> consequences”, said André Pase , Digital >> Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre. >> >> “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily obsolete in >> a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born all the >> time.” >> >> *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo* >> ------------------------------ >> >> (via Instapaper ) >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sat Dec 1 08:29:18 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 11:29:18 -0200 Subject: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! In-Reply-To: <00FDFF10-6FD4-4C97-B8E7-0ADC6B1CA666@gmail.com> References: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> <50B9F9C2.4010508@cafonso.ca> <00FDFF10-6FD4-4C97-B8E7-0ADC6B1CA666@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50BA062E.4080606@cafonso.ca> Thx for the excellent additions, compa Everton! []s fraternos --c.a. On 12/01/2012 11:06 AM, Everton Lucero wrote: > Excellent analysis, C.A.! > I entirely agree and would just add that the Ministry of Justice is also a strong promoter and supporter of Marco Civil Bill. And so is the Foreign Ministry, for not approving it means destroying carefully built foreign policy positions on Internet Governance. > As you know, we've been saying abroad that the Law should first address the issue of limits to civil liabilities of different actors, and only after that another Law could fill in the gaps to criminalize specific illicit acts. It is not different internationally, as we first need to develop universal principles, based on which further rules could be created, if necessary. However, two Bills on cybercrime have just been approved by the Congress, which makes the approval of Marco Civil even more pressing and urgent. > Regards, > Everton > > > Enviado via iPad > > Em 01/12/2012, às 10:36, "Carlos A. Afonso" escreveu: > >> A few qualifications are in order: >> >> - Marco Civil says the news of his killing are greatly exaggerated :) Seriously, it is not "killed". If there is anything we DO NOT need now is propagating this negative view of the situation. The fight continues. >> >> - The lobby of the telco multinationals (mostly European, affiliated with ETNO) who dominate the Brazilian telco market is understandably very strong. They are mobilizing the (usually right-wing) evangelical churches against the Marco Civil -- something like Marco Civil is an expression of the Devil himself and so on. >> >> - The head of the Brazilian delegation to WCIT in Dubai is Paulo Bernardo, the minister of Communications (MiniCom). MiniCom regulates broadcasting, while Anatel (our FCC) regulates (or is regulated by) telcos, but this separation is fuzzy in practice. Mr Bernardo leads the government side of the lobbying process *against* Marco Civil, in sync with the telco lobby. There are strong divergences within the federal gov on this. >> >> - So, in Dubai, it is fundamental that civil society organizations and all the ones against the ETNO proposal as well as Russia's/China's proposal to turn addressing into a UN function heavily question Mr Bernardo in every opportunity at the event (unfortunately I will not be there). >> >> - Caveat: Anatel might have a somewhat distinct position, I am still checking on this, as they are as well :) -- this is very relevant, as they are the official BR gov reps at the ITU. >> >> - The coincidence of the final steps of Marco Civil in Congress and the approaching WCIT/Dubai conf made things much harsher for MC, particularly in our efforts to defend the staying of net neutrality in it. >> >> - In the process, the same government forces against Marco Civil are also pressing for CGI.br possibly to be modified and lose its multistakeholder nature. The government has the power to do so by decree, and this risk has increased dramatically in the last few months. When we managed to approve CG as a multistakeholder governance structure in 2003, several gov sectors wished it to turn into a state entity, and these forces are re-emerging. In a worst case scenario, we could lose Marco Civil and the pluralist nature of CG. But I think things will not go that far. Or possibly will over my dead body. >> >> - The governmernt is not unanimous in this vision. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) is a staunch defender of Marco Civil as it was introduced to Congress a few months ago (like CGI.br is). So all is not lost. >> >> So, the situation is complicated, the odds are not good at all, but we did not lose the battle yet. >> >> Sorry to strongly emphasize this, but... WE NEED ALL THE HELP AND MOBILIZATION WE CAN FROM ALL OF YOU. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 11/30/2012 08:21 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >>> Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights | >>> UNCUT >>> http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/ >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Digital >>> >>> The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that would have >>> pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of >>> Rights.” >>> Feted by free-speech >>> activists >>> and >>> negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to >>> guarantee basic rights for internet >>> users, >>> content >>> creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not >>> responsible for user content. >>> [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA] >>> >>> Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA >>> >>> The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet , also >>> guaranteed net neutrality >>> — >>> a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent >>> internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of >>> internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates >>> for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge >>> either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of >>> internet traffic, such as movies. >>> >>> A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of Deputies >>> on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two months >>> that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to >>> agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil >>> from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning it >>> will not be bought back to the floor. >>> >>> The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the >>> issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro >>> Molon, who >>> sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication >>> companieslobbied >>> hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the >>> free market. >>> >>> Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders >>> were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries >>> who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties (companies >>> like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party >>> content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this >>> process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to >>> remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an >>> argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech. >>> >>> The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and made >>> it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. Although >>> industry lobbies were successful in watering >>> down >>> key >>> user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even >>> greater changes on the text. >>> >>> After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to society to >>> put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was also >>> critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco >>> Civil. >>> >>> Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and >>> Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to >>> Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties >>> having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s support of >>> Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from PMDB — >>> took issue with key elements. >>> >>> The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the >>> internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a >>> “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide >>> influence on free speech issues. >>> >>> “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and >>> dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. >>> Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically >>> killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said >>> Falkvingeon >>> his website. >>> >>> “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all >>> countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — and its >>> consequences”, said André Pase , Digital >>> Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre. >>> >>> “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily obsolete in >>> a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born all the >>> time.” >>> >>> *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo* >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> (via Instapaper ) >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 glaser at cgi.br Sat Dec 1 08:29:48 2012 From: glaser at cgi.br (Hartmut Glaser) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 11:29:48 -0200 Subject: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! In-Reply-To: <00FDFF10-6FD4-4C97-B8E7-0ADC6B1CA666@gmail.com> References: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> <50B9F9C2.4010508@cafonso.ca> <00FDFF10-6FD4-4C97-B8E7-0ADC6B1CA666@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0562A96A-C8DB-4CAB-B529-2CB8E6D113A5@cgi.br> Thanks Everton. Prof. Hartmut Glaser On 01/12/2012, at 11:06, Everton Lucero wrote: > Excellent analysis, C.A.! > I entirely agree and would just add that the Ministry of Justice is also a strong promoter and supporter of Marco Civil Bill. And so is the Foreign Ministry, for not approving it means destroying carefully built foreign policy positions on Internet Governance. > As you know, we've been saying abroad that the Law should first address the issue of limits to civil liabilities of different actors, and only after that another Law could fill in the gaps to criminalize specific illicit acts. It is not different internationally, as we first need to develop universal principles, based on which further rules could be created, if necessary. However, two Bills on cybercrime have just been approved by the Congress, which makes the approval of Marco Civil even more pressing and urgent. > Regards, > Everton > > > Enviado via iPad > > Em 01/12/2012, às 10:36, "Carlos A. Afonso" escreveu: > >> A few qualifications are in order: >> >> - Marco Civil says the news of his killing are greatly exaggerated :) Seriously, it is not "killed". If there is anything we DO NOT need now is propagating this negative view of the situation. The fight continues. >> >> - The lobby of the telco multinationals (mostly European, affiliated with ETNO) who dominate the Brazilian telco market is understandably very strong. They are mobilizing the (usually right-wing) evangelical churches against the Marco Civil -- something like Marco Civil is an expression of the Devil himself and so on. >> >> - The head of the Brazilian delegation to WCIT in Dubai is Paulo Bernardo, the minister of Communications (MiniCom). MiniCom regulates broadcasting, while Anatel (our FCC) regulates (or is regulated by) telcos, but this separation is fuzzy in practice. Mr Bernardo leads the government side of the lobbying process *against* Marco Civil, in sync with the telco lobby. There are strong divergences within the federal gov on this. >> >> - So, in Dubai, it is fundamental that civil society organizations and all the ones against the ETNO proposal as well as Russia's/China's proposal to turn addressing into a UN function heavily question Mr Bernardo in every opportunity at the event (unfortunately I will not be there). >> >> - Caveat: Anatel might have a somewhat distinct position, I am still checking on this, as they are as well :) -- this is very relevant, as they are the official BR gov reps at the ITU. >> >> - The coincidence of the final steps of Marco Civil in Congress and the approaching WCIT/Dubai conf made things much harsher for MC, particularly in our efforts to defend the staying of net neutrality in it. >> >> - In the process, the same government forces against Marco Civil are also pressing for CGI.br possibly to be modified and lose its multistakeholder nature. The government has the power to do so by decree, and this risk has increased dramatically in the last few months. When we managed to approve CG as a multistakeholder governance structure in 2003, several gov sectors wished it to turn into a state entity, and these forces are re-emerging. In a worst case scenario, we could lose Marco Civil and the pluralist nature of CG. But I think things will not go that far. Or possibly will over my dead body. >> >> - The governmernt is not unanimous in this vision. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) is a staunch defender of Marco Civil as it was introduced to Congress a few months ago (like CGI.br is). So all is not lost. >> >> So, the situation is complicated, the odds are not good at all, but we did not lose the battle yet. >> >> Sorry to strongly emphasize this, but... WE NEED ALL THE HELP AND MOBILIZATION WE CAN FROM ALL OF YOU. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 11/30/2012 08:21 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >>> Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights | >>> UNCUT >>> http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/ >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Digital >>> >>> The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that would have >>> pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of >>> Rights.” >>> Feted by free-speech >>> activists >>> and >>> negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to >>> guarantee basic rights for internet >>> users, >>> content >>> creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not >>> responsible for user content. >>> [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA] >>> >>> Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA >>> >>> The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet , also >>> guaranteed net neutrality >>> — >>> a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent >>> internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of >>> internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates >>> for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge >>> either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of >>> internet traffic, such as movies. >>> >>> A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of Deputies >>> on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two months >>> that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to >>> agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil >>> from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning it >>> will not be bought back to the floor. >>> >>> The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the >>> issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro >>> Molon, who >>> sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication >>> companieslobbied >>> hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the >>> free market. >>> >>> Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders >>> were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries >>> who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties (companies >>> like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party >>> content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this >>> process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to >>> remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an >>> argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech. >>> >>> The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and made >>> it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. Although >>> industry lobbies were successful in watering >>> down >>> key >>> user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even >>> greater changes on the text. >>> >>> After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to society to >>> put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was also >>> critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco >>> Civil. >>> >>> Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and >>> Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to >>> Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties >>> having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s support of >>> Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from PMDB — >>> took issue with key elements. >>> >>> The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the >>> internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a >>> “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide >>> influence on free speech issues. >>> >>> “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and >>> dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. >>> Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically >>> killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said >>> Falkvingeon >>> his website. >>> >>> “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all >>> countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — and its >>> consequences”, said André Pase , Digital >>> Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre. >>> >>> “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily obsolete in >>> a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born all the >>> time.” >>> >>> *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo* >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> (via Instapaper ) >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Dec 1 23:01:56 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 04:01:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! In-Reply-To: <0562A96A-C8DB-4CAB-B529-2CB8E6D113A5@cgi.br> References: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> <50B9F9C2.4010508@cafonso.ca> <00FDFF10-6FD4-4C97-B8E7-0ADC6B1CA666@gmail.com>,<0562A96A-C8DB-4CAB-B529-2CB8E6D113A5@cgi.br> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16F7D1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Carlos, What kind of help - will help? International attention and pressure is often counter-productive in Brazilian domestic politics right. Or not in this case? I can put you in touch with a Globo TV reporter covering Congress in Brasilia...if that could help. But you must have better Brazilian media contacts than me! : ) Please advise us. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Hartmut Glaser [glaser at cgi.br] Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:29 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Everton Lucero Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso; Robert Guerra Subject: Re: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! Thanks Everton. Prof. Hartmut Glaser On 01/12/2012, at 11:06, Everton Lucero wrote: > Excellent analysis, C.A.! > I entirely agree and would just add that the Ministry of Justice is also a strong promoter and supporter of Marco Civil Bill. And so is the Foreign Ministry, for not approving it means destroying carefully built foreign policy positions on Internet Governance. > As you know, we've been saying abroad that the Law should first address the issue of limits to civil liabilities of different actors, and only after that another Law could fill in the gaps to criminalize specific illicit acts. It is not different internationally, as we first need to develop universal principles, based on which further rules could be created, if necessary. However, two Bills on cybercrime have just been approved by the Congress, which makes the approval of Marco Civil even more pressing and urgent. > Regards, > Everton > > > Enviado via iPad > > Em 01/12/2012, às 10:36, "Carlos A. Afonso" escreveu: > >> A few qualifications are in order: >> >> - Marco Civil says the news of his killing are greatly exaggerated :) Seriously, it is not "killed". If there is anything we DO NOT need now is propagating this negative view of the situation. The fight continues. >> >> - The lobby of the telco multinationals (mostly European, affiliated with ETNO) who dominate the Brazilian telco market is understandably very strong. They are mobilizing the (usually right-wing) evangelical churches against the Marco Civil -- something like Marco Civil is an expression of the Devil himself and so on. >> >> - The head of the Brazilian delegation to WCIT in Dubai is Paulo Bernardo, the minister of Communications (MiniCom). MiniCom regulates broadcasting, while Anatel (our FCC) regulates (or is regulated by) telcos, but this separation is fuzzy in practice. Mr Bernardo leads the government side of the lobbying process *against* Marco Civil, in sync with the telco lobby. There are strong divergences within the federal gov on this. >> >> - So, in Dubai, it is fundamental that civil society organizations and all the ones against the ETNO proposal as well as Russia's/China's proposal to turn addressing into a UN function heavily question Mr Bernardo in every opportunity at the event (unfortunately I will not be there). >> >> - Caveat: Anatel might have a somewhat distinct position, I am still checking on this, as they are as well :) -- this is very relevant, as they are the official BR gov reps at the ITU. >> >> - The coincidence of the final steps of Marco Civil in Congress and the approaching WCIT/Dubai conf made things much harsher for MC, particularly in our efforts to defend the staying of net neutrality in it. >> >> - In the process, the same government forces against Marco Civil are also pressing for CGI.br possibly to be modified and lose its multistakeholder nature. The government has the power to do so by decree, and this risk has increased dramatically in the last few months. When we managed to approve CG as a multistakeholder governance structure in 2003, several gov sectors wished it to turn into a state entity, and these forces are re-emerging. In a worst case scenario, we could lose Marco Civil and the pluralist nature of CG. But I think things will not go that far. Or possibly will over my dead body. >> >> - The governmernt is not unanimous in this vision. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) is a staunch defender of Marco Civil as it was introduced to Congress a few months ago (like CGI.br is). So all is not lost. >> >> So, the situation is complicated, the odds are not good at all, but we did not lose the battle yet. >> >> Sorry to strongly emphasize this, but... WE NEED ALL THE HELP AND MOBILIZATION WE CAN FROM ALL OF YOU. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 11/30/2012 08:21 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >>> Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights | >>> UNCUT >>> http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/ >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Digital >>> >>> The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that would have >>> pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of >>> Rights.” >>> Feted by free-speech >>> activists >>> and >>> negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to >>> guarantee basic rights for internet >>> users, >>> content >>> creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not >>> responsible for user content. >>> [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA] >>> >>> Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA >>> >>> The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet , also >>> guaranteed net neutrality >>> — >>> a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent >>> internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of >>> internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates >>> for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge >>> either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of >>> internet traffic, such as movies. >>> >>> A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of Deputies >>> on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two months >>> that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to >>> agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil >>> from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning it >>> will not be bought back to the floor. >>> >>> The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the >>> issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro >>> Molon, who >>> sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication >>> companieslobbied >>> hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the >>> free market. >>> >>> Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders >>> were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries >>> who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties (companies >>> like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party >>> content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this >>> process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to >>> remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an >>> argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech. >>> >>> The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and made >>> it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. Although >>> industry lobbies were successful in watering >>> down >>> key >>> user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even >>> greater changes on the text. >>> >>> After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to society to >>> put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was also >>> critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco >>> Civil. >>> >>> Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and >>> Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to >>> Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties >>> having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s support of >>> Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from PMDB — >>> took issue with key elements. >>> >>> The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the >>> internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a >>> “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide >>> influence on free speech issues. >>> >>> “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and >>> dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. >>> Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically >>> killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said >>> Falkvingeon >>> his website. >>> >>> “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all >>> countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — and its >>> consequences”, said André Pase , Digital >>> Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre. >>> >>> “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily obsolete in >>> a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born all the >>> time.” >>> >>> *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo* >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> (via Instapaper ) >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 23:22:04 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 23:22:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16F7D1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> <50B9F9C2.4010508@cafonso.ca> <00FDFF10-6FD4-4C97-B8E7-0ADC6B1CA666@gmail.com> <0562A96A-C8DB-4CAB-B529-2CB8E6D113A5@cgi.br> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16F7D1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Lee, sorry to intervene, but I believe that in this case, it is important that legislators in the country have a clear notion that civil society, both national and transnational, are working together to support Brazil's being in favor of a Bill of Rights for the Internet that favors fundamental rights and freedoms, neutrality and the other issues addressed by Carlos and Everton. In the country, the Brazilian Institute for the Defense of Consumers created a platform which automatically sends a customized e-mail to the representatives in charge of the Bill of Right. In case some of you could attach your signatures to the end of the e-mail, and even send the text in English, I think it could have a positive influence for the process. The URL of the tool is: http://www.idec.org.br/mobilize-se/campanhas/marcocivil. Let me know if you need any translation from Portuguese to English. Regards Diego Canabarro On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Carlos, > > What kind of help - will help? International attention and pressure is > often counter-productive in Brazilian domestic politics right. Or not in > this case? > > I can put you in touch with a Globo TV reporter covering Congress in > Brasilia...if that could help. > > But you must have better Brazilian media contacts than me! : ) > > Please advise us. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Hartmut Glaser [ > glaser at cgi.br] > Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:29 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Everton Lucero > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso; Robert Guerra > Subject: Re: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! > > Thanks Everton. > > Prof. > Hartmut Glaser > > On 01/12/2012, at 11:06, Everton Lucero wrote: > > > Excellent analysis, C.A.! > > I entirely agree and would just add that the Ministry of Justice is also > a strong promoter and supporter of Marco Civil Bill. And so is the Foreign > Ministry, for not approving it means destroying carefully built foreign > policy positions on Internet Governance. > > As you know, we've been saying abroad that the Law should first address > the issue of limits to civil liabilities of different actors, and only > after that another Law could fill in the gaps to criminalize specific > illicit acts. It is not different internationally, as we first need to > develop universal principles, based on which further rules could be > created, if necessary. However, two Bills on cybercrime have just been > approved by the Congress, which makes the approval of Marco Civil even more > pressing and urgent. > > Regards, > > Everton > > > > > > Enviado via iPad > > > > Em 01/12/2012, às 10:36, "Carlos A. Afonso" escreveu: > > > >> A few qualifications are in order: > >> > >> - Marco Civil says the news of his killing are greatly exaggerated :) > Seriously, it is not "killed". If there is anything we DO NOT need now is > propagating this negative view of the situation. The fight continues. > >> > >> - The lobby of the telco multinationals (mostly European, affiliated > with ETNO) who dominate the Brazilian telco market is understandably very > strong. They are mobilizing the (usually right-wing) evangelical churches > against the Marco Civil -- something like Marco Civil is an expression of > the Devil himself and so on. > >> > >> - The head of the Brazilian delegation to WCIT in Dubai is Paulo > Bernardo, the minister of Communications (MiniCom). MiniCom regulates > broadcasting, while Anatel (our FCC) regulates (or is regulated by) telcos, > but this separation is fuzzy in practice. Mr Bernardo leads the government > side of the lobbying process *against* Marco Civil, in sync with the telco > lobby. There are strong divergences within the federal gov on this. > >> > >> - So, in Dubai, it is fundamental that civil society organizations and > all the ones against the ETNO proposal as well as Russia's/China's proposal > to turn addressing into a UN function heavily question Mr Bernardo in every > opportunity at the event (unfortunately I will not be there). > >> > >> - Caveat: Anatel might have a somewhat distinct position, I am still > checking on this, as they are as well :) -- this is very relevant, as they > are the official BR gov reps at the ITU. > >> > >> - The coincidence of the final steps of Marco Civil in Congress and the > approaching WCIT/Dubai conf made things much harsher for MC, particularly > in our efforts to defend the staying of net neutrality in it. > >> > >> - In the process, the same government forces against Marco Civil are > also pressing for CGI.br possibly to be modified and lose its > multistakeholder nature. The government has the power to do so by decree, > and this risk has increased dramatically in the last few months. When we > managed to approve CG as a multistakeholder governance structure in 2003, > several gov sectors wished it to turn into a state entity, and these forces > are re-emerging. In a worst case scenario, we could lose Marco Civil and > the pluralist nature of CG. But I think things will not go that far. Or > possibly will over my dead body. > >> > >> - The governmernt is not unanimous in this vision. The Ministry of > Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) is a staunch defender of Marco > Civil as it was introduced to Congress a few months ago (like CGI.br is). > So all is not lost. > >> > >> So, the situation is complicated, the odds are not good at all, but we > did not lose the battle yet. > >> > >> Sorry to strongly emphasize this, but... WE NEED ALL THE HELP AND > MOBILIZATION WE CAN FROM ALL OF YOU. > >> > >> fraternal regards > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> On 11/30/2012 08:21 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > >>> Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of > Rights | > >>> UNCUT > >>> > http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/ > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Digital > >>> > >>> The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that would > have > >>> pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of > >>> Rights< > http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/09/brazil-marco-civil-internet>.” > >>> Feted by free-speech > >>> activists< > http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/3389/en/brazil:-civil-rights-framework-for-the-internet > > > >>> and > >>> negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework > to > >>> guarantee basic rights for internet > >>> users< > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/04402516196/brazil-drafts-anti-acta-civil-rights-based-framework-internet.shtml > >, > >>> content > >>> creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are > not > >>> responsible for user content. > >>> [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA] > >>> > >>> Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA > >>> > >>> The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet , > also > >>> guaranteed net neutrality< > http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html > > > >>> — > >>> a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent > >>> internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of > >>> internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated > rates > >>> for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to > charge > >>> either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of > >>> internet traffic, such as movies. > >>> > >>> A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of > Deputies > >>> on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two > months > >>> that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to > >>> agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil > >>> from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning > it > >>> will not be bought back to the floor. > >>> > >>> The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on > the > >>> issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro > >>> Molon, who > >>> sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication > >>> companies< > http://seekingalpha.com/article/276687-5-top-yielding-brazil-telecom-stocks > >lobbied > >>> hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the > >>> free market. > >>> > >>> Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders > >>> were angered by the legal protections offered to internet > intermediaries > >>> who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties > (companies > >>> like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party > >>> content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this > >>> process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to > >>> remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an > >>> argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech. > >>> > >>> The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and > made > >>> it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. > Although > >>> industry lobbies were successful in watering > >>> down< > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/brazilian-internet-bill-threatens-freedom-expression > > > >>> key > >>> user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even > >>> greater changes on the text. > >>> > >>> After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to > society to > >>> put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was > also > >>> critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by > Marco > >>> Civil. > >>> > >>> Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and > >>> Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to > >>> Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties > >>> having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s > support of > >>> Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from > PMDB — > >>> took issue with key elements. > >>> > >>> The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the > >>> internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a > >>> “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide > >>> influence on free speech issues. > >>> > >>> “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and > >>> dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. > >>> Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically > >>> killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said > >>> Falkvinge< > http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/21/brazil-squanders-chance-at-geopolitical-influence-kills-internet-rights-bill-in-political-fiasco > >on > >>> his website. > >>> > >>> “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all > >>> countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — and > its > >>> consequences”, said André Pase , > Digital > >>> Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre. > >>> > >>> “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily > obsolete in > >>> a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born > all the > >>> time.” > >>> > >>> *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo* > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> (via Instapaper ) > >>> > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.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 > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Dec 1 23:52:11 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 10:22:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! In-Reply-To: References: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> <50B9F9C2.4010508@cafonso.ca> <00FDFF10-6FD4-4C97-B8E7-0ADC6B1CA666@gmail.com> <0562A96A-C8DB-4CAB-B529-2CB8E6D113A5@cgi.br> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16F7D1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: With all due respect, sending form letters by the few dozen or few hundred to whichever representative is an old tactic, and one that has historically proven not to be too effective. If, as a politician's staff member, you see this sort of form letter coming in, you just count the number of form letters and delete them, if you even pay attention to them in the first place. As civil society that is much more deeply engaged in and aware of these issues, it is far more productive for different organizations to write up why they think opposition to marco civil is a bad idea **in their own words** and not just copied and pasted boilerplate, and send it - to the representative with a cc to local media that you know is sympathetic to your case. Astroturf form letters on websites are a pure waste of time. --srs (iPad) On 02-Dec-2012, at 9:52, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > Lee, sorry to intervene, but I believe that in this case, it is important that legislators in the country have a clear notion that civil society, both national and transnational, are working together to support Brazil's being in favor of a Bill of Rights for the Internet that favors fundamental rights and freedoms, neutrality and the other issues addressed by Carlos and Everton. > > In the country, the Brazilian Institute for the Defense of Consumers created a platform which automatically sends a customized e-mail to the representatives in charge of the Bill of Right. In case some of you could attach your signatures to the end of the e-mail, and even send the text in English, I think it could have a positive influence for the process. > > The URL of the tool is: http://www.idec.org.br/mobilize-se/campanhas/marcocivil. Let me know if you need any translation from Portuguese to English. > > Regards > Diego Canabarro > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> Carlos, >> >> What kind of help - will help? International attention and pressure is often counter-productive in Brazilian domestic politics right. Or not in this case? >> >> I can put you in touch with a Globo TV reporter covering Congress in Brasilia...if that could help. >> >> But you must have better Brazilian media contacts than me! : ) >> >> Please advise us. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Hartmut Glaser [glaser at cgi.br] >> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:29 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Everton Lucero >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso; Robert Guerra >> Subject: Re: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! >> >> Thanks Everton. >> >> Prof. >> Hartmut Glaser >> >> On 01/12/2012, at 11:06, Everton Lucero wrote: >> >> > Excellent analysis, C.A.! >> > I entirely agree and would just add that the Ministry of Justice is also a strong promoter and supporter of Marco Civil Bill. And so is the Foreign Ministry, for not approving it means destroying carefully built foreign policy positions on Internet Governance. >> > As you know, we've been saying abroad that the Law should first address the issue of limits to civil liabilities of different actors, and only after that another Law could fill in the gaps to criminalize specific illicit acts. It is not different internationally, as we first need to develop universal principles, based on which further rules could be created, if necessary. However, two Bills on cybercrime have just been approved by the Congress, which makes the approval of Marco Civil even more pressing and urgent. >> > Regards, >> > Everton >> > >> > >> > Enviado via iPad >> > >> > Em 01/12/2012, às 10:36, "Carlos A. Afonso" escreveu: >> > >> >> A few qualifications are in order: >> >> >> >> - Marco Civil says the news of his killing are greatly exaggerated :) Seriously, it is not "killed". If there is anything we DO NOT need now is propagating this negative view of the situation. The fight continues. >> >> >> >> - The lobby of the telco multinationals (mostly European, affiliated with ETNO) who dominate the Brazilian telco market is understandably very strong. They are mobilizing the (usually right-wing) evangelical churches against the Marco Civil -- something like Marco Civil is an expression of the Devil himself and so on. >> >> >> >> - The head of the Brazilian delegation to WCIT in Dubai is Paulo Bernardo, the minister of Communications (MiniCom). MiniCom regulates broadcasting, while Anatel (our FCC) regulates (or is regulated by) telcos, but this separation is fuzzy in practice. Mr Bernardo leads the government side of the lobbying process *against* Marco Civil, in sync with the telco lobby. There are strong divergences within the federal gov on this. >> >> >> >> - So, in Dubai, it is fundamental that civil society organizations and all the ones against the ETNO proposal as well as Russia's/China's proposal to turn addressing into a UN function heavily question Mr Bernardo in every opportunity at the event (unfortunately I will not be there). >> >> >> >> - Caveat: Anatel might have a somewhat distinct position, I am still checking on this, as they are as well :) -- this is very relevant, as they are the official BR gov reps at the ITU. >> >> >> >> - The coincidence of the final steps of Marco Civil in Congress and the approaching WCIT/Dubai conf made things much harsher for MC, particularly in our efforts to defend the staying of net neutrality in it. >> >> >> >> - In the process, the same government forces against Marco Civil are also pressing for CGI.br possibly to be modified and lose its multistakeholder nature. The government has the power to do so by decree, and this risk has increased dramatically in the last few months. When we managed to approve CG as a multistakeholder governance structure in 2003, several gov sectors wished it to turn into a state entity, and these forces are re-emerging. In a worst case scenario, we could lose Marco Civil and the pluralist nature of CG. But I think things will not go that far. Or possibly will over my dead body. >> >> >> >> - The governmernt is not unanimous in this vision. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) is a staunch defender of Marco Civil as it was introduced to Congress a few months ago (like CGI.br is). So all is not lost. >> >> >> >> So, the situation is complicated, the odds are not good at all, but we did not lose the battle yet. >> >> >> >> Sorry to strongly emphasize this, but... WE NEED ALL THE HELP AND MOBILIZATION WE CAN FROM ALL OF YOU. >> >> >> >> fraternal regards >> >> >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> >> On 11/30/2012 08:21 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >> >>> Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights | >> >>> UNCUT >> >>> http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/ >> >>> ------------------------------ >> >>> >> >>> Digital >> >>> >> >>> The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that would have >> >>> pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of >> >>> Rights.” >> >>> Feted by free-speech >> >>> activists >> >>> and >> >>> negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to >> >>> guarantee basic rights for internet >> >>> users, >> >>> content >> >>> creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not >> >>> responsible for user content. >> >>> [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA] >> >>> >> >>> Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA >> >>> >> >>> The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet , also >> >>> guaranteed net neutrality >> >>> — >> >>> a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent >> >>> internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of >> >>> internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates >> >>> for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge >> >>> either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of >> >>> internet traffic, such as movies. >> >>> >> >>> A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of Deputies >> >>> on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two months >> >>> that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to >> >>> agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil >> >>> from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning it >> >>> will not be bought back to the floor. >> >>> >> >>> The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the >> >>> issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro >> >>> Molon, who >> >>> sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication >> >>> companieslobbied >> >>> hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the >> >>> free market. >> >>> >> >>> Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders >> >>> were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries >> >>> who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties (companies >> >>> like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party >> >>> content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this >> >>> process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to >> >>> remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an >> >>> argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech. >> >>> >> >>> The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and made >> >>> it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. Although >> >>> industry lobbies were successful in watering >> >>> down >> >>> key >> >>> user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even >> >>> greater changes on the text. >> >>> >> >>> After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to society to >> >>> put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was also >> >>> critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco >> >>> Civil. >> >>> >> >>> Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and >> >>> Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to >> >>> Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties >> >>> having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s support of >> >>> Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from PMDB — >> >>> took issue with key elements. >> >>> >> >>> The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the >> >>> internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a >> >>> “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide >> >>> influence on free speech issues. >> >>> >> >>> “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and >> >>> dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. >> >>> Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically >> >>> killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said >> >>> Falkvingeon >> >>> his website. >> >>> >> >>> “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all >> >>> countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — and its >> >>> consequences”, said André Pase , Digital >> >>> Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre. >> >>> >> >>> “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily obsolete in >> >>> a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born all the >> >>> time.” >> >>> >> >>> *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo* >> >>> ------------------------------ >> >>> >> >>> (via Instapaper ) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.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 > > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Sat Dec 1 23:59:23 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2012 23:59:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! In-Reply-To: References: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> <50B9F9C2.4010508@cafonso.ca> <00FDFF10-6FD4-4C97-B8E7-0ADC6B1CA666@gmail.com> <0562A96A-C8DB-4CAB-B529-2CB8E6D113A5@cgi.br> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16F7D1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: I agree with your main argument, Suresh. But one has to recognize that in the case of Brazil, this strategy has been working for several other issues. In previous occasions, massive amounts of messages caught the attention of policy makers. Also, it doesn't exclude other sorts of more sophisticated and institutionalized action. Regards On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > With all due respect, sending form letters by the few dozen or few hundred > to whichever representative is an old tactic, and one that has historically > proven not to be too effective. > > If, as a politician's staff member, you see this sort of form letter > coming in, you just count the number of form letters and delete them, if > you even pay attention to them in the first place. > > As civil society that is much more deeply engaged in and aware of these > issues, it is far more productive for different organizations to write up > why they think opposition to marco civil is a bad idea **in their own > words** and not just copied and pasted boilerplate, and send it - to the > representative with a cc to local media that you know is sympathetic to > your case. > > Astroturf form letters on websites are a pure waste of time. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 02-Dec-2012, at 9:52, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: > > Lee, sorry to intervene, but I believe that in this case, it is important > that legislators in the country have a clear notion that civil society, > both national and transnational, are working together to support Brazil's > being in favor of a Bill of Rights for the Internet that favors fundamental > rights and freedoms, neutrality and the other issues addressed by Carlos > and Everton. > > In the country, the Brazilian Institute for the Defense of Consumers > created a platform which automatically sends a customized e-mail to the > representatives in charge of the Bill of Right. In case some of you could > attach your signatures to the end of the e-mail, and even send the text in > English, I think it could have a positive influence for the process. > > The URL of the tool is: > http://www.idec.org.br/mobilize-se/campanhas/marcocivil. Let me know if > you need any translation from Portuguese to English. > > Regards > Diego Canabarro > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Carlos, >> >> What kind of help - will help? International attention and pressure is >> often counter-productive in Brazilian domestic politics right. Or not in >> this case? >> >> I can put you in touch with a Globo TV reporter covering Congress in >> Brasilia...if that could help. >> >> But you must have better Brazilian media contacts than me! : ) >> >> Please advise us. >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Hartmut Glaser [ >> glaser at cgi.br] >> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:29 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Everton Lucero >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso; Robert Guerra >> Subject: Re: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! >> >> Thanks Everton. >> >> Prof. >> Hartmut Glaser >> >> On 01/12/2012, at 11:06, Everton Lucero wrote: >> >> > Excellent analysis, C.A.! >> > I entirely agree and would just add that the Ministry of Justice is >> also a strong promoter and supporter of Marco Civil Bill. And so is the >> Foreign Ministry, for not approving it means destroying carefully built >> foreign policy positions on Internet Governance. >> > As you know, we've been saying abroad that the Law should first address >> the issue of limits to civil liabilities of different actors, and only >> after that another Law could fill in the gaps to criminalize specific >> illicit acts. It is not different internationally, as we first need to >> develop universal principles, based on which further rules could be >> created, if necessary. However, two Bills on cybercrime have just been >> approved by the Congress, which makes the approval of Marco Civil even more >> pressing and urgent. >> > Regards, >> > Everton >> > >> > >> > Enviado via iPad >> > >> > Em 01/12/2012, às 10:36, "Carlos A. Afonso" escreveu: >> > >> >> A few qualifications are in order: >> >> >> >> - Marco Civil says the news of his killing are greatly exaggerated :) >> Seriously, it is not "killed". If there is anything we DO NOT need now is >> propagating this negative view of the situation. The fight continues. >> >> >> >> - The lobby of the telco multinationals (mostly European, affiliated >> with ETNO) who dominate the Brazilian telco market is understandably very >> strong. They are mobilizing the (usually right-wing) evangelical churches >> against the Marco Civil -- something like Marco Civil is an expression of >> the Devil himself and so on. >> >> >> >> - The head of the Brazilian delegation to WCIT in Dubai is Paulo >> Bernardo, the minister of Communications (MiniCom). MiniCom regulates >> broadcasting, while Anatel (our FCC) regulates (or is regulated by) telcos, >> but this separation is fuzzy in practice. Mr Bernardo leads the government >> side of the lobbying process *against* Marco Civil, in sync with the telco >> lobby. There are strong divergences within the federal gov on this. >> >> >> >> - So, in Dubai, it is fundamental that civil society organizations and >> all the ones against the ETNO proposal as well as Russia's/China's proposal >> to turn addressing into a UN function heavily question Mr Bernardo in every >> opportunity at the event (unfortunately I will not be there). >> >> >> >> - Caveat: Anatel might have a somewhat distinct position, I am still >> checking on this, as they are as well :) -- this is very relevant, as they >> are the official BR gov reps at the ITU. >> >> >> >> - The coincidence of the final steps of Marco Civil in Congress and >> the approaching WCIT/Dubai conf made things much harsher for MC, >> particularly in our efforts to defend the staying of net neutrality in it. >> >> >> >> - In the process, the same government forces against Marco Civil are >> also pressing for CGI.br possibly to be modified and lose its >> multistakeholder nature. The government has the power to do so by decree, >> and this risk has increased dramatically in the last few months. When we >> managed to approve CG as a multistakeholder governance structure in 2003, >> several gov sectors wished it to turn into a state entity, and these forces >> are re-emerging. In a worst case scenario, we could lose Marco Civil and >> the pluralist nature of CG. But I think things will not go that far. Or >> possibly will over my dead body. >> >> >> >> - The governmernt is not unanimous in this vision. The Ministry of >> Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) is a staunch defender of Marco >> Civil as it was introduced to Congress a few months ago (like CGI.bris). So all is not lost. >> >> >> >> So, the situation is complicated, the odds are not good at all, but we >> did not lose the battle yet. >> >> >> >> Sorry to strongly emphasize this, but... WE NEED ALL THE HELP AND >> MOBILIZATION WE CAN FROM ALL OF YOU. >> >> >> >> fraternal regards >> >> >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> >> On 11/30/2012 08:21 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >> >>> Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of >> Rights | >> >>> UNCUT >> >>> >> http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/ >> >>> ------------------------------ >> >>> >> >>> Digital >> >>> >> >>> The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that >> would have >> >>> pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of >> >>> Rights< >> http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/09/brazil-marco-civil-internet>.” >> >>> Feted by free-speech >> >>> activists< >> http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/3389/en/brazil:-civil-rights-framework-for-the-internet >> > >> >>> and >> >>> negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework >> to >> >>> guarantee basic rights for internet >> >>> users< >> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111004/04402516196/brazil-drafts-anti-acta-civil-rights-based-framework-internet.shtml >> >, >> >>> content >> >>> creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are >> not >> >>> responsible for user content. >> >>> [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA] >> >>> >> >>> Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA >> >>> >> >>> The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet , >> also >> >>> guaranteed net neutrality< >> http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html >> > >> >>> — >> >>> a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would >> prevent >> >>> internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of >> >>> internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated >> rates >> >>> for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to >> charge >> >>> either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds >> of >> >>> internet traffic, such as movies. >> >>> >> >>> A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of >> Deputies >> >>> on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two >> months >> >>> that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to >> >>> agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco >> Civil >> >>> from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning >> it >> >>> will not be bought back to the floor. >> >>> >> >>> The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on >> the >> >>> issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro >> >>> Molon, who >> >>> sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication >> >>> companies< >> http://seekingalpha.com/article/276687-5-top-yielding-brazil-telecom-stocks >> >lobbied >> >>> hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the >> >>> free market. >> >>> >> >>> Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright >> holders >> >>> were angered by the legal protections offered to internet >> intermediaries >> >>> who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties >> (companies >> >>> like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party >> >>> content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say >> this >> >>> process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to >> >>> remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an >> >>> argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech. >> >>> >> >>> The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and >> made >> >>> it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. >> Although >> >>> industry lobbies were successful in watering >> >>> down< >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/11/brazilian-internet-bill-threatens-freedom-expression >> > >> >>> key >> >>> user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even >> >>> greater changes on the text. >> >>> >> >>> After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to >> society to >> >>> put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was >> also >> >>> critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by >> Marco >> >>> Civil. >> >>> >> >>> Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and >> >>> Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally >> to >> >>> Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective >> parties >> >>> having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s >> support of >> >>> Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from >> PMDB — >> >>> took issue with key elements. >> >>> >> >>> The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the >> >>> internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a >> >>> “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide >> >>> influence on free speech issues. >> >>> >> >>> “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and >> >>> dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. >> >>> Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has >> practically >> >>> killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said >> >>> Falkvinge< >> http://falkvinge.net/2012/11/21/brazil-squanders-chance-at-geopolitical-influence-kills-internet-rights-bill-in-political-fiasco >> >on >> >>> his website. >> >>> >> >>> “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all >> >>> countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — >> and its >> >>> consequences”, said André Pase , >> Digital >> >>> Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre. >> >>> >> >>> “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily >> obsolete in >> >>> a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born >> all the >> >>> time.” >> >>> >> >>> *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo* >> >>> ------------------------------ >> >>> >> >>> (via Instapaper ) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.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 >> >> > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 2 00:02:10 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 10:32:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! In-Reply-To: References: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> <50B9F9C2.4010508@cafonso.ca> <00FDFF10-6FD4-4C97-B8E7-0ADC6B1CA666@gmail.com> <0562A96A-C8DB-4CAB-B529-2CB8E6D113A5@cgi.br> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B16F7D1@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Fair enough - and letters to the editor in newspapers too. Enough of those pour in, the editor typically assigns a reporter to cover the story. --srs (iPad) On 02-Dec-2012, at 10:29, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > I agree with your main argument, Suresh. But one has to recognize that in the case of Brazil, this strategy has been working for several other issues. In previous occasions, massive amounts of messages caught the attention of policy makers. Also, it doesn't exclude other sorts of more sophisticated and institutionalized action. > > Regards > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:52 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> With all due respect, sending form letters by the few dozen or few hundred to whichever representative is an old tactic, and one that has historically proven not to be too effective. >> >> If, as a politician's staff member, you see this sort of form letter coming in, you just count the number of form letters and delete them, if you even pay attention to them in the first place. >> >> As civil society that is much more deeply engaged in and aware of these issues, it is far more productive for different organizations to write up why they think opposition to marco civil is a bad idea **in their own words** and not just copied and pasted boilerplate, and send it - to the representative with a cc to local media that you know is sympathetic to your case. >> >> Astroturf form letters on websites are a pure waste of time. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 02-Dec-2012, at 9:52, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: >> >>> Lee, sorry to intervene, but I believe that in this case, it is important that legislators in the country have a clear notion that civil society, both national and transnational, are working together to support Brazil's being in favor of a Bill of Rights for the Internet that favors fundamental rights and freedoms, neutrality and the other issues addressed by Carlos and Everton. >>> >>> In the country, the Brazilian Institute for the Defense of Consumers created a platform which automatically sends a customized e-mail to the representatives in charge of the Bill of Right. In case some of you could attach your signatures to the end of the e-mail, and even send the text in English, I think it could have a positive influence for the process. >>> >>> The URL of the tool is: http://www.idec.org.br/mobilize-se/campanhas/marcocivil. Let me know if you need any translation from Portuguese to English. >>> >>> Regards >>> Diego Canabarro >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>>> Carlos, >>>> >>>> What kind of help - will help? International attention and pressure is often counter-productive in Brazilian domestic politics right. Or not in this case? >>>> >>>> I can put you in touch with a Globo TV reporter covering Congress in Brasilia...if that could help. >>>> >>>> But you must have better Brazilian media contacts than me! : ) >>>> >>>> Please advise us. >>>> >>>> Lee >>>> ________________________________________ >>>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Hartmut Glaser [glaser at cgi.br] >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:29 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Everton Lucero >>>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso; Robert Guerra >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! >>>> >>>> Thanks Everton. >>>> >>>> Prof. >>>> Hartmut Glaser >>>> >>>> On 01/12/2012, at 11:06, Everton Lucero wrote: >>>> >>>> > Excellent analysis, C.A.! >>>> > I entirely agree and would just add that the Ministry of Justice is also a strong promoter and supporter of Marco Civil Bill. And so is the Foreign Ministry, for not approving it means destroying carefully built foreign policy positions on Internet Governance. >>>> > As you know, we've been saying abroad that the Law should first address the issue of limits to civil liabilities of different actors, and only after that another Law could fill in the gaps to criminalize specific illicit acts. It is not different internationally, as we first need to develop universal principles, based on which further rules could be created, if necessary. However, two Bills on cybercrime have just been approved by the Congress, which makes the approval of Marco Civil even more pressing and urgent. >>>> > Regards, >>>> > Everton >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Enviado via iPad >>>> > >>>> > Em 01/12/2012, às 10:36, "Carlos A. Afonso" escreveu: >>>> > >>>> >> A few qualifications are in order: >>>> >> >>>> >> - Marco Civil says the news of his killing are greatly exaggerated :) Seriously, it is not "killed". If there is anything we DO NOT need now is propagating this negative view of the situation. The fight continues. >>>> >> >>>> >> - The lobby of the telco multinationals (mostly European, affiliated with ETNO) who dominate the Brazilian telco market is understandably very strong. They are mobilizing the (usually right-wing) evangelical churches against the Marco Civil -- something like Marco Civil is an expression of the Devil himself and so on. >>>> >> >>>> >> - The head of the Brazilian delegation to WCIT in Dubai is Paulo Bernardo, the minister of Communications (MiniCom). MiniCom regulates broadcasting, while Anatel (our FCC) regulates (or is regulated by) telcos, but this separation is fuzzy in practice. Mr Bernardo leads the government side of the lobbying process *against* Marco Civil, in sync with the telco lobby. There are strong divergences within the federal gov on this. >>>> >> >>>> >> - So, in Dubai, it is fundamental that civil society organizations and all the ones against the ETNO proposal as well as Russia's/China's proposal to turn addressing into a UN function heavily question Mr Bernardo in every opportunity at the event (unfortunately I will not be there). >>>> >> >>>> >> - Caveat: Anatel might have a somewhat distinct position, I am still checking on this, as they are as well :) -- this is very relevant, as they are the official BR gov reps at the ITU. >>>> >> >>>> >> - The coincidence of the final steps of Marco Civil in Congress and the approaching WCIT/Dubai conf made things much harsher for MC, particularly in our efforts to defend the staying of net neutrality in it. >>>> >> >>>> >> - In the process, the same government forces against Marco Civil are also pressing for CGI.br possibly to be modified and lose its multistakeholder nature. The government has the power to do so by decree, and this risk has increased dramatically in the last few months. When we managed to approve CG as a multistakeholder governance structure in 2003, several gov sectors wished it to turn into a state entity, and these forces are re-emerging. In a worst case scenario, we could lose Marco Civil and the pluralist nature of CG. But I think things will not go that far. Or possibly will over my dead body. >>>> >> >>>> >> - The governmernt is not unanimous in this vision. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) is a staunch defender of Marco Civil as it was introduced to Congress a few months ago (like CGI.br is). So all is not lost. >>>> >> >>>> >> So, the situation is complicated, the odds are not good at all, but we did not lose the battle yet. >>>> >> >>>> >> Sorry to strongly emphasize this, but... WE NEED ALL THE HELP AND MOBILIZATION WE CAN FROM ALL OF YOU. >>>> >> >>>> >> fraternal regards >>>> >> >>>> >> --c.a. >>>> >> >>>> >> On 11/30/2012 08:21 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >>>> >>> Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights | >>>> >>> UNCUT >>>> >>> http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/ >>>> >>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Digital >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that would have >>>> >>> pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of >>>> >>> Rights.” >>>> >>> Feted by free-speech >>>> >>> activists >>>> >>> and >>>> >>> negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to >>>> >>> guarantee basic rights for internet >>>> >>> users, >>>> >>> content >>>> >>> creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not >>>> >>> responsible for user content. >>>> >>> [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA] >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet , also >>>> >>> guaranteed net neutrality >>>> >>> — >>>> >>> a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent >>>> >>> internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of >>>> >>> internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates >>>> >>> for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge >>>> >>> either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of >>>> >>> internet traffic, such as movies. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of Deputies >>>> >>> on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two months >>>> >>> that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to >>>> >>> agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil >>>> >>> from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning it >>>> >>> will not be bought back to the floor. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the >>>> >>> issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro >>>> >>> Molon, who >>>> >>> sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication >>>> >>> companieslobbied >>>> >>> hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the >>>> >>> free market. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders >>>> >>> were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries >>>> >>> who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties (companies >>>> >>> like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party >>>> >>> content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this >>>> >>> process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to >>>> >>> remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an >>>> >>> argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and made >>>> >>> it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. Although >>>> >>> industry lobbies were successful in watering >>>> >>> down >>>> >>> key >>>> >>> user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even >>>> >>> greater changes on the text. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to society to >>>> >>> put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was also >>>> >>> critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco >>>> >>> Civil. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and >>>> >>> Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to >>>> >>> Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties >>>> >>> having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s support of >>>> >>> Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from PMDB — >>>> >>> took issue with key elements. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the >>>> >>> internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a >>>> >>> “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide >>>> >>> influence on free speech issues. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and >>>> >>> dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. >>>> >>> Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically >>>> >>> killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said >>>> >>> Falkvingeon >>>> >>> his website. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all >>>> >>> countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — and its >>>> >>> consequences”, said André Pase , Digital >>>> >>> Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily obsolete in >>>> >>> a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born all the >>>> >>> time.” >>>> >>> >>>> >>> *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo* >>>> >>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>> >>>> >>> (via Instapaper ) >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>> >>>> >> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >> >>>> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> >> http://www.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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Diego R. Canabarro >>> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 >>> >>> -- >>> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br >>> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu >>> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com >>> Skype: diegocanabarro >>> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) >>> -- >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 2 02:02:41 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 05:02:41 -0200 Subject: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! Message-ID: I think the help we expect is basically proactive advocacy in international fora where BR delegates are present. Globo is the largest media conglomerate in BR and is part of the lobby against Marco Civil as originally proposed - part of the IPR lobby. --c.a.Lee W McKnight escreveu:Carlos, What kind of help - will help?  International attention and pressure is often counter-productive in Brazilian domestic politics right. Or not in this case? I can put you in touch with a Globo TV reporter covering Congress in Brasilia...if that could help. But you must have better Brazilian media contacts than me! : ) Please advise us. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Hartmut Glaser [glaser at cgi.br] Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:29 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Everton Lucero Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso; Robert Guerra Subject: Re: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! Thanks Everton. Prof. Hartmut Glaser On 01/12/2012, at 11:06, Everton Lucero wrote: > Excellent analysis, C.A.! > I entirely agree and would just add that the Ministry of Justice is also a strong promoter and supporter of Marco Civil Bill. And so is the Foreign Ministry, for not approving it means destroying carefully built foreign policy positions on Internet Governance. > As you know, we've been saying abroad that the Law should first address the issue of limits to civil liabilities of different actors, and only after that another Law could fill in the gaps to criminalize specific illicit acts. It is not different internationally, as we first need to develop universal principles, based on which further rules could be created, if necessary. However, two Bills on cybercrime have just been approved by the Congress, which makes the approval of Marco Civil even more pressing and urgent. > Regards, > Everton > > > Enviado via iPad > > Em 01/12/2012, às 10:36, "Carlos A. Afonso" escreveu: > >> A few qualifications are in order: >> >> - Marco Civil says the news of his killing are greatly exaggerated :) Seriously, it is not "killed". If there is anything we DO NOT need now is propagating this negative view of the situation. The fight continues. >> >> - The lobby of the telco multinationals (mostly European, affiliated with ETNO) who dominate the Brazilian telco market is understandably very strong. They are mobilizing the (usually right-wing) evangelical churches against the Marco Civil -- something like Marco Civil is an expression of the Devil himself and so on. >> >> - The head of the Brazilian delegation to WCIT in Dubai is Paulo Bernardo, the minister of Communications (MiniCom). MiniCom regulates broadcasting, while Anatel (our FCC) regulates (or is regulated by) telcos, but this separation is fuzzy in practice. Mr Bernardo leads the government side of the lobbying process *against* Marco Civil, in sync with the telco lobby. There are strong divergences within the federal gov on this. >> >> - So, in Dubai, it is fundamental that civil society organizations and all the ones against the ETNO proposal as well as Russia's/China's proposal to turn addressing into a UN function heavily question Mr Bernardo in every opportunity at the event (unfortunately I will not be there). >> >> - Caveat: Anatel might have a somewhat distinct position, I am still checking on this, as they are as well :) -- this is very relevant, as they are the official BR gov reps at the ITU. >> >> - The coincidence of the final steps of Marco Civil in Congress and the approaching WCIT/Dubai conf made things much harsher for MC, particularly in our efforts to defend the staying of net neutrality in it. >> >> - In the process, the same government forces against Marco Civil are also pressing for CGI.br possibly to be modified and lose its multistakeholder nature. The government has the power to do so by decree, and this risk has increased dramatically in the last few months. When we managed to approve CG as a multistakeholder governance structure in 2003, several gov sectors wished it to turn into a state entity, and these forces are re-emerging. In a worst case scenario, we could lose Marco Civil and the pluralist nature of CG. But I think things will not go that far. Or possibly will over my dead body. >> >> - The governmernt is not unanimous in this vision. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) is a staunch defender of Marco Civil as it was introduced to Congress a few months ago (like CGI.br is). So all is not lost. >> >> So, the situation is complicated, the odds are not good at all, but we did not lose the battle yet. >> >> Sorry to strongly emphasize this, but... WE NEED ALL THE HELP AND MOBILIZATION WE CAN FROM ALL OF YOU. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 11/30/2012 08:21 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >>> Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights | >>> UNCUT >>> http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/ >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Digital >>> >>> The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that would have >>> pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of >>> Rights.” >>> Feted by free-speech >>> activists >>> and >>> negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to >>> guarantee basic rights for internet >>> users, >>> content >>> creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not >>> responsible for user content. >>> [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA] >>> >>> Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA >>> >>> The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet , also >>> guaranteed net neutrality >>> — >>> a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent >>> internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of >>> internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates >>> for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge >>> either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of >>> internet traffic, such as movies. >>> >>> A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of Deputies >>> on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two months >>> that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to >>> agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil >>> from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning it >>> will not be bought back to the floor. >>> >>> The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the >>> issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro >>> Molon, who >>> sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication >>> companieslobbied >>> hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the >>> free market. >>> >>> Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders >>> were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries >>> who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties (companies >>> like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party >>> content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this >>> process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to >>> remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an >>> argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech. >>> >>> The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and made >>> it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. Although >>> industry lobbies were successful in watering >>> down >>> key >>> user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even >>> greater changes on the text. >>> >>> After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to society to >>> put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was also >>> critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco >>> Civil. >>> >>> Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and >>> Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to >>> Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties >>> having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s support of >>> Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from PMDB — >>> took issue with key elements. >>> >>> The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the >>> internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a >>> “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide >>> influence on free speech issues. >>> >>> “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and >>> dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. >>> Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically >>> killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said >>> Falkvingeon >>> his website. >>> >>> “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all >>> countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — and its >>> consequences”, said André Pase , Digital >>> Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre. >>> >>> “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily obsolete in >>> a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born all the >>> time.” >>> >>> *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo* >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> (via Instapaper ) >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.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 ca at cafonso.ca Sun Dec 2 02:15:57 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2012 05:15:57 -0200 Subject: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! Message-ID: Please note that the Marco Civil process started in 2009, and all kinds of advocacy forms have been used by different stakeholders. The process was open, transparent and had sizable international participation as well. The main challenge now is to get it through Congress, and again, all (legal, of course :)) forms of proactive advocacy in defense of it or against its mutilation are welcome. Fighting for the MC is fighting against ETNO etc as well. frt rgds --c.a. Carlos A. AfonsoSuresh Ramasubramanian escreveu:With all due respect, sending form letters by the few dozen or few hundred to whichever representative is an old tactic, and one that has historically proven not to be too effective. If, as a politician's staff member, you see this sort of form letter coming in, you just count the number of form letters and delete them, if you even pay attention to them in the first place. As civil society that is much more deeply engaged in and aware of these issues, it is far more productive for different organizations to write up why they think opposition to marco civil is a bad idea **in their own words** and not just copied and pasted boilerplate, and send it - to the representative with a cc to local media that you know is sympathetic to your case. Astroturf form letters on websites are a pure waste of time. --srs (iPad) On 02-Dec-2012, at 9:52, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: Lee, sorry to intervene, but I believe that in this case, it is important that legislators in the country have a clear notion that civil society, both national and transnational, are working together to support Brazil's being in favor of a Bill of Rights for the Internet that favors fundamental rights and freedoms, neutrality and the other issues addressed by Carlos and Everton.  In the country, the Brazilian Institute for the Defense of Consumers created a platform which automatically sends a customized e-mail to the representatives in charge of the Bill of Right. In case some of you could attach your signatures to the end of the e-mail, and even send the text in English, I think it could have a positive influence for the process. The URL of the tool is: http://www.idec.org.br/mobilize-se/campanhas/marcocivil. Let me know if you need any translation from Portuguese to English. Regards Diego Canabarro On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: Carlos, What kind of help - will help?  International attention and pressure is often counter-productive in Brazilian domestic politics right. Or not in this case? I can put you in touch with a Globo TV reporter covering Congress in Brasilia...if that could help. But you must have better Brazilian media contacts than me! : ) Please advise us. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Hartmut Glaser [glaser at cgi.br] Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 8:29 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Everton Lucero Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso; Robert Guerra Subject: Re: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! Thanks Everton. Prof. Hartmut Glaser On 01/12/2012, at 11:06, Everton Lucero wrote: > Excellent analysis, C.A.! > I entirely agree and would just add that the Ministry of Justice is also a strong promoter and supporter of Marco Civil Bill. And so is the Foreign Ministry, for not approving it means destroying carefully built foreign policy positions on Internet Governance. > As you know, we've been saying abroad that the Law should first address the issue of limits to civil liabilities of different actors, and only after that another Law could fill in the gaps to criminalize specific illicit acts. It is not different internationally, as we first need to develop universal principles, based on which further rules could be created, if necessary. However, two Bills on cybercrime have just been approved by the Congress, which makes the approval of Marco Civil even more pressing and urgent. > Regards, > Everton > > > Enviado via iPad > > Em 01/12/2012, às 10:36, "Carlos A. Afonso" escreveu: > >> A few qualifications are in order: >> >> - Marco Civil says the news of his killing are greatly exaggerated :) Seriously, it is not "killed". If there is anything we DO NOT need now is propagating this negative view of the situation. The fight continues. >> >> - The lobby of the telco multinationals (mostly European, affiliated with ETNO) who dominate the Brazilian telco market is understandably very strong. They are mobilizing the (usually right-wing) evangelical churches against the Marco Civil -- something like Marco Civil is an expression of the Devil himself and so on. >> >> - The head of the Brazilian delegation to WCIT in Dubai is Paulo Bernardo, the minister of Communications (MiniCom). MiniCom regulates broadcasting, while Anatel (our FCC) regulates (or is regulated by) telcos, but this separation is fuzzy in practice. Mr Bernardo leads the government side of the lobbying process *against* Marco Civil, in sync with the telco lobby. There are strong divergences within the federal gov on this. >> >> - So, in Dubai, it is fundamental that civil society organizations and all the ones against the ETNO proposal as well as Russia's/China's proposal to turn addressing into a UN function heavily question Mr Bernardo in every opportunity at the event (unfortunately I will not be there). >> >> - Caveat: Anatel might have a somewhat distinct position, I am still checking on this, as they are as well :) -- this is very relevant, as they are the official BR gov reps at the ITU. >> >> - The coincidence of the final steps of Marco Civil in Congress and the approaching WCIT/Dubai conf made things much harsher for MC, particularly in our efforts to defend the staying of net neutrality in it. >> >> - In the process, the same government forces against Marco Civil are also pressing for CGI.br possibly to be modified and lose its multistakeholder nature. The government has the power to do so by decree, and this risk has increased dramatically in the last few months. When we managed to approve CG as a multistakeholder governance structure in 2003, several gov sectors wished it to turn into a state entity, and these forces are re-emerging. In a worst case scenario, we could lose Marco Civil and the pluralist nature of CG. But I think things will not go that far. Or possibly will over my dead body. >> >> - The governmernt is not unanimous in this vision. The Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) is a staunch defender of Marco Civil as it was introduced to Congress a few months ago (like CGI.br is). So all is not lost. >> >> So, the situation is complicated, the odds are not good at all, but we did not lose the battle yet. >> >> Sorry to strongly emphasize this, but... WE NEED ALL THE HELP AND MOBILIZATION WE CAN FROM ALL OF YOU. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 11/30/2012 08:21 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >>> Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights | >>> UNCUT >>> http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/ >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Digital >>> >>> The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that would have >>> pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of >>> Rights.” >>> Feted by free-speech >>> activists >>> and >>> negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to >>> guarantee basic rights for internet >>> users, >>> content >>> creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not >>> responsible for user content. >>> [image: Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA] >>> >>> Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA >>> >>> The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet , also >>> guaranteed net neutrality >>> — >>> a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent >>> internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of >>> internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates >>> for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge >>> either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of >>> internet traffic, such as movies. >>> >>> A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of Deputies >>> on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two months >>> that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to >>> agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil >>> from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning it >>> will not be bought back to the floor. >>> >>> The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the >>> issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro >>> Molon, who >>> sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication >>> companieslobbied >>> hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the >>> free market. >>> >>> Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders >>> were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries >>> who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties (companies >>> like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party >>> content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this >>> process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to >>> remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an >>> argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech. >>> >>> The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and made >>> it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. Although >>> industry lobbies were successful in watering >>> down >>> key >>> user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even >>> greater changes on the text. >>> >>> After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to society to >>> put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was also >>> critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco >>> Civil. >>> >>> Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and >>> Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to >>> Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties >>> having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s support of >>> Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from PMDB — >>> took issue with key elements. >>> >>> The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the >>> internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a >>> “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide >>> influence on free speech issues. >>> >>> “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and >>> dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. >>> Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically >>> killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said >>> Falkvingeon >>> his website. >>> >>> “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all >>> countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — and its >>> consequences”, said André Pase , Digital >>> Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre. >>> >>> “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily obsolete in >>> a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born all the >>> time.” >>> >>> *Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo* >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> (via Instapaper ) >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >>    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>    http://www.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 -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597  -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sun Dec 2 12:45:58 2012 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 13:45:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] WCIT-12 WEBCAST Info Message-ID: paul conneally (@conneally) tweeted at 0:17 PM on Sat, Dec 01, 2012: @thackshaw Live + archived webcasts of #WCIT12 press + plenary sessions over nxt2weeks available at: http://t.co/TrbZrgMT (https://twitter.com/conneally/status/274910110768304128) Rgds, Tracy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 3 02:44:17 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 16:44:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] WCIT-12 WEBCAST Info In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is good (and it's interesting to hear Dr. Toure now talking about having invited ICANN to WCIT and how it's time for cooperation etc). But the discussions will happen in committee, particularly committee 5. Adam On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > paul conneally (@conneally) tweeted at 0:17 PM on Sat, Dec 01, 2012: > @thackshaw Live + archived webcasts of #WCIT12 press + plenary sessions over > nxt2weeks available at: http://t.co/TrbZrgMT > (https://twitter.com/conneally/status/274910110768304128) > > Rgds, > > Tracy > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 andrea00 at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 05:01:09 2012 From: andrea00 at gmail.com (andrea) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 11:01:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] info on the 2013 Arab IGF? Message-ID: Hello Qusai, hope this message finds you well, I am finalizing a study on Internet in Iraq and among the recommendation I am stressing the importance of participating to the global and regional IGFs. Do you have any early detail on the next Arab IGF, date and place? Also is it possible to consult the list of participants of the first Arab IGF, I would be curious to know if Iraqis participated. Thank you for your help! Best, Andrea Beccalli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 05:40:02 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 02:40:02 -0800 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Message-ID: <014301cdd142$8d675aa0$a8360fe0$@gmail.com> http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google- tax-avoidance/ http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google-would- lose-court-case-over-taxes/ http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.html http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasion/tab id/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-acti on-on-google-tax-evasion http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 3 06:05:32 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 12:05:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <014301cdd142$8d675aa0$a8360fe0$@gmail.com> References: <014301cdd142$8d675aa0$a8360fe0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50BC877C.5000301@panamo.eu> Thanks Michael. Also Germany: http://www.linformaticien.com/actualites/id/27219/menace-d-une-taxe-en-allemagne-google-defend-la-liberte-de-surfer.aspx It was a similar case with "Freedom of the seas", before international regulation... @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 03/12/12 11:40, michael gurstein a écrit : > http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google- > tax-avoidance/ > > http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google-would- > lose-court-case-over-taxes/ > > http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.html > > http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasion/tab > id/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-acti > on-on-google-tax-evasion > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet > -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 3 06:39:59 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 17:09:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Message-ID: Of course the tax dispute is not with the telecom regulators of those countries and would continue regardless of the outcome in the WCIT, so you will forgive me if I don't quite get the connection --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Dominique Lacroix"
To: Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2012 4:35 PM Thanks Michael. Also Germany: http://www.linformaticien.com/actualites/id/27219/menace-d-une-taxe-en-allemagne-google-defend-la-liberte-de-surfer.aspx It was a similar case with "Freedom of the seas", before international regulation... @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 03/12/12 11:40, michael gurstein a écrit : > http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google- > tax-avoidance/ > > http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google-would- > lose-court-case-over-taxes/ > > http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.html > > http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasion/tab > id/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-acti > on-on-google-tax-evasion > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet > -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 3 06:52:02 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 20:52:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <014301cdd142$8d675aa0$a8360fe0$@gmail.com> References: <014301cdd142$8d675aa0$a8360fe0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Don't forget Starbucks (WISP?) Companies all try to avoid tax. At WCIT Toure earlier suggested (I think) that tax on telecoms should be reduced: "Energy efficiency, accessibility, security, how the consequences of unsolicited content, misuse of numbering, roaming, reducing taxtation, how can this industry continue to be heavily taxed while it's the basis for all other industries in times of economic crisis?" Adam On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 7:40 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google- > tax-avoidance/ > > http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google-would- > lose-court-case-over-taxes/ > > http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.html > > http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasion/tab > id/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-acti > on-on-google-tax-evasion > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet > -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 07:09:38 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 04:09:38 -0800 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017801cdd14f$217093e0$6451bba0$@gmail.com> Hmmm.. If the relationship between taxes and regulation really needs to be spelled out Reaganomics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Reagan gives a televised address from the Oval Office, outlining his plan for tax reductions in July 1981 Reaganomics (play /reɪɡəˈnɒmɪks/; (a portmanteau of Reagan and economics attributed to Paul Harvey)[1] refers to the economic policies promoted by U.S. President Ronald Reagan during the 1980s. These policies are commonly associated with supply-side economics, often pejoratively referred to as trickle-down economics. The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and control the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[2] M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 3:40 AM To: Dominique Lacroix; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Of course the tax dispute is not with the telecom regulators of those countries and would continue regardless of the outcome in the WCIT, so you will forgive me if I don't quite get the connection --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Dominique Lacroix"
To: Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2012 4:35 PM Thanks Michael. Also Germany: http://www.linformaticien.com/actualites/id/27219/menace-d-une-taxe-en-allemagne-google-defend-la-liberte-de-surfer.aspx It was a similar case with "Freedom of the seas", before international regulation... @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 03/12/12 11:40, michael gurstein a écrit : > http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google- > tax-avoidance/ > > http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google-would- > lose-court-case-over-taxes/ > > http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.html > > http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasion/tab > id/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-acti > on-on-google-tax-evasion > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet > -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Mon Dec 3 07:30:11 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 10:30:11 -0200 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights In-Reply-To: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> References: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Not the full reality. There was no consensus or even knowledge about the meaning of neutrality, so the best thing was postpone the vote. Better tham have the neutrality conditionate to some regulations Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad On 30/11/2012, at 20:21, Robert Guerra wrote: > Brazilian Congress and lobbyists kill world first internet Bill of Rights | UNCUT > http://uncut.indexoncensorship.org/2012/11/brazil-internet-marco-civil/ > > Digital > > The Brazilian Congress’ lower house has killed a draft bill that would have pioneered the world’s first “Internet Bill of Rights.” Feted by free-speech activists and negotiated over several years, the bill used a civil rights framework to guarantee basic rights for internet users, content creators and online intermediaries — establishing that providers are not responsible for user content. > > > Marco Civil da Internet | Cultura Digital | CC: BY-NC-SA > > The bill, known as Marco Civil da Internet, also guaranteed net neutrality — a move that angered the telecommunications industry as it would prevent internet service providers (ISPs) from implementing a two-tier flow of internet traffic. ISPs worldwide are keen to charge differentiated rates for delivering digital content, this would enable the industry to charge either content providers or consumers more for delivering some kinds of internet traffic, such as movies. > > A vote on the draft bill scheduled to take place in the Chamber of Deputies on 20 November was postponed. It was the fifth time in the last two months that a vote on Marco Civil was pushed back after legislators failed to agree on the text. House Speaker Marco Maia has now removed Marco Civil from the list of draft bills on Brazilian lawmakers’ agenda — meaning it will not be bought back to the floor. > > The main reason for Marco Civil’s failure was a lack of consensus on the issue of net neutrality. Deputy Alessandro Molon, who sponsored the bill, says Brazil’s main telecommunication companies lobbied hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the free market. > > Other elements of the bill also created controversy — copyright holders were angered by the legal protections offered to internet intermediaries who host or transmit content shared or created by third parties (companies like Google and Facebook). The draft bill stated that such third party content should only be deleted after a court order. Detractors say this process should be faster and simpler, and providers should be able to remove content after being merely notified by offended parties — an argument seen by analysts and activists as a risk to free speech. > > The companies’ case apparently influenced key members of Congress and made it impossible to reach an agreement on Marco Civil’s final text. Although industry lobbies were successful in watering down key user protections, their legislative surrogates wanted to impose even greater changes on the text. > > After Marco Civil’s failure on Tuesday, Molon said it was up to society to put pressure on deputies to push the draft bill to the floor. He was also critical of big companies that had “their interests frustrated” by Marco Civil. > > Molon was supported by the countries President Dilma Rousseff and Vice-President Michel Temer — president of PMDB Party, the main ally to Rousseff’s Workers’ Party in Congress. Despite their respective parties having a substantial legislative majority Rousseff’s and Temer’s support of Marco Civil was rendered ineffectual after lawmakers — mainly from PMDB — took issue with key elements. > > The failure of Marco Civil was denounced by activists all around the internet. The Pirate Party founder Rick Falkvinge called the episode a “political fiasco” in which Brazil wasted a chance to gain world-wide influence on free speech issues. > > “[The Marco Civil obstruction] follows a ridiculous watering-down and dumbing-down of the bill, at the request of obsolete industry lobbies. Having been permanently shelved, this means that Brazil has practically killed its chance of leapfrogging other nations’ economies”, said Falkvinge on his website. > > “Marco Civil could be an advance not only for Brazil, but for all countries, on how to discuss law enforcement on the online world — and its consequences”, said André Pase, Digital Communication professor at PUC University in Porto Alegre. > > “A legal framework could go beyond regular laws that get easily obsolete in a context of innovation, where fresh, free online services are born all the time.” > > Rafael Spuldar is a journalist based in São Paulo > > (via Instapaper) > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Dec 3 06:30:00 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 13:30:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50BC877C.5000301@panamo.eu> References: <014301cdd142$8d675aa0$a8360fe0$@gmail.com> <50BC877C.5000301@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <50BC8D38.1070301@gmail.com> Oh much worse than that. These are entitlements, and it'll be quite a bun fight to sort this out even in "advanced" democracies... methinks... On 2012/12/03 01:05 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > Thanks Michael. Also Germany: > http://www.linformaticien.com/actualites/id/27219/menace-d-une-taxe-en-allemagne-google-defend-la-liberte-de-surfer.aspx > > It was a similar case with "Freedom of the seas", before international > regulation... > > @+, Dominique > > -- > Dominique Lacroix > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr > > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > Le 03/12/12 11:40, michael gurstein a écrit : >> http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google- >> tax-avoidance/ >> >> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google-would- >> lose-court-case-over-taxes/ >> >> http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.html >> >> http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasion/tab >> id/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx >> >> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-acti >> on-on-google-tax-evasion >> >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet >> -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 3 08:19:39 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 14:19:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> Tax cut is fiscal dumping. That's the connection. Some Internet companies can escape taxes because their activities aren't linked to territories. Others are linked to countries and pay full taxes. For example, in the new TLDs candidates. Some hundred of projects are declared in British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Cayman, Gibraltar etc. They are US companies and nevertheless, thay are counted as European projects! The real numbers of new TLDs projects are: US: 1230 EU: 356 and not 675 as Icann displays it. Asia-Pacific: 303 South America: 24 Africa: 17 Destroying the basic equilibria is dangerous for any people. Even dangerous for US people. We can see the actual results on the middle classes and environment... @+, Dominique Le 03/12/12 12:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Of course the tax dispute is not with the telecom regulators of those > countries and would continue regardless of the outcome in the WCIT, so > you will forgive me if I don't quite get the connection > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Dominique Lacroix"
> To: > Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? > Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2012 4:35 PM > > > Thanks Michael. Also Germany: > http://www.linformaticien.com/actualites/id/27219/menace-d-une-taxe-en-allemagne-google-defend-la-liberte-de-surfer.aspx > > It was a similar case with "Freedom of the seas", before international > regulation... > > @+, Dominique > > -- > Dominique Lacroix > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr > > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > > Le 03/12/12 11:40, michael gurstein a écrit : > > > http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google- > > tax-avoidance/ > > > > > http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google-would- > > lose-court-case-over-taxes/ > > > > http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.html > > > > > http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasion/tab > > id/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx > > > > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-acti > > on-on-google-tax-evasion > > > > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet > > -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 3 08:37:30 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 19:07:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <719657DF-B2DA-48ED-8E05-EB74C0D5D698@hserus.net> If you are a US citizen, the income you make anywhere in the world is subject to US tax, e&oe double tax avoidance treaties. Double Irish, offshore shell companies and such are as old as the hills. Again, reaganomics notwithstanding, that has little or nothing to do with WCIT. --srs (iPad) On 03-Dec-2012, at 18:49, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Tax cut is fiscal dumping. That's the connection. > Some Internet companies can escape taxes because their activities aren't linked to territories. Others are linked to countries and pay full taxes. > > For example, in the new TLDs candidates. Some hundred of projects are declared in British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Cayman, Gibraltar etc. > They are US companies and nevertheless, thay are counted as European projects! > > The real numbers of new TLDs projects are: > > US: 1230 > EU: 356 and not 675 as Icann displays it. > Asia-Pacific: 303 > South America: 24 > Africa: 17 > > Destroying the basic equilibria is dangerous for any people. Even dangerous for US people. We can see the actual results on the middle classes and environment... > > > @+, Dominique > > > > Le 03/12/12 12:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >> Of course the tax dispute is not with the telecom regulators of those countries and would continue regardless of the outcome in the WCIT, so you will forgive me if I don't quite get the connection >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Dominique Lacroix"
>> To: >> Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? >> Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2012 4:35 PM >> >> >> Thanks Michael. Also Germany: >> http://www.linformaticien.com/actualites/id/27219/menace-d-une-taxe-en-allemagne-google-defend-la-liberte-de-surfer.aspx >> >> It was a similar case with "Freedom of the seas", before international >> regulation... >> >> @+, Dominique >> >> -- >> Dominique Lacroix >> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr >> >> Société européenne de l'Internet >> http://www.ies-france.eu >> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >> >> >> >> Le 03/12/12 11:40, michael gurstein a écrit : >> > http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google- >> > tax-avoidance/ >> > >> > http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google-would- >> > lose-court-case-over-taxes/ >> > >> > http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.html >> > >> > http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasion/tab >> > id/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx >> > >> > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-acti >> > on-on-google-tax-evasion >> > >> > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet >> > -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Mon Dec 3 09:22:52 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 15:22:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <719657DF-B2DA-48ED-8E05-EB74C0D5D698@hserus.net> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <719657DF-B2DA-48ED-8E05-EB74C0D5D698@hserus.net> Message-ID: <50BCB5BC.7070004@panamo.eu> We are talking about companies, not about citizen tax. Are you? Internet Freedom Tax Act was a Clinton policy, in 1997-98, together with ICANN creation. The stake was to help US companies to spread the world. Now these companies are world dominant and Bill Clinton's advice is to create taxes on eCommerce. But Internet companies shout: /Governments, take off your hands//!/ At the moment, US governement only have their hands on Internet main affairs... And they agree with US companies to prevent other countries to take part in decisions. Thats one of the WCIT stake. @+, Dom Le 03/12/12 14:37, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > If you are a US citizen, the income you make anywhere in the world is > subject to US tax, e&oe double tax avoidance treaties. Double Irish, > offshore shell companies and such are as old as the hills. > > Again, reaganomics notwithstanding, that has little or nothing to do > with WCIT. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 03-Dec-2012, at 18:49, Dominique Lacroix
> wrote: > >> Tax cut is fiscal dumping. That's the connection. >> Some Internet companies can escape taxes because their activities >> aren't linked to territories. Others are linked to countries and pay >> full taxes. >> >> For example, in the new TLDs candidates. Some hundred of projects are >> declared in British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Cayman, Gibraltar etc. >> They are US companies and nevertheless, thay are counted as European >> projects! >> >> The real numbers of new TLDs projects are: >> >> US: 1230 >> EU: 356 and not 675 as Icann displays it. >> Asia-Pacific: 303 >> South America: 24 >> Africa: 17 >> >> Destroying the basic equilibria is dangerous for any people. Even >> dangerous for US people. We can see the actual results on the middle >> classes and environment... >> >> >> @+, Dominique >> >> >> >> Le 03/12/12 12:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >>> Of course the tax dispute is not with the telecom regulators of >>> those countries and would continue regardless of the outcome in the >>> WCIT, so you will forgive me if I don't quite get the connection >>> >>> --srs (htc one x) >>> >>> >>> ----- Reply message ----- >>> From: "Dominique Lacroix"
>>> To: >>> Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from >>> taxes? >>> Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2012 4:35 PM >>> >>> >>> Thanks Michael. Also Germany: >>> http://www.linformaticien.com/actualites/id/27219/menace-d-une-taxe-en-allemagne-google-defend-la-liberte-de-surfer.aspx >>> >>> It was a similar case with "Freedom of the seas", before international >>> regulation... >>> >>> @+, Dominique >>> >>> -- >>> Dominique Lacroix >>> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr >>> >>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 03/12/12 11:40, michael gurstein a écrit : >>> > >>> http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google- >>> > tax-avoidance/ >>> > >>> > >>> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google-would- >>> > lose-court-case-over-taxes/ >>> > >>> > >>> http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.html >>> > >>> > >>> http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasion/tab >>> > id/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx >>> > >>> > >>> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-acti >>> > on-on-google-tax-evasion >>> > >>> > >>> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet >>> > -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Mon Dec 3 09:36:10 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 14:36:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Suresh, I think the debates are related. Now it is not just ETNO and the old telecom incumbents who want to grab a share of the new wealth being generated by over the top internet services, it's national governments as well. So what is new here? Governments want to tax whatever they can for their own (political) self-interest, while businesses (and most citizens) want to reduce their taxes as much as possible. What's interesting is how un-selfconsciously the Dominiques and Gursteins of the world assume that more taxation = always better for society. Not a shred of critical perspective on the governments' demands for more revenue. And as usual, Gurstein approaches the debate by attaching labels ("Reaganomics") rather than mounting a serious argument. Do governments have some kind of right to these revenues? If so, what is the basis? If so, what is a reasonable rate of taxation? How are these revenues used? How do they benefit the internet users who generated them? Might be good for you all to contemplate the answers to some of those questions. The implication of your statement is that more taxation is always better. You don’t have to be a supply-side economist to understand that taxation can reach a point of diminishing returns and that it can destroy economic activity as well as help sustain social services. Please, a more intelligent perspective on this… Some Internet companies can escape taxes because their activities aren't linked to territories. Others are linked to countries and pay full taxes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 11:24:59 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 08:24:59 -0800 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> Thanks Milton and I couldn't agree more. If governments, companies and (g at d preserve us) certain elements of civil society want to pursue (project) a libertarian political agenda globally that of course, is their g at d given right… But as you are very clear, let's drop the hypocrasy and call a bit a bit and stop confusing a bunch of well intentioned people that this is some sort of holy crusade to "save the Internet". I would be the first one to argue for a transparent, net neutral, open access, free speech Internet but I'm also for an inclusive Internet in a decent socially equitable environment with proper schools, and healthcare, and an adequate physical and social infrastructure for all, not just for the rich (or those in rich countries) and that means that companies, like everyone else has to pay their fair share. Greed is greed and the best way to keep from paying taxes as you have pointed out, is to make sure that there are no laws/regulations in place to require you to pay taxes. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 6:36 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Dominique Lacroix' Subject: RE: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Suresh, I think the debates are related. Now it is not just ETNO and the old telecom incumbents who want to grab a share of the new wealth being generated by over the top internet services, it's national governments as well. So what is new here? Governments want to tax whatever they can for their own (political) self-interest, while businesses (and most citizens) want to reduce their taxes as much as possible. What's interesting is how un-selfconsciously the Dominiques and Gursteins of the world assume that more taxation = always better for society. Not a shred of critical perspective on the governments' demands for more revenue. And as usual, Gurstein approaches the debate by attaching labels ("Reaganomics") rather than mounting a serious argument. Do governments have some kind of right to these revenues? If so, what is the basis? If so, what is a reasonable rate of taxation? How are these revenues used? How do they benefit the internet users who generated them? Might be good for you all to contemplate the answers to some of those questions. The implication of your statement is that more taxation is always better. You don’t have to be a supply-side economist to understand that taxation can reach a point of diminishing returns and that it can destroy economic activity as well as help sustain social services. Please, a more intelligent perspective on this… Some Internet companies can escape taxes because their activities aren't linked to territories. Others are linked to countries and pay full taxes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 3 12:06:54 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:06:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <719657DF-B2DA-48ED-8E05-EB74C0D5D698@hserus.net> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <719657DF-B2DA-48ED-8E05-EB74C0D5D698@hserus.net> Message-ID: <50BCDC2E.4080108@gmail.com> Not so certain, even on World Income based system. Legal personalities - well they can be multiple. Accounting treatment for royalty income differs and is a major form of tax competition within different tax jurisdictions (wondering why McDonald's is now "Swiss" in large order?) Then there is transfer pricing. Add to that Congressionally approved holidays for repatriation of foreign profits tax free to the US... and voila... taxes on workers should go up to avoid a deficit right? On 2012/12/03 03:37 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > If you are a US citizen, the income you make anywhere in the world is > subject to US tax, e&oe double tax avoidance treaties. Double Irish, > offshore shell companies and such are as old as the hills. > > Again, reaganomics notwithstanding, that has little or nothing to do > with WCIT. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 03-Dec-2012, at 18:49, Dominique Lacroix
> wrote: > >> Tax cut is fiscal dumping. That's the connection. >> Some Internet companies can escape taxes because their activities >> aren't linked to territories. Others are linked to countries and pay >> full taxes. >> >> For example, in the new TLDs candidates. Some hundred of projects are >> declared in British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Cayman, Gibraltar etc. >> They are US companies and nevertheless, thay are counted as European >> projects! >> >> The real numbers of new TLDs projects are: >> >> US: 1230 >> EU: 356 and not 675 as Icann displays it. >> Asia-Pacific: 303 >> South America: 24 >> Africa: 17 >> >> Destroying the basic equilibria is dangerous for any people. Even >> dangerous for US people. We can see the actual results on the middle >> classes and environment... >> >> >> @+, Dominique >> >> >> >> Le 03/12/12 12:39, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >>> Of course the tax dispute is not with the telecom regulators of >>> those countries and would continue regardless of the outcome in the >>> WCIT, so you will forgive me if I don't quite get the connection >>> >>> --srs (htc one x) >>> >>> >>> ----- Reply message ----- >>> From: "Dominique Lacroix"
>>> To: >>> Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from >>> taxes? >>> Date: Mon, Dec 3, 2012 4:35 PM >>> >>> >>> Thanks Michael. Also Germany: >>> http://www.linformaticien.com/actualites/id/27219/menace-d-une-taxe-en-allemagne-google-defend-la-liberte-de-surfer.aspx >>> >>> It was a similar case with "Freedom of the seas", before international >>> regulation... >>> >>> @+, Dominique >>> >>> -- >>> Dominique Lacroix >>> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr >>> >>> Société européenne de l'Internet >>> http://www.ies-france.eu >>> +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 >>> >>> >>> >>> Le 03/12/12 11:40, michael gurstein a écrit : >>> > >>> http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google- >>> > tax-avoidance/ >>> > >>> > >>> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google-would- >>> > lose-court-case-over-taxes/ >>> > >>> > >>> http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.html >>> > >>> > >>> http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasion/tab >>> > id/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx >>> > >>> > >>> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-acti >>> > on-on-google-tax-evasion >>> > >>> > >>> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet >>> > -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 avri at acm.org Mon Dec 3 13:09:18 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 22:09:18 +0400 Subject: [governance] WCIT-12 WEBCAST Info In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7F8C583B-E47D-4D39-8BB0-9A38BD563920@acm.org> On 3 Dec 2012, at 11:44, Adam Peake wrote: > This is good (and it's interesting to hear Dr. Toure now talking about > having invited ICANN to WCIT and how it's time for cooperation etc). > But the discussions will happen in committee, particularly committee > 5. > >> Live + archived webcasts of #WCIT12 press + plenary sessions over >> nxt2weeks available at: http://t.co/TrbZrgMT It is probably worth mentioning: that in addition to the plenaries, committee 5 are also open meetings (webcast etc) Vistors badges have been given to Civil Society and others who are here. or so I am told. will try to get a better handle on what was decided tomorrow. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 3 13:29:51 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 18:29:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Just so you know: competition and liberalization have done more to extend telecom infrastructure to the largest number of people than any social equity program. Taxes and subsidies (at best) pick up the margins/ high cost areas, the really poor, but the real work is always done by the market. At worst, taxes and subsidies keep monopoly incumbents in place, prevent new technologies from emerging, and raise costs. From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] I would be the first one to argue for a transparent, net neutral, open access, free speech Internet but I'm also for an inclusive Internet in a decent socially equitable environment with proper schools, and healthcare, and an adequate physical and social infrastructure for all, not just for the rich (or those in rich countries) and that means that companies, like everyone else has to pay their fair share. Greed is greed and the best way to keep from paying taxes as you have pointed out, is to make sure that there are no laws/regulations in place to require you to pay taxes. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 6:36 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Dominique Lacroix' Subject: RE: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Suresh, I think the debates are related. Now it is not just ETNO and the old telecom incumbents who want to grab a share of the new wealth being generated by over the top internet services, it's national governments as well. So what is new here? Governments want to tax whatever they can for their own (political) self-interest, while businesses (and most citizens) want to reduce their taxes as much as possible. What's interesting is how un-selfconsciously the Dominiques and Gursteins of the world assume that more taxation = always better for society. Not a shred of critical perspective on the governments' demands for more revenue. And as usual, Gurstein approaches the debate by attaching labels ("Reaganomics") rather than mounting a serious argument. Do governments have some kind of right to these revenues? If so, what is the basis? If so, what is a reasonable rate of taxation? How are these revenues used? How do they benefit the internet users who generated them? Might be good for you all to contemplate the answers to some of those questions. The implication of your statement is that more taxation is always better. You don’t have to be a supply-side economist to understand that taxation can reach a point of diminishing returns and that it can destroy economic activity as well as help sustain social services. Please, a more intelligent perspective on this… Some Internet companies can escape taxes because their activities aren't linked to territories. Others are linked to countries and pay full taxes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 3 13:45:00 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:45:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> Please frankly, Milton, did internet begin in the US by free market or by the US Gov action? @+, Dom Le 03/12/12 19:29, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > > Just so you know: competition and liberalization have done more to > extend telecom infrastructure to the largest number of people than any > social equity program. Taxes and subsidies (at best) pick up the > margins/ high cost areas, the really poor, but the real work is always > done by the market. At worst, taxes and subsidies keep monopoly > incumbents in place, prevent new technologies from emerging, and raise > costs. > > *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > I would be the first one to argue for a transparent, net neutral, open > access, free speech Internet but I'm also for an inclusive Internet in > a decent socially equitable environment with proper schools, and > healthcare, and an adequate physical and social infrastructure for > all, not just for the rich (or those in rich countries) and that means > that companies, like everyone else has to pay their fair share. > > Greed is greed and the best way to keep from paying taxes as you have > pointed out, is to make sure that there are no laws/regulations in > place to require you to pay taxes. > > M > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L > Mueller > *Sent:* Monday, December 03, 2012 6:36 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; 'Dominique Lacroix' > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... > (from taxes? > > Suresh, I think the debates are related. Now it is not just ETNO and > the old telecom incumbents who want to grab a share of the new wealth > being generated by over the top internet services, it's national > governments as well. So what is new here? Governments want to tax > whatever they can for their own (political) self-interest, while > businesses (and most citizens) want to reduce their taxes as much as > possible. > > What's interesting is how un-selfconsciously the Dominiques and > Gursteins of the world assume that more taxation = always better for > society. Not a shred of critical perspective on the governments' > demands for more revenue. And as usual, Gurstein approaches the debate > by attaching labels ("Reaganomics") rather than mounting a serious > argument. > > Do governments have some kind of right to these revenues? If so, what > is the basis? If so, what is a reasonable rate of taxation? How are > these revenues used? How do they benefit the internet users who > generated them? Might be good for you all to contemplate the answers > to some of those questions. The implication of your statement is that > more taxation is always better. You don’t have to be a supply-side > economist to understand that taxation can reach a point of diminishing > returns and that it can destroy economic activity as well as help > sustain social services. Please, a more intelligent perspective on this… > > Some Internet companies can escape taxes because their activities > aren't linked to territories. Others are linked to countries and pay > full taxes. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 3 14:23:37 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 20:23:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50BCFC39.9040200@panamo.eu> Le 03/12/12 15:36, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > Suresh, I think the debates are related. Now it is not just ETNO and > the old telecom incumbents who want to grab a share of the new wealth > being generated by over the top internet services, it's national > governments as well. > The wealth created by the Internet companies that do not pay taxes is a catch, the result of cuckoo economy models. They do not pay neither for telecom infrastructures, nor for others: roads, schools, justice, military, police, customs, safety organizations: everything that enable firmsto develop their business and do commerce in peace. > So what is new here? Governments want to tax whatever they can for > their own (political) self-interest, while businesses (and most > citizens) want to reduce their taxes as much as possible. > You assume that people think like businesses, whilepeople feel more like who they vote for. In your country, I don't know the case - but here in France and Europe, politicians are supposed to use their budgets for programs in the interest of the citizens. If they took the money for them, it's jail directly. We can discute what are the best political programmes. But that's precisely what is democracy. Democracy has a cost, that must be covered by special contributions named taxes. No tax, no democracy. > What's interesting is how un-selfconsciously the Dominiques and > Gursteins of the world assume that more taxation = always better for > society. Not a shred of critical perspective on the governments' > demands for more revenue. And as usual, Gurstein approaches the debate > by attaching labels ("Reaganomics") rather than mounting a serious > argument. > All the Dominiques and Mickaels of the world answer you: the contrary of tax cut or fiscal paradise is not ""more taxation is always better for society". And the contrary of "more tax" is not "no tax at all". All the Miltons of the world know it also. Except you, perhaps. That's why you are a unique person, my dear Milton! The unique one with some selfconsciousness and intelligence... Kind regards, Dominique > Do governments have some kind of right to these revenues? If so, what > is the basis? If so, what is a reasonable rate of taxation? How are > these revenues used? How do they benefit the internet users who > generated them? Might be good for you all to contemplate the answers > to some of those questions. The implication of your statement is that > more taxation is always better. You don’t have to be a supply-side > economist to understand that taxation can reach a point of diminishing > returns and that it can destroy economic activity as well as help > sustain social services. Please, a more intelligent perspective on this… > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 3 14:33:30 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 20:33:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50BCFE8A.4000404@panamo.eu> The Bermuda Triangle, where money disappear... http://www.panamo.eu/internet/5/tax-cut-tlds/ @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr 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 kichango at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 15:00:12 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 15:00:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50BCFE8A.4000404@panamo.eu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCFE8A.4000404@panamo.eu> Message-ID: I was wondering why would this discussion take the tackle of "all or nothing" or one of a zero sum game. Obviously Market doesn't fall from the sky and it also benefits from taxes (infrastructure, education, order and law enforcement, etc. as Dominique rightly points out taking the words out of my fingertips.) Are we even sure whether the taxes companies (principal market players) are paying or not paying are even anywhere near what the almighty Market would've had them pay at its own rate for those (common/collective/public) goods? Some of you know that I'm not at all an anti-market person. We need market and competition AND we need taxes and a fair distribution of the tax burden. We also need to keep tabs on governments to manage taxes efficiently. But that is not saying the market has all the right answers or that the solution is always more taxes. Best, mawaki 2012/12/3 Dominique Lacroix
> The Bermuda Triangle, where money disappear... > http://www.panamo.eu/internet/5/tax-cut-tlds/ > > @+, Dominique > > -- > Dominique Lacroix > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr > > 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 > > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mawaki Chango, PhD Project Coordinator, Africa Internet Policy Advocacy Association for Progressive Communications 25 BP 1881 Abidjan 25 Cote d'Ivoire +225 44 48 77 64 mawaki at 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 carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Mon Dec 3 16:01:40 2012 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 16:01:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCFE8A.4000404@panamo.eu>, Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F8736481FA7B7@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Get a balanced equation and we see it isn't a matter of all or none, one size fits. Very practical indeed. +1 Carlton ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Mawaki Chango [kichango at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 3:00 PM To: Internet Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? I was wondering why would this discussion take the tackle of "all or nothing" or one of a zero sum game. Obviously Market doesn't fall from the sky and it also benefits from taxes (infrastructure, education, order and law enforcement, etc. as Dominique rightly points out taking the words out of my fingertips.) Are we even sure whether the taxes companies (principal market players) are paying or not paying are even anywhere near what the almighty Market would've had them pay at its own rate for those (common/collective/public) goods? Some of you know that I'm not at all an anti-market person. We need market and competition AND we need taxes and a fair distribution of the tax burden. We also need to keep tabs on governments to manage taxes efficiently. But that is not saying the market has all the right answers or that the solution is always more taxes. Best, mawaki 2012/12/3 Dominique Lacroix
> The Bermuda Triangle, where money disappear... http://www.panamo.eu/internet/5/tax-cut-tlds/ @+, Dominique -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr 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 -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mawaki Chango, PhD Project Coordinator, Africa Internet Policy Advocacy Association for Progressive Communications 25 BP 1881 Abidjan 25 Cote d'Ivoire +225 44 48 77 64 mawaki at apc.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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Dec 3 16:08:13 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 23:08:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50BD14BD.4010703@gmail.com> It is one thing to claim this in fact and then generalise the principle that markets "do best". The same cannot be said for eg on the railroad revolution in the US - which enjoyed massive subsidies. In many developing countries, regulation that fixed the number of operators ensured a mix of competition and oligopoly to fund the high infrastructure entry costs by limiting the number of entrants. In other areas, other publicly established infrastructure was utilised as well (in some countries to improve coverage, UCTAD recommends intervention - sharing of infrastructure costs like cell masts). In the US railroad revolution the sharing of these fixed infrastructure costs (from taxes) in this way improved American economic performance. If one used neoclassical economics to judge the impact of the transformational railroad, the result is that it "only" improved US economic performance by 3 to 4%. This was such a major change in the US economy (it integrated the US as a single market - a huge increase in scale). Contrary to the ahistorical writing of history by neoclassicals , the American economic system in its formative years was radically different from neoclassicals- rather following Alex Hamilton, Richard Ely, Daniel Raymond, Frederich List... Then, the understanding was that low cost infrastructure enhanced economic performance/production. Nowadays, the neoclassicals believe that "free" infrastructure is bad, and to improve competitiveness things must be privatised or private - the tollbooth economy. Arguments against regulation, as the neoclassicals do, actually reduce democractic choices about how markets can be shaped and structured - and how plastic they are - which is no wonder that oligopolists/monopolists love the arguments on "free markets" because what while what may be "true" in theory is very beneficial to them in fact. In some of these markets the market is too violent and perhaps the possibility of looking at the functioning of the extant reality - oligopolistic market structures: which are not going to disappear with neoclassical utopia of perfect competition just around the corner if we only would liberalise and deregulate more and faster. While perhaps not directed at Mueller per se, but it would take much more to deal credibly with an economic theory (or its prescriptions - neoclassical) after a financial crisis which for it is a theoretical impossibility: i.e. it cannot happen. But it did. So the neoclassical jingle of leaving it to markets is controversial. Markets do work, and when they do they should be left well alone. But do markets always work? Well that simply depends... On 2012/12/03 08:29 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Just so you know: competition and liberalization have done more to > extend telecom infrastructure to the largest number of people than any > social equity program. Taxes and subsidies (at best) pick up the > margins/ high cost areas, the really poor, but the real work is always > done by the market. At worst, taxes and subsidies keep monopoly > incumbents in place, prevent new technologies from emerging, and raise > costs. > > *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > I would be the first one to argue for a transparent, net neutral, open > access, free speech Internet but I'm also for an inclusive Internet in > a decent socially equitable environment with proper schools, and > healthcare, and an adequate physical and social infrastructure for > all, not just for the rich (or those in rich countries) and that means > that companies, like everyone else has to pay their fair share. > > Greed is greed and the best way to keep from paying taxes as you have > pointed out, is to make sure that there are no laws/regulations in > place to require you to pay taxes. > > M > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton L > Mueller > *Sent:* Monday, December 03, 2012 6:36 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; 'Dominique Lacroix' > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... > (from taxes? > > Suresh, I think the debates are related. Now it is not just ETNO and > the old telecom incumbents who want to grab a share of the new wealth > being generated by over the top internet services, it's national > governments as well. So what is new here? Governments want to tax > whatever they can for their own (political) self-interest, while > businesses (and most citizens) want to reduce their taxes as much as > possible. > > What's interesting is how un-selfconsciously the Dominiques and > Gursteins of the world assume that more taxation = always better for > society. Not a shred of critical perspective on the governments' > demands for more revenue. And as usual, Gurstein approaches the debate > by attaching labels ("Reaganomics") rather than mounting a serious > argument. > > Do governments have some kind of right to these revenues? If so, what > is the basis? If so, what is a reasonable rate of taxation? How are > these revenues used? How do they benefit the internet users who > generated them? Might be good for you all to contemplate the answers > to some of those questions. The implication of your statement is that > more taxation is always better. You don’t have to be a supply-side > economist to understand that taxation can reach a point of diminishing > returns and that it can destroy economic activity as well as help > sustain social services. Please, a more intelligent perspective on this… > > Some Internet companies can escape taxes because their activities > aren't linked to territories. Others are linked to countries and pay > full taxes. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 3 18:28:16 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 04:58:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50BCFC39.9040200@panamo.eu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCFC39.9040200@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <135695FE-4EF5-4025-81DB-C4424ACBAA79@hserus.net> Is anyone at all discussing a tax treaty at WCIT? Paid transit, sure, but who is taxing what? --srs (iPad) On 04-Dec-2012, at 0:53, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Le 03/12/12 15:36, Milton L Mueller a écrit : >> Suresh, I think the debates are related. Now it is not just ETNO and the old telecom incumbents who want to grab a share of the new wealth being generated by over the top internet services, it's national governments as well. > The wealth created by the Internet companies that do not pay taxes is a catch, the result of cuckoo economy models. > > They do not pay neither for telecom infrastructures, nor for others: roads, schools, justice, military, police, customs, safety organizations: everything that enable firms to develop their business and do commerce in peace. > >> So what is new here? Governments want to tax whatever they can for their own (political) self-interest, while businesses (and most citizens) want to reduce their taxes as much as possible. > You assume that people think like businesses, while people feel more like who they vote for. > > In your country, I don't know the case - but here in France and Europe, politicians are supposed to use their budgets for programs in the interest of the citizens. If they took the money for them, it's jail directly. > > We can discute what are the best political programmes. But that's precisely what is democracy. > > Democracy has a cost, that must be covered by special contributions named taxes. > > No tax, no democracy. > >> What's interesting is how un-selfconsciously the Dominiques and Gursteins of the world assume that more taxation = always better for society. Not a shred of critical perspective on the governments' demands for more revenue. And as usual, Gurstein approaches the debate by attaching labels ("Reaganomics") rather than mounting a serious argument. > All the Dominiques and Mickaels of the world answer you: > the contrary of tax cut or fiscal paradise is not ""more taxation is always better for society". > And the contrary of "more tax" is not "no tax at all". > > All the Miltons of the world know it also. > Except you, perhaps. That's why you are a unique person, my dear Milton! > The unique one with some selfconsciousness and intelligence... > > Kind regards, Dominique > > > > > >> Do governments have some kind of right to these revenues? If so, what is the basis? If so, what is a reasonable rate of taxation? How are these revenues used? How do they benefit the internet users who generated them? Might be good for you all to contemplate the answers to some of those questions. The implication of your statement is that more taxation is always better. You don’t have to be a supply-side economist to understand that taxation can reach a point of diminishing returns and that it can destroy economic activity as well as help sustain social services. Please, a more intelligent perspective on this… >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Dec 3 19:23:32 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:23:32 +1300 Subject: [governance] Watch a Debate [ Mitigating DDoS Attacks: Best Practices for an Evolving Threat Landscape] FREE WEBINAR Message-ID: Dear All, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) Attacks are a threat to individuals, organisations and communities. As countries work towards strengthening their respective cyber security framework, much still has to be done in creating awareness the world over. **** ** ** Here is an opportunity to participate in a free webinar on Mitigating DDoS Attacks where you will have the opportunity to watch a Debate and streaming/webcast is available. Details are provided below:**** ** ** ** ** PIR, in partnership with ISOC-NY and NY Tech, is sponsoring a debate this Wednesday (5 December) on "Mitigating DDoS Attacks: Best Practices for an Evolving Threat Landscape." ** ** ** *"Mitigating DDoS Attacks: Best Practices for an Evolving Threat Landscape." * ** ** *Panelists*: Afilias, NeuStar and VeriSign, Symantec, Google, De Natris Consult and EFF. **** *Date/Time:* Dec 05 1000-1300 EST,**** *Delivery:* webcast. **** *URL:* http://www.pir.org/why/security/ddos.**** ** -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 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 Mon Dec 3 21:28:39 2012 From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 07:58:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50BD14BD.4010703@gmail.com> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BD14BD.4010703@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50BD5FD7.50301@ITforChange.net> http://truth-out.org/news/item/13082-the-trans-pacific-partnership-what-free-trade-actually-means On 12/04/2012 02:38 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > It is one thing to claim this in fact and then generalise the > principle that markets "do best". The same cannot be said for eg on > the railroad revolution in the US - which enjoyed massive subsidies. > In many developing countries, regulation that fixed the number of > operators ensured a mix of competition and oligopoly to fund the high > infrastructure entry costs by limiting the number of entrants. In > other areas, other publicly established infrastructure was utilised as > well (in some countries to improve coverage, UCTAD recommends > intervention - sharing of infrastructure costs like cell masts). > > In the US railroad revolution the sharing of these fixed > infrastructure costs (from taxes) in this way improved American > economic performance. If one used neoclassical economics to judge the > impact of the transformational railroad, the result is that it "only" > improved US economic performance by 3 to 4%. This was such a major > change in the US economy (it integrated the US as a single market - a > huge increase in scale). Contrary to the ahistorical writing of > history by neoclassicals , the American economic system in its > formative years was radically different from neoclassicals- rather > following Alex Hamilton, Richard Ely, Daniel Raymond, Frederich > List... Then, the understanding was that low cost infrastructure > enhanced economic performance/production. Nowadays, the neoclassicals > believe that "free" infrastructure is bad, and to improve > competitiveness things must be privatised or private - the tollbooth > economy. > > Arguments against regulation, as the neoclassicals do, actually reduce > democractic choices about how markets can be shaped and structured - > and how plastic they are - which is no wonder that > oligopolists/monopolists love the arguments on "free markets" because > what while what may be "true" in theory is very beneficial to them in > fact. In some of these markets the market is too violent and perhaps > the possibility of looking at the functioning of the extant reality - > oligopolistic market structures: which are not going to disappear with > neoclassical utopia of perfect competition just around the corner if > we only would liberalise and deregulate more and faster. > > While perhaps not directed at Mueller per se, but it would take much > more to deal credibly with an economic theory (or its prescriptions - > neoclassical) after a financial crisis which for it is a theoretical > impossibility: i.e. it cannot happen. But it did. > > So the neoclassical jingle of leaving it to markets is controversial. > Markets do work, and when they do they should be left well alone. But > do markets always work? Well that simply depends... > > > On 2012/12/03 08:29 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Just so you know: competition and liberalization have done more to >> extend telecom infrastructure to the largest number of people than >> any social equity program. Taxes and subsidies (at best) pick up the >> margins/ high cost areas, the really poor, but the real work is >> always done by the market. At worst, taxes and subsidies keep >> monopoly incumbents in place, prevent new technologies from emerging, >> and raise costs. >> >> *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> >> I would be the first one to argue for a transparent, net neutral, >> open access, free speech Internet but I'm also for an inclusive >> Internet in a decent socially equitable environment with proper >> schools, and healthcare, and an adequate physical and social >> infrastructure for all, not just for the rich (or those in rich >> countries) and that means that companies, like everyone else has to >> pay their fair share. >> >> Greed is greed and the best way to keep from paying taxes as you have >> pointed out, is to make sure that there are no laws/regulations in >> place to require you to pay taxes. >> >> M >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Milton >> L Mueller >> *Sent:* Monday, December 03, 2012 6:36 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; 'Dominique Lacroix' >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... >> (from taxes? >> >> Suresh, I think the debates are related. Now it is not just ETNO and >> the old telecom incumbents who want to grab a share of the new wealth >> being generated by over the top internet services, it's national >> governments as well. So what is new here? Governments want to tax >> whatever they can for their own (political) self-interest, while >> businesses (and most citizens) want to reduce their taxes as much as >> possible. >> >> What's interesting is how un-selfconsciously the Dominiques and >> Gursteins of the world assume that more taxation = always better for >> society. Not a shred of critical perspective on the governments' >> demands for more revenue. And as usual, Gurstein approaches the >> debate by attaching labels ("Reaganomics") rather than mounting a >> serious argument. >> >> Do governments have some kind of right to these revenues? If so, what >> is the basis? If so, what is a reasonable rate of taxation? How are >> these revenues used? How do they benefit the internet users who >> generated them? Might be good for you all to contemplate the answers >> to some of those questions. The implication of your statement is that >> more taxation is always better. You don’t have to be a supply-side >> economist to understand that taxation can reach a point of >> diminishing returns and that it can destroy economic activity as well >> as help sustain social services. Please, a more intelligent >> perspective on this… >> >> Some Internet companies can escape taxes because their activities >> aren't linked to territories. Others are linked to countries and pay >> full taxes. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 3 22:32:15 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 09:02:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50BD5FD7.50301@ITforChange.net> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BD14BD.4010703@gmail.com> <50BD5FD7.50301@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <284961F5-1D81-4795-A818-817D2E140A85@hserus.net> not a bad conspiracy theory, but pretty pedestrian for truthout --srs (iPad) On 04-Dec-2012, at 7:58, Guru गुरु wrote: > > http://truth-out.org/news/item/13082-the-trans-pacific-partnership-what-free-trade-actually-means > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 4 00:27:07 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:27:07 -0800 Subject: [governance] Kieran McCarthy on potential WCIT outcomes Message-ID: <50bd89ab.kTnrivwBPb4iAp/b%suresh@hserus.net> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/06/wcit-lowdown-its-all-about-afr Starts off with a backgrounder and the story so far on what has happened at Dubai Then, concludes with these absolutely delicious predictions ___________________quote___________________________ Foolish as it may be, we have some predictions for what will happen between now and the end of WCIT. Here they are: * Nothing radical will appear in the ITRs. Instead it will be agreed that they will be reviewed in four or eight years' time and a range of working groups will be formed to work on various issues and report to the Council next year, take it to the ITU Plenipotentiary for initial review in 2014, and onto the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA) in 2016. * The United States will push its hand incredibly hard (bolstered by its huge delegation of industry representatives and over-excited civil society/Internet groups who have all persuaded each other of their own truth). It will threaten to take a reservation once too often and will end up being saved by either Canada or a European country. * The African contingent will get extra wording in about the importance of providing access to the developing world, but will fail in their efforts to get the rest of the world to put in any money for the effort. * The Committee 5 meetings will go on late into the night and the conference will stretch into Saturday. * There will be a two-hour argument about Palestine that will have nothing whatsoever to do with telecoms or WCIT but Middle East representatives won't be able to stop themselves from getting involved. * ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Toure will be forced to plea personally with the room to be reasonable, consider the larger picture, and tell delegates that the world is watching. * There will be an hour recess while everything that has been argued over for more than a year is finally agreed to in a private meeting between the main actors. What results is then green-lighted by everyone even though they aren't quite sure what the final text looks like. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 4 03:39:34 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 10:39:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <284961F5-1D81-4795-A818-817D2E140A85@hserus.net> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BD14BD.4010703@gmail.com> <50BD5FD7.50301@ITforChange.net> <284961F5-1D81-4795-A818-817D2E140A85@hserus.net> Message-ID: <50BDB6C6.6040907@gmail.com> What exactly about the article is problematic? On 2012/12/04 05:32 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > not a bad conspiracy theory, but pretty pedestrian for truthout > > --srs (iPad) > > On 04-Dec-2012, at 7:58, Guru गुरु > wrote: > >> >> http://truth-out.org/news/item/13082-the-trans-pacific-partnership-what-free-trade-actually-means >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 4 04:43:29 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:43:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] EU official tells Julian Assange 'just go to Sweden' Message-ID: <50BDC5C1.6010603@gmail.com> [In some jurisdictions, even a suggestion of considering to consent to possible torture (as defined by the UN special rapporteur) would be horrifying. Hannah Arendt was right about the banality fo evil, right... or is that too Manichean? Malmstrom seems not to be aware that after the European Court of Human Rights judges disavowed themselves of the role of guardians against torture (American prisons are rosy places according to their findings), or maybe she is VERY aware... as the poem goes "first they came for..." ] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-official-tells-julian-assange-just-go-to-sweden-8376295.html EU official tells Julian Assange 'just go to Sweden' Kevin Rawlinson Author Biography Monday 03 December 2012 WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should "just go" to Sweden and face allegations of sexual assault, according to one of Europe's top officials. Mr Assange, 41, has been holed-up in a west London embassy building for nearly six months but Cecilia Malmström, the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, has demanded he "answer the questions" about the alleged attacks, dismissing the threat of his onward extradition to America as "purely theoretical". "I'm not engaged in this, I know there are talks. But he's accused of rape, of sexual harassment and if he's innocent, which he might be --- I don't know --- why doesn't he just go and answer the questions? I don't believe for a minute that's why he would go to the US," said Ms Malmström, who is herself a Swede. She added: "He [Assange] is asked to come to Sweden because he's accused of some crimes. He stays in the embassy. For the moment there is no solution. Whether Sweden would extradite him to the US or not, that is up to the Swedish authorities to decide. I don't think that would happen. That's purely theoretical." Mr Assange fears that, once he arrives in Sweden, he will be sent on to America over allegations that he was involved in the leaking of sensitive -- and embarrassing -- cables as the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks. But that move would require the consent of the UK Home Secretary Theresa May, who has already allowed his extradition to the Scandinavian country. Neither the UK, nor the USA have been drawn on the issue. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: plus.png Type: image/png Size: 2999 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 4 04:46:52 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 01:46:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] EU official tells Julian Assange 'just go to Sweden' In-Reply-To: <50BDC5C1.6010603@gmail.com> References: <50BDC5C1.6010603@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121204094652.GA20553@hserus.net> Riaz K Tayob [04/12/12 11:43 +0200]: >[In some jurisdictions, even a suggestion of considering to consent >to possible torture (as defined by the UN special rapporteur) would >be horrifying. Hannah Arendt was right about the banality fo evil, >right... or is that too Manichean? Malmstrom seems not to be aware >that after the European Court of Human Rights judges disavowed >themselves of the role of guardians against torture (American prisons >are rosy places according to their findings), or maybe she is VERY >aware... as the poem goes "first they came for..." ] Torture? Swedish jails are hotel suites compared to US prisons, and US prisons are heaven compared to a jail in India, say - which are probably better than the jails in some other countries. https://www.google.co.in/search?q=swedish+prisons I must say that I have stayed at worse places as a student on a budget. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 4 04:44:29 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 11:44:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Video Available Of Event On Standards-Essential Patents Message-ID: <50BDC5FD.9090007@gmail.com> http://www.ip-watch.org/ Video Available Of Event On Standards-Essential Patents By William New, Intellectual Property Watch on 03/12/2012 @ 9:33 pm The Washington Legal Foundation held an event on 29 November entitled, "Standards-Essential Patents: Where Do IP Protections End and Antitrust Concerns Begin?" The video of the event has been made publicly available. "In our seminar, we honed in on the propriety of antitrust enforcement in the area of standards-essential patents, as well as other current issues within the standards-essential patents debate," the Washington, DC group said in a release. "You are able to access a video of yesterday's seminar here, as well as our speakers' PowerPoint presentations, and other materials WLF has published on this topic. This briefing and the related materials are examples of the advocacy and educational products WLF regularly publishes with regard to economic liberties, and intellectual property in particular." The video is available on their website, here ^[1] . Related Articles: * Microsoft Says It Will Not Act On Patents In Standards ^[2] * ITU Undertakes Work On Standards Essential Patents ^[3] * Upcoming Event: 5th Product And Pipeline Enhancement For Generics ^[4] Categories: Education/ R&D/ Innovation,English,IP Live,IP Policies,Language,Patent Policy,Themes,US Policy,Venues ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Article printed from Intellectual Property Watch: *http://www.ip-watch.org* URL to article: *http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/12/03/video-available-of-event-on-standards-essential-patents/* URLs in this post: [1] here: *http://wlflegalpulse.com/2012/11/30/as-standards-essential-patent-debate-expands-wlf-web-seminar-offers-some-perspective/* [2] Microsoft Says It Will Not Act On Patents In Standards: *http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/02/13/microsoft-says-it-will-not-act-on-patents-in-standards/* [3] ITU Undertakes Work On Standards Essential Patents: *http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/10/12/itu-undertakes-work-on-standard-essential-patents/* [4] Upcoming Event: 5th Product And Pipeline Enhancement For Generics: *http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/06/06/upcoming-event-5th-product-and-pipeline-enhancement-for-generics/* Click here to print. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo_print.gif Type: image/gif Size: 4641 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 05:14:06 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:14:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] EU official tells Julian Assange 'just go to Sweden' In-Reply-To: <20121204094652.GA20553@hserus.net> References: <50BDC5C1.6010603@gmail.com> <20121204094652.GA20553@hserus.net> Message-ID: <50BDCCEE.8040005@gmail.com> So what exactly are you saying? For instance is the treatment of Bradley Manning ok? Or is the UN Special Rapporteur a conspiracy theorist also for calling that treatment inhuman, cruel and degrading? On 2012/12/04 11:46 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Riaz K Tayob [04/12/12 11:43 +0200]: >> [In some jurisdictions, even a suggestion of considering to consent >> to possible torture (as defined by the UN special rapporteur) would >> be horrifying. Hannah Arendt was right about the banality fo evil, >> right... or is that too Manichean? Malmstrom seems not to be aware >> that after the European Court of Human Rights judges disavowed >> themselves of the role of guardians against torture (American prisons >> are rosy places according to their findings), or maybe she is VERY >> aware... as the poem goes "first they came for..." ] > > Torture? Swedish jails are hotel suites compared to US prisons, and US > prisons are heaven compared to a jail in India, say - which are probably > better than the jails in some other countries. > > https://www.google.co.in/search?q=swedish+prisons > > I must say that I have stayed at worse places as a student on a budget. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 4 05:17:57 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:47:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] EU official tells Julian Assange 'just go to Sweden' In-Reply-To: <50BDCCEE.8040005@gmail.com> References: <50BDC5C1.6010603@gmail.com> <20121204094652.GA20553@hserus.net> <50BDCCEE.8040005@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3E2B4276-5F7E-476A-BDB8-FD06C413D4C1@hserus.net> No, US jails are not really picnic spots. But as I understand it, the question was about whether or not Assange must face trial in Sweden, and a prison term in Sweden. --srs (iPad) On 04-Dec-2012, at 15:44, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > So what exactly are you saying? For instance is the treatment of Bradley Manning ok? Or is the UN Special Rapporteur a conspiracy theorist also for calling that treatment inhuman, cruel and degrading? > > > On 2012/12/04 11:46 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Riaz K Tayob [04/12/12 11:43 +0200]: >>> [In some jurisdictions, even a suggestion of considering to consent to possible torture (as defined by the UN special rapporteur) would be horrifying. Hannah Arendt was right about the banality fo evil, right... or is that too Manichean? Malmstrom seems not to be aware that after the European Court of Human Rights judges disavowed themselves of the role of guardians against torture (American prisons are rosy places according to their findings), or maybe she is VERY aware... as the poem goes "first they came for..." ] >> >> Torture? Swedish jails are hotel suites compared to US prisons, and US >> prisons are heaven compared to a jail in India, say - which are probably >> better than the jails in some other countries. >> >> https://www.google.co.in/search?q=swedish+prisons >> >> I must say that I have stayed at worse places as a student on a budget. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 4 05:47:55 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:47:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <2124C4C7-D8E3-4FA6-B2F2-1250566D9946@istaff.org> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com> <50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> <01c401cdcf1f$d5910800$80b31800$@gmail.com> <2124C4C7-D8E3-4FA6-B2F2-1250566D9946@istaff.org> Message-ID: <50BDD4DB.1090902@gmail.com> Thanks for being a voice of reason on this John - imho. This is a remarkable summary of what is needed in practice. So just a few bon mots... On 2012/12/01 12:15 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Nov 30, 2012, at 12:26 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > >> That challenge is to find a way that we all globally, can allow the >> Internet to fulfill the possibilities for all of us that it presents >> (and in ways that are meaningful to all of us in our global >> diversity) -- and that means finding a way to reconcile sometimes >> extremely divergent interests and perspectives concerning for >> example, what issues are important/necessary to resolve and where >> they can be resolved and who/how should be involved in resolving them. > > Agreed. > > The challenge is that the Internet is truly a global system, and we > lack good mechanisms > for development of true agreement on public policy issues when applied > to a global scope. > There are some feedback loops which operate reasonable well in the > context of a single > country. (For example, the response of consumers, and civil society > on their behalf, to > "bad" decisions by businesses with respect to privacy results in > lots of attention, and > sometimes even results changes to the errant business practices.) > There are mechanisms that can deal with this, but there are some truly crazy muppets out there, who despite their politeness are rather disruptive (think single rooters! or multiple rooters whatever your predilection) to debate. It matters not a wit that even in a non-binding multistakeholder format that CIR can be discussed without the cacacophony of obsequious ICANNers! And this sets a tone for engagement... that is robust "American" like it is at the IETF, except of course if one tries to give as good as one gets... So I think there needs to be some greater balance (even in a recent post I was accused of ad hominem attacks - a discussion that promptly went substantive, belying the aspersion cast). There really do need to be some voices that manage the complexity of what we face. I had suggested that perhaps those that have legitimacy concerns about be consulted more in civil lists/orgs like this so that their voices are still heard, and not completely marginalised. Even that is a tall order... so much for inclusiveness, eh? Not that it is anyone's job in particular to pick up this "job", I mention it merely that it is indicative of the fact that the very important matter of participation by some elements falls between the stools; even in the context where the clarion call is to participate. > In an ideal world, there would be a way to encourage productive > discussion of the various > public policy principles that should be applicable to Internet > communications on a global > scope, and such discussions would multistakeholder in nature, open in > participation, and > transparent in the processes used to reach outcomes (there is a little > bit of a challenge in > accomplishing such, since making the final determinations of what is > appropriate public > policy is one of areas that has been considered the realm of > governments, and yet we are > collectively unsure if that model continues to work in our new highly > connected world) This is brilliant. And idealist we must be. However, as MSG discussions have shown, corporates seem to benefit more than public interest groups. While arguable, like the issue above, it tends to fall between the stools. And let us be clear, there is very little balance in these types of discussions. Corporates are making decisions, and standard terms of contracts, privacy agreements etc are being plastically written all the time, so there needs to be some balance in the contest of vested interests... > If we could produce clear statements of public policy principles, and > the statements were > made known to existing Internet governance institutions, then they > would quite likely be > considered in development of the various technical standards and > policies that we need > to keep the Internet running. Likewise, if folks working on such > standards and policies > took significant measures to keep governments and civil society aware > of the ongoing > developments, it would help in avoiding conflicts between Internet > practices and the > globally accepted principles in any given public policy area. Here I agree. There is a lot the IGC has done and a great deal more it can do. But I think what is needed is more tolerance of intellectual diversity - so that interests can be better understood. It is trite to mention that whenever public interest is mentioned in policy, one should look out for the vested interest. I suggest that this vigilence be heightened here as the robust engagements (and some would say politically incorrect) allow for a sharpening of differences as much as bridging... I do wish you would contribute more... > > /John > > p.s. Disclaimers apply. My views alone. Use of this email may > trigger visions and/or > produce delusions, paranoia, and schizophrenia-like symptoms. Use > sparingly and > seek appropriate medical treatment as needed. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 4 08:16:59 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 15:16:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <284961F5-1D81-4795-A818-817D2E140A85@hserus.net> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BD14BD.4010703@gmail.com> <50BD5FD7.50301@ITforChange.net> <284961F5-1D81-4795-A818-817D2E140A85@hserus.net> Message-ID: Conspiracy theorists of the world unite(?): www.internetsociety.org/tpp To the negotiating nations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement [image: Download PDF] The undersigned organizations would like to express their concern regarding the procedural aspects of the negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement – especially, those relating to transparency and inclusiveness. Currently in its 15th round, the TPP has followed a procedural path that, in our view, has not been sufficiently inclusive and transparent. The process of negotiations has hitherto followed the traditional route of involving only governments and governmental representatives. We understand this approach to the extent that, historically, trade-­‐related agreements have always been conducted under a similar, behind-­‐closed-­‐doors process. But, this is not a typical trade agreement; it involves issues that also extend to the Internet and its platforms – and, this raises some valid questions regarding process. Back in 2005, during the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis, Heads of States and government committed to the Tunis Agenda, which included a section on Internet Governance. Paragraph 34 of the Tunis Agenda, described Internet governance as “the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-­making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet”. By accepting this working definition, Heads of States and government have subscribed to the fact that all issues pertaining to the Internet, including those of public policy, should be detached from traditional rule making and become part of a new governance arrangement – one that is based on cooperation, collaboration and partnership. Under the Tunis Agenda, Internet governance is to be conducted through a multistakeholder framework, where each stakeholder participates, offering different perspectives. In particular, article 68 of the Tunis Agenda states: “[...] We also recognize the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders”. We feel that multistakeholder governance should constitute the foundation and the basis for all future policy work in the Internet space. Internet governance is not a monolithic concept and should not be considered as such; it is constantly evolving to include all issues that, directly or indirectly, affect the Internet and its technologies. One such issue concerns the protection of intellectual property rights and the way they are expressed in the Internet. The recent debate on SOPA and PIPA in the United States as well as that of ACTA in the European Union manifested that discussions on intellectual property are part of the Internet governance landscape and they further necessitate a multistakeholder approach. It is only through an inclusive process that all interested parties can effectively engage and provide input on issues that will, ultimately, have an impact on the way users experience the Internet and its services. In fact, various governments have started upholding multistakeholder participation as their official Internet governance position. In the United States, for instance, both Democrats and Republicans, in both Houses of Congress, have affirmed the multistakeholder Internet governance model and have unanimously passed resolutions making clear that the “consistent and unequivocal policy of the United States [is] to promote a global Internet free from government control [and] to preserve and advance the successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet today”. In view of the fact that countries, including the United States, are endorsing multistakeholder governance as their official position for all Internet-­‐related matters, it only makes sense for this model to be repeated in this instance. We therefore urge the negotiators of the TPP to make this process more transparent and inclusive, following the multistakeholder model, at least for those chapters of the agreement pertaining to the Internet. Allowing all interested parties to actively participate and provide input during the negotiations, as called for by the Tunis Agenda, would give a higher legitimacy to the process and, would ensure a more informed agreement, bringing in technical, economic and social perspectives. Signed The Internet Society (ISOC) Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) InternetNZ Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) On 4 December 2012 05:32, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > not a bad conspiracy theory, but pretty pedestrian for truthout > > --srs (iPad) > > On 04-Dec-2012, at 7:58, Guru गुरु wrote: > > > > http://truth-out.org/news/item/13082-the-trans-pacific-partnership-what-free-trade-actually-means > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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: Download_PDF.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7277 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 4 08:35:09 2012 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 05:35:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ETNO session tomorrow - WCIT12 Message-ID: <1354628109.89855.YahooMailNeo@web120106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hi people.. After much stress, I finally got a delegate badge.; the green one. I plan to be at the ETNO session tomorrow Wednesday. Since I am just hitting ground, would like to know if any in/formal CS coalition meetings have been organised.. Best Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 4 09:40:36 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:40:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Apple Drones App Banned: Politicians And Campaigners Step Up Fight Message-ID: <50BE0B64.7060302@gmail.com> Apple Drones App Banned: Politicians And Campaigners Step Up Fight *The Huffington Post UK* | By Jessica Elgot Posted: 04/12/2012 12:00 GMT Updated: 04/12/2012 12:41 GMT Politicians and activists are continuing to put pressure on Apple to publish a controversial app which monitors drone strike locations - after the company blocked it. The app is also the subject of a growing US petition, launched last week on Roots Action , calling on company to reconsider. The App Store rejected the product, calling it "objectionable and crude". Roots Action, which is run by the left-leaning Action for a Progressive Future, launched a petition last week asking Apple to reconsider. drone *American citizens rally in Islamabad, Pakistan against drone attacks in the tribal belt* The campaigners said in a statement attached to the petition: "Drone wars continue because the US public is unaware what is being done in our name with our money. We are interested in knowing where our government is using drones and has killed people, not in celebrating that killing. The people in Pakistan and Afghanistan and elsewhere living under the drones can't ignore what's being done to them. Neither should we, as it's done with our money and in our names. "Drones+ is an application that shows no depictions of the carnage of war and reveals no secret information. It simply adds a location to a map every time a drone strike is reported in the media and added to a database maintained by the UK's Bureau of Investigative Journalism." Hilary Stauffer, Deputy Director of Reprieve's drones team, told The Huffington Post UK: "The CIA's drone programme is terrorising civilian communities across North West Pakistan. "All the drones+ app seeks to do is pull together publicly-available information to keep its users informed about when and where these strikes are taking place. "Banning this app is therefore inexplicable, and smacks of censorship. "Given that one of Apple's most famous adverts warned against an Orwellian future, it is deeply ironic that their actions are now halting the spread of information about the CIA's secret war." Josh Begley, a graduate student at New York University, developed the app, called Drones+, to show the location of strikes, using reports collated by the London-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism. He insisted there are no national security issues in showing the date. Apple company received around £4.5m in Pentagon contracts last year, according to Action for a Progressive Future, the left-wing group running to campaign to instate the app. The cause has been taken up by one of the House of Representatives most outspoken critics of President Obama's drone police, Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich told US politics site The Hill : "What is 'objectionable and crude' are the drone strikes themselves. "I strongly support any effort to bring increased transparency to our combat drone program. This program continues to operate without transparency and accountability." The rejection of the app is all the more controversial because of the other apps Apple allows to appear on its site, like the UAV Fighter app for iPhone. TransLumen Technologies, a military defence contractor, and Entertaining Games have built an app, which allows you to play at piloting a drone, "the Grim Reaper Predator, Raven, and Proteus Prototype." It's described on the site as "you haven't lived until you have launched a perfect volley of 4 laser guided air-to-surface missiles, 4 shots - 4 kills, while using ECM to deflect incoming surface-to-air missiles, and dodging incoming tank shells and air-to-air nose-cannon fire! "Everyone will notice the look of evil glee that comes across your face as you unleash the terrifying power of the Plasma Laser equipped Proteus Prototype! No wonder our enemies want us to kill work on this recently declassified weapon!" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: o-DRONE-570.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 83248 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 Tue Dec 4 10:24:14 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 07:24:14 -0800 Subject: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? Message-ID: <038c01cdd233$83cb3470$8b619d50$@gmail.com> http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/google-encourages-users-to-join -campaign-against-copyright-draft-law-a-870590.htm It is a new type of lobbying power when Google now endeavors to enlist its users in the struggle to defend its own business interests. In the language of the Internet, one could also say that the company is trying to crowdsource its own lobbying efforts. This is a widespread method in the US, where it's known as grassroots lobbying. In doing so, the company is relying on a trick that Germany's Pirate Party has also used to achieve many of its successes: It merely brands a proposal that it's targeting as a threat to the free, open and uncensored Internet. The tactic behind this move is obvious. Recently in the US and on a European Union level, a number of bills have failed due to resistance from online campaigns. With its current campaign, Google is seeking to use this to its own benefit -- and is openly playing on politicians' widespread fear of a shitstorm. Legal but Risky Business The vehemence with which Google is pursuing its campaigns is astonishing because it entails considerable risks for the company. The discrepancy between Google's lofty words and its agenda is far too evident: Of course the company is not primarily interested in the freedom of Internet users, but rather in defending its own freedom against any government regulation of its monopoly-like power over the market and public opinion. This raises the question of whether such an approach does more harm than good to its own interests. Well worth reading the whole article. M -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein [ mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 2:52 AM To: 'ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net'; cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: FW: Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google- tax-avoidance/ [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/d9fhmhx http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google-would- lose-court-case-over-taxes/ [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/c43nfs8 http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.html [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/cc4ayk2 http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasion/tab id/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/dylfaxy http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-acti on-on-google-tax-evasion http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet -regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/8cw6tux http://tinyurl.com/choul5g -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 4 10:41:20 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 07:41:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs Message-ID: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2012/united-states-government-s-internet-protocol-numbering-principles -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 4 10:45:42 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 00:45:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? In-Reply-To: <038c01cdd233$83cb3470$8b619d50$@gmail.com> References: <038c01cdd233$83cb3470$8b619d50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: German publishing houses and Google currently in a fight over proposed legislation that would require Google to pay the publishers when they use snippets of text from articles etc in search results. New business models/old. Traditional media vs. new. Same in WCIT, ENTO and OTT players. Best not to try and fit the story to one's personal bias. Adam On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:24 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/google-encourages-users-to-join-campaign-against-copyright-draft-law-a-870590.htm > > > > It is a new type of lobbying power when Google now endeavors to enlist its > users in the struggle to defend its own business interests. In the language > of the Internet, one could also say that the company is trying to > crowdsource its own lobbying efforts. This is a widespread method in the US, > where it's known as grassroots lobbying. > > > > In doing so, the company is relying on a trick that Germany's Pirate Party > has also used to achieve many of its successes: It merely brands a proposal > that it's targeting as a threat to the free, open and uncensored Internet. > The tactic behind this move is obvious. Recently in the US and on a European > Union level, a number of bills have failed due to resistance from online > campaigns. With its current campaign, Google is seeking to use this to its > own benefit -- and is openly playing on politicians' widespread fear of a > shitstorm. > > > > Legal but Risky Business > > > > The vehemence with which Google is pursuing its campaigns is astonishing > because it entails considerable risks for the company. The discrepancy > between Google's lofty words and its agenda is far too evident: Of course > the company is not primarily interested in the freedom of Internet users, > but rather in defending its own freedom against any government regulation of > its monopoly-like power over the market and public opinion. This raises the > question of whether such an approach does more harm than good to its own > interests. > > > > Well worth reading the whole article… > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 2:52 AM > > To: 'ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net'; > cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net > > Subject: FW: Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? > > > > http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google-tax-avoidance/ > > [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/d9fhmhx > > > > http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google-would-lose-court-case-over-taxes/ > > [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/c43nfs8 > > > > http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.html > > [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/cc4ayk2 > > > > http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasion/tabid/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx > > [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/dylfaxy > > > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google-tax-evasion > > > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-internet-regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ > > [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/8cw6tux > > > > http://tinyurl.com/choul5g > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Tue Dec 4 11:29:40 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 17:29:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs In-Reply-To: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> References: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: Last parag reads: «Consistent with the policies developed through the current multistakeholder model, the USG believes that all IP numbers are allocated for use on a needs basis and should be returned to the numbering pool when no longer needed.» The USG "believes", that's all. Others may believe differently. "when no longer needed" (lol), there will always be some needs somewhere, as transfer/sale is not prohibited. Louis - - - On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2012/united-states-government-s-internet-protocol-numbering-principles > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Tue Dec 4 11:32:54 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 08:32:54 -0800 Subject: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? In-Reply-To: References: <038c01cdd233$83cb3470$8b619d50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <03e601cdd23d$036ebf40$0a4c3dc0$@gmail.com> Adam, the issue is not the new/old business models (and I have no particular bias one way or another for old or new enterprises or their business models--and to be clear I sincerely admire and appreciate Google as a company, their products, their highly competent and effective staff and spokespeople, and their overall demeanour). What is important, as the Spiegel article is pointing to, is the way in which Google is using its market strength (and one should say, their overall new media savvy) to attempt to manipulate political processes. Given their size, wealth, reach and impact this is a very very dangerous slippery slope and given the global scope of Google and similar quasi-monopoly Internet-native enterprises--Facebook, eBay, PayPal, Amazon, Flickr, Youtube all come immediately to mind--this is an exceedingly dangerous precedent and one, which at the moment no national (or global) governmental system seems particularly well equipped to deal with (except through the building of equally repugnant and dangerous national Internet firewalls). M -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:46 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? German publishing houses and Google currently in a fight over proposed legislation that would require Google to pay the publishers when they use snippets of text from articles etc in search results. New business models/old. Traditional media vs. new. Same in WCIT, ENTO and OTT players. Best not to try and fit the story to one's personal bias. Adam On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:24 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/google-encourages-users-t > o-join-campaign-against-copyright-draft-law-a-870590.htm > > > > It is a new type of lobbying power when Google now endeavors to enlist > its users in the struggle to defend its own business interests. In the > language of the Internet, one could also say that the company is > trying to crowdsource its own lobbying efforts. This is a widespread > method in the US, where it's known as grassroots lobbying. > > > > In doing so, the company is relying on a trick that Germany's Pirate > Party has also used to achieve many of its successes: It merely brands > a proposal that it's targeting as a threat to the free, open and uncensored Internet. > The tactic behind this move is obvious. Recently in the US and on a > European Union level, a number of bills have failed due to resistance > from online campaigns. With its current campaign, Google is seeking to > use this to its own benefit -- and is openly playing on politicians' > widespread fear of a shitstorm. > > > > Legal but Risky Business > > > > The vehemence with which Google is pursuing its campaigns is > astonishing because it entails considerable risks for the company. The > discrepancy between Google's lofty words and its agenda is far too > evident: Of course the company is not primarily interested in the > freedom of Internet users, but rather in defending its own freedom > against any government regulation of its monopoly-like power over the > market and public opinion. This raises the question of whether such an > approach does more harm than good to its own interests. > > > > Well worth reading the whole article. > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 2:52 AM > > To: 'ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net'; > cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net > > Subject: FW: Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? > > > > http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-g > oogle-tax-avoidance/ > > [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/d9fhmhx > > > > http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google- > would-lose-court-case-over-taxes/ > > [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/c43nfs8 > > > > http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.ht > ml > > [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/cc4ayk2 > > > > http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasi > on/tabid/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx > > [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/dylfaxy > > > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledge > s-action-on-google-tax-evasion > > > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-in > ternet-regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ > > [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/8cw6tux > > > > http://tinyurl.com/choul5g > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Tue Dec 4 11:35:46 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 16:35:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs In-Reply-To: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> References: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: In message <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh at hserus.net>, at 07:41:20 on Tue, 4 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2012/united-states-government-s-internet-protocol-numbering-principles Although the RIRs always refer to them as IP Addresses (not numbers). They are issued from a pool of IP Number Resources, hence the confusion. -- 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 11:41:45 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 11:41:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: WCIT mythbuster presentation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hey folks, Did any of you see this presentation (WCIT Mythbuster Presentation) when it was presented? (www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/WCIT-backgroundbriefs.aspx) If so, how was the environment of that? Regards Diego ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jane Fountain Date: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:30 AM Subject: WCIT mythbuster presentation To: Diego Rafael Canabarro I'm not sure how novel these ideas will be for you, but these are the slides I mentioned yesterday after class. -- Professor of Political Science and Public Policy Director, National Center for Digital Government (ncdg.org) Director, Science, Technology and Society Initiative (umass.edu/sts) Thompson Hall 406 | 200 Hicks Way University of Massachusetts Amherst Amherst, MA 01003 -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 4 11:54:26 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 11:54:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs In-Reply-To: References: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Last parag reads: > > «Consistent with the policies developed through the current multistakeholder > model, the USG believes that all IP numbers are allocated for use on a needs > basis and should be returned to the numbering pool when no longer needed.» > > The USG "believes", that's all. Others may believe differently. > "when no longer needed" (lol), there will always be some needs somewhere, as > transfer/sale is not prohibited. some places allow it, some do not....YMMV. -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 12:05:27 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 12:05:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? In-Reply-To: <03e601cdd23d$036ebf40$0a4c3dc0$@gmail.com> References: <038c01cdd233$83cb3470$8b619d50$@gmail.com> <03e601cdd23d$036ebf40$0a4c3dc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:32 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Adam, the issue is not the new/old business models (and I have no particular > bias one way or another for old or new enterprises or their business > models--and to be clear I sincerely admire and appreciate Google as a > company, their products, their highly competent and effective staff and > spokespeople, and their overall demeanour). > > What is important, as the Spiegel article is pointing to, is the way in > which Google is using its market strength (and one should say, their overall > new media savvy) to attempt to manipulate political processes. Because something is also self-serving, it doesn't make it the wrong thing to do. -- 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 drc at virtualized.org Tue Dec 4 12:15:08 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 09:15:08 -0800 Subject: [governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs In-Reply-To: References: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Dec 4, 2012, at 8:54 AM, McTim wrote: >> The USG "believes", that's all. Others may believe differently. >> "when no longer needed" (lol), there will always be some needs somewhere, as >> transfer/sale is not prohibited. > some places allow it, some do not....YMMV. Unfortunately, for those that disallow it, I'm afraid it merely means their registration database will degrade over time which benefits no one. 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 kichango at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 12:33:20 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 12:33:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? In-Reply-To: References: <038c01cdd233$83cb3470$8b619d50$@gmail.com> <03e601cdd23d$036ebf40$0a4c3dc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:05 PM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:32 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > Adam, the issue is not the new/old business models (and I have no > particular > > bias one way or another for old or new enterprises or their business > > models--and to be clear I sincerely admire and appreciate Google as a > > company, their products, their highly competent and effective staff and > > spokespeople, and their overall demeanour). > > > > What is important, as the Spiegel article is pointing to, is the way in > > which Google is using its market strength (and one should say, their > overall > > new media savvy) to attempt to manipulate political processes. > > > Because something is also self-serving, it doesn't make it the wrong > thing to do. > Not necessarily, indeed, although it doesn't make it necessarily easy either for some potential supporters of that "something" to throw their full-throat support behind the entity doing it. Is this another variation of 'the ends justify the means' -- more precisely, maybe, 'the ends justify the arguments'? Mawaki > > > -- > 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 Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com Tue Dec 4 12:36:23 2012 From: Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com (Michael Kende) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 17:36:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? In-Reply-To: <03e601cdd23d$036ebf40$0a4c3dc0$@gmail.com> References: <038c01cdd233$83cb3470$8b619d50$@gmail.com> <03e601cdd23d$036ebf40$0a4c3dc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03BF9592@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> I do not agree with this doomsday view. First, a large part of the article notes that there are dangers to this strategy - the part that you clipped makes it very clear that there are risks in this approach ("The vehemence with which Google is pursuing its campaigns is astonishing because it entails considerable risks for the company") - thus it does not support the slippery slope that you worry about. Further, setting aside whether any of these companies you list are actually quasi-monopolies or not (Flickr??), many industries gather together in a trade association to influence public policy - together they may represent more than 90% of the industry, so is that also intrinsically dangerous? Indeed, how did the copyright issue get on the agenda of lawmakers in Germany in the first place - surely through lobbying efforts by the media companies, no? Finally, at issue here is that a Google service that many users clearly find useful, that delivers eyeballs to media companies, and that does not directly involve advertising is at risk (Google news pages do not have advertising, at least here in Switzerland). Instead of doing what newspapers in Brazil did, and stopping search engines from including their stories, the media companies in Europe have sought a regulatory solution in order to increase their earnings - companies that can write stories and editorials criticizing lawmakers, by the way - so what is wrong with Google asking its users to push back? Michael -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 5:33 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Adam Peake' Subject: RE: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? Adam, the issue is not the new/old business models (and I have no particular bias one way or another for old or new enterprises or their business models--and to be clear I sincerely admire and appreciate Google as a company, their products, their highly competent and effective staff and spokespeople, and their overall demeanour). What is important, as the Spiegel article is pointing to, is the way in which Google is using its market strength (and one should say, their overall new media savvy) to attempt to manipulate political processes. Given their size, wealth, reach and impact this is a very very dangerous slippery slope and given the global scope of Google and similar quasi-monopoly Internet-native enterprises--Facebook, eBay, PayPal, Amazon, Flickr, Youtube all come immediately to mind--this is an exceedingly dangerous precedent and one, which at the moment no national (or global) governmental system seems particularly well equipped to deal with (except through the building of equally repugnant and dangerous national Internet firewalls). M -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:46 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? German publishing houses and Google currently in a fight over proposed legislation that would require Google to pay the publishers when they use snippets of text from articles etc in search results. New business models/old. Traditional media vs. new. Same in WCIT, ENTO and OTT players. Best not to try and fit the story to one's personal bias. Adam On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:24 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/google-encourages-users-t > o-join-campaign-against-copyright-draft-law-a-870590.htm > > > > It is a new type of lobbying power when Google now endeavors to enlist > its users in the struggle to defend its own business interests. In the > language of the Internet, one could also say that the company is > trying to crowdsource its own lobbying efforts. This is a widespread > method in the US, where it's known as grassroots lobbying. > > > > In doing so, the company is relying on a trick that Germany's Pirate > Party has also used to achieve many of its successes: It merely brands > a proposal that it's targeting as a threat to the free, open and uncensored Internet. > The tactic behind this move is obvious. Recently in the US and on a > European Union level, a number of bills have failed due to resistance > from online campaigns. With its current campaign, Google is seeking to > use this to its own benefit -- and is openly playing on politicians' > widespread fear of a shitstorm. > > > > Legal but Risky Business > > > > The vehemence with which Google is pursuing its campaigns is > astonishing because it entails considerable risks for the company. The > discrepancy between Google's lofty words and its agenda is far too > evident: Of course the company is not primarily interested in the > freedom of Internet users, but rather in defending its own freedom > against any government regulation of its monopoly-like power over the > market and public opinion. This raises the question of whether such an > approach does more harm than good to its own interests. > > > > Well worth reading the whole article. > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 2:52 AM > > To: 'ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net'; > cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net > > Subject: FW: Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? > > > > http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-g > oogle-tax-avoidance/ > > [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/d9fhmhx > > > > http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google- > would-lose-court-case-over-taxes/ > > [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/c43nfs8 > > > > http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.ht > ml > > [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/cc4ayk2 > > > > http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasi > on/tabid/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx > > [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/dylfaxy > > > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledge > s-action-on-google-tax-evasion > > > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-in > ternet-regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ > > [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/8cw6tux > > > > http://tinyurl.com/choul5g > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email message has been delivered safely and archived online by Mimecast. A true SaaS solution, Mimecast provides the security, continuity and archiving for millions of emails, across thousands of customers every day. For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.co.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 4 12:39:51 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 18:39:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? In-Reply-To: <038c01cdd233$83cb3470$8b619d50$@gmail.com> References: <038c01cdd233$83cb3470$8b619d50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Google corporate interests are so obvious and their propaganda so inflated that it's likely to burst, and somehow backfire. Nevertheless they will howl "we saved internet" after the event. Unless they over assessed their media power, they could have been maneuvered by other lobbies not so eager to play point man while being involved in secretly negotiated treaties (TPP etc.). Google is also entangled in legal cases out of USA: fiscal schemes eluding taxes, refusal to pay out fines, illegal reproduction of information, illegal collection of personal data, etc. Looking like the white knight rescuing internet from the dragon claws could perhaps mitigate their predicaments. Louis - - - On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:24 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/google-encourages-users-to-join-campaign-against-copyright-draft-law-a-870590.htm > **** > > ** ** > > *It is a new type of lobbying power when Google now endeavors to enlist > its users in the struggle to defend its own business interests. In the > language of the Internet, one could also say that the company is trying to > crowdsource its own lobbying efforts. This is a widespread method in the > US, where it's known as grassroots lobbying.* > > * * > > *In doing so, the company is relying on a trick that Germany's Pirate > Party has also used to achieve many of its successes: It merely brands a > proposal that it's targeting as a threat to the free, open and uncensored > Internet. The tactic behind this move is obvious. Recently in the US and on > a European Union level, a number of bills have failed due to resistance > from online campaigns. With its current campaign, Google is seeking to use > this to its own benefit -- and is openly playing on politicians' widespread > fear of a shitstorm.* > > * * > > *Legal but Risky Business* > > * * > > *The vehemence with which Google is pursuing its campaigns is astonishing > because it entails considerable risks for the company. The discrepancy > between Google's lofty words and its agenda is far too evident: Of course > the company is not primarily interested in the freedom of Internet users, > but rather in defending its own freedom against any government regulation > of its monopoly-like power over the market and public opinion. This raises > the question of whether such an approach does more harm than good to its > own interests.* > > * * > > Well worth reading the whole article…**** > > ** ** > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 4 12:54:10 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 23:24:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's second update .. Message-ID: Tis, after minister Sibal held a bunch of multistakeholder consultations, and then blandly said that while there was no time to submit changed documents, India's viewpoints at WCIT would not let the ITU be involved in igov, and would support the multistakeholder model Now we have http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/ind/20/2 .. A single paragraph that seems to imply that one government shouldn't ddos the other. Sheesh. --srs (iPad) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 4 12:57:25 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 09:57:25 -0800 Subject: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? In-Reply-To: References: <038c01cdd233$83cb3470$8b619d50$@gmail.com> <03e601cdd23d$036ebf40$0a4c3dc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <047e01cdd248$e36ad4c0$aa407e40$@gmail.com> Yes, you (and I) may agree (with the ends) this time, and the next, and maybe the time after that but eventually there may be no (democratic) political process left. All we have as a political process is a mass on-line mobilization by one self-serving Internet quasi-monopoly or another. Is that something that you would agree with? M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 9:05 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:32 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Adam, the issue is not the new/old business models (and I have no > particular bias one way or another for old or new enterprises or their > business models--and to be clear I sincerely admire and appreciate > Google as a company, their products, their highly competent and > effective staff and spokespeople, and their overall demeanour). > > What is important, as the Spiegel article is pointing to, is the way > in which Google is using its market strength (and one should say, > their overall new media savvy) to attempt to manipulate political processes. Because something is also self-serving, it doesn't make it the wrong thing to do. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 4 13:02:03 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 23:32:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? In-Reply-To: <047e01cdd248$e36ad4c0$aa407e40$@gmail.com> References: <038c01cdd233$83cb3470$8b619d50$@gmail.com> <03e601cdd23d$036ebf40$0a4c3dc0$@gmail.com> <047e01cdd248$e36ad4c0$aa407e40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2B113B9C-0348-4D52-B159-0075A8555C26@hserus.net> Now what do we do if more people agree with google than they do with various detractors of google? Note ., people who have criticised google on occasion, and people who have rather more brains than to fall for the first petition that comes their way, from google, or from a civil society group. --srs (iPad) On 04-Dec-2012, at 23:27, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Yes, you (and I) may agree (with the ends) this time, and the next, and > maybe the time after that but eventually there may be no (democratic) > political process left. All we have as a political process is a mass on-line > mobilization by one self-serving Internet quasi-monopoly or another. Is that > something that you would agree with? > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 9:05 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: Adam Peake > Subject: Re: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do > whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:32 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: >> Adam, the issue is not the new/old business models (and I have no >> particular bias one way or another for old or new enterprises or their >> business models--and to be clear I sincerely admire and appreciate >> Google as a company, their products, their highly competent and >> effective staff and spokespeople, and their overall demeanour). >> >> What is important, as the Spiegel article is pointing to, is the way >> in which Google is using its market strength (and one should say, >> their overall new media savvy) to attempt to manipulate political > processes. > > > Because something is also self-serving, it doesn't make it the wrong thing > to do. > > > -- > 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 apisan at unam.mx Tue Dec 4 13:16:32 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 18:16:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? In-Reply-To: <047e01cdd248$e36ad4c0$aa407e40$@gmail.com> References: <038c01cdd233$83cb3470$8b619d50$@gmail.com> <03e601cdd23d$036ebf40$0a4c3dc0$@gmail.com> ,<047e01cdd248$e36ad4c0$aa407e40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB8398E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Michael, I do not think that the only thing we are left with are campaigns promoted by one or another self-serving commercial or established political interest. There are civic-minded people and organizations who apply their principles and rational thought to problems and are able to act and react independently and honestly, and, furthermore, to go into and out of alliances for the public-benefit causes they believe in. For many, when a "big" actor of any kind - a company, a government or intergovernmental grouping, even some civil-society organizations - enters their side in a fight it actually becomes uncomfortable. The principles you are held become a target for mistrust and attacks. Yet these people and organizations stick to their principles and go on with clarity of purpose. I've been told that you are part of at least one such organization and are one such person. To how many others who do not think exactly like you in every single issue are you prepared to grant the benefit of the doubt? 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: martes, 04 de diciembre de 2012 11:57 Hasta: 'McTim'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org CC: 'Adam Peake' Asunto: RE: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? Yes, you (and I) may agree (with the ends) this time, and the next, and maybe the time after that but eventually there may be no (democratic) political process left. All we have as a political process is a mass on-line mobilization by one self-serving Internet quasi-monopoly or another. Is that something that you would agree with? M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 9:05 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:32 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Adam, the issue is not the new/old business models (and I have no > particular bias one way or another for old or new enterprises or their > business models--and to be clear I sincerely admire and appreciate > Google as a company, their products, their highly competent and > effective staff and spokespeople, and their overall demeanour). > > What is important, as the Spiegel article is pointing to, is the way > in which Google is using its market strength (and one should say, > their overall new media savvy) to attempt to manipulate political processes. Because something is also self-serving, it doesn't make it the wrong thing to do. -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Dec 4 13:18:30 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 03:18:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? In-Reply-To: <03e601cdd23d$036ebf40$0a4c3dc0$@gmail.com> References: <038c01cdd233$83cb3470$8b619d50$@gmail.com> <03e601cdd23d$036ebf40$0a4c3dc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Media outside Germany reports that a reason (obviously not the only reason) Google started its public campaign is because the German media they are at odds with will not cover Google's side of the argument. Given this is about a debate over new legislation that's a problem (democracy and all that.) Traditional media it seems is not as free as we might hope when it comes to its own interests. Is Google the most dangerous player out there? Go to the .nxt side and have a look at Russia's proposal for a new Article 3a . It's been debated a bit in WCIT today, and will continue tomorrow. Offensive that it's even give 10 minutes floor time. Yesterday, Dr. Toure made two promises: nothing in WCIT would restrict freedom of speech, and he intervened in the discussions to seek support for a proposal that supported including reference in the ITRs to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and he was also concerned about the bad press not including such a reference might bring down upon the conference and the ITU). Second promise was nothing in WCIT was about Internet governance, but for some reason he hasn't yet found it necessary intervene against the Russian proposal and the other governments offering it support. Hypocrite? We'll see. At the moment too many people claiming to speak for CS aren't paying attention to where the immediate problem lies. Google sucks, but it's not going to screw-up the Internet as we know it. Adam On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:32 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Adam, the issue is not the new/old business models (and I have no particular > bias one way or another for old or new enterprises or their business > models--and to be clear I sincerely admire and appreciate Google as a > company, their products, their highly competent and effective staff and > spokespeople, and their overall demeanour). > > What is important, as the Spiegel article is pointing to, is the way in > which Google is using its market strength (and one should say, their overall > new media savvy) to attempt to manipulate political processes. > > Given their size, wealth, reach and impact this is a very very dangerous > slippery slope and given the global scope of Google and similar > quasi-monopoly Internet-native enterprises--Facebook, eBay, PayPal, Amazon, > Flickr, Youtube all come immediately to mind--this is an exceedingly > dangerous precedent and one, which at the moment no national (or global) > governmental system seems particularly well equipped to deal with (except > through the building of equally repugnant and dangerous national Internet > firewalls). > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:46 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do > whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? > > German publishing houses and Google currently in a fight over proposed > legislation that would require Google to pay the publishers when they use > snippets of text from articles etc in search results. > > New business models/old. Traditional media vs. new. Same in WCIT, ENTO and > OTT players. Best not to try and fit the story to one's personal bias. > > Adam > > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:24 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: >> http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/google-encourages-users-t >> o-join-campaign-against-copyright-draft-law-a-870590.htm >> >> >> >> It is a new type of lobbying power when Google now endeavors to enlist >> its users in the struggle to defend its own business interests. In the >> language of the Internet, one could also say that the company is >> trying to crowdsource its own lobbying efforts. This is a widespread >> method in the US, where it's known as grassroots lobbying. >> >> >> >> In doing so, the company is relying on a trick that Germany's Pirate >> Party has also used to achieve many of its successes: It merely brands >> a proposal that it's targeting as a threat to the free, open and > uncensored Internet. >> The tactic behind this move is obvious. Recently in the US and on a >> European Union level, a number of bills have failed due to resistance >> from online campaigns. With its current campaign, Google is seeking to >> use this to its own benefit -- and is openly playing on politicians' >> widespread fear of a shitstorm. >> >> >> >> Legal but Risky Business >> >> >> >> The vehemence with which Google is pursuing its campaigns is >> astonishing because it entails considerable risks for the company. The >> discrepancy between Google's lofty words and its agenda is far too >> evident: Of course the company is not primarily interested in the >> freedom of Internet users, but rather in defending its own freedom >> against any government regulation of its monopoly-like power over the >> market and public opinion. This raises the question of whether such an >> approach does more harm than good to its own interests. >> >> >> >> Well worth reading the whole article. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> >> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 2:52 AM >> >> To: 'ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net'; >> cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net >> >> Subject: FW: Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? >> >> >> >> http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-g >> oogle-tax-avoidance/ >> >> [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/d9fhmhx >> >> >> >> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google- >> would-lose-court-case-over-taxes/ >> >> [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/c43nfs8 >> >> >> >> http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.ht >> ml >> >> [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/cc4ayk2 >> >> >> >> http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasi >> on/tabid/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx >> >> [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/dylfaxy >> >> >> >> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledge >> s-action-on-google-tax-evasion >> >> >> >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-in >> ternet-regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ >> >> [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/8cw6tux >> >> >> >> http://tinyurl.com/choul5g >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 4 13:23:31 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 23:53:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? In-Reply-To: References: <038c01cdd233$83cb3470$8b619d50$@gmail.com> <03e601cdd23d$036ebf40$0a4c3dc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <89FF2BE1-63EB-476E-853F-3EB7A5617909@hserus.net> The Tunisian submission is a ringing endorsement of free speech http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/c25 --srs (iPad) On 04-Dec-2012, at 23:48, Adam Peake wrote: > Media outside Germany reports that a reason (obviously not the only > reason) Google started its public campaign is because the German media > they are at odds with will not cover Google's side of the argument. > Given this is about a debate over new legislation that's a problem > (democracy and all that.) Traditional media it seems is not as free > as we might hope when it comes to its own interests. > > Is Google the most dangerous player out there? Go to the .nxt side > and have a look at Russia's proposal for a new Article 3a > . It's been debated a bit in > WCIT today, and will continue tomorrow. Offensive that it's even > give 10 minutes floor time. > > Yesterday, Dr. Toure made two promises: nothing in WCIT would restrict > freedom of speech, and he intervened in the discussions to seek > support for a proposal that supported including reference in the ITRs > to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and he was > also concerned about the bad press not including such a reference > might bring down upon the conference and the ITU). Second promise was > nothing in WCIT was about Internet governance, but for some reason he > hasn't yet found it necessary intervene against the Russian proposal > and the other governments offering it support. Hypocrite? We'll see. > > At the moment too many people claiming to speak for CS aren't paying > attention to where the immediate problem lies. Google sucks, but it's > not going to screw-up the Internet as we know it. > > Adam > > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:32 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Adam, the issue is not the new/old business models (and I have no particular >> bias one way or another for old or new enterprises or their business >> models--and to be clear I sincerely admire and appreciate Google as a >> company, their products, their highly competent and effective staff and >> spokespeople, and their overall demeanour). >> >> What is important, as the Spiegel article is pointing to, is the way in >> which Google is using its market strength (and one should say, their overall >> new media savvy) to attempt to manipulate political processes. >> >> Given their size, wealth, reach and impact this is a very very dangerous >> slippery slope and given the global scope of Google and similar >> quasi-monopoly Internet-native enterprises--Facebook, eBay, PayPal, Amazon, >> Flickr, Youtube all come immediately to mind--this is an exceedingly >> dangerous precedent and one, which at the moment no national (or global) >> governmental system seems particularly well equipped to deal with (except >> through the building of equally repugnant and dangerous national Internet >> firewalls). >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake >> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 7:46 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] More... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (to do >> whatever it pleases and serves its business interests? >> >> German publishing houses and Google currently in a fight over proposed >> legislation that would require Google to pay the publishers when they use >> snippets of text from articles etc in search results. >> >> New business models/old. Traditional media vs. new. Same in WCIT, ENTO and >> OTT players. Best not to try and fit the story to one's personal bias. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:24 AM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >>> http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/google-encourages-users-t >>> o-join-campaign-against-copyright-draft-law-a-870590.htm >>> >>> >>> >>> It is a new type of lobbying power when Google now endeavors to enlist >>> its users in the struggle to defend its own business interests. In the >>> language of the Internet, one could also say that the company is >>> trying to crowdsource its own lobbying efforts. This is a widespread >>> method in the US, where it's known as grassroots lobbying. >>> >>> >>> >>> In doing so, the company is relying on a trick that Germany's Pirate >>> Party has also used to achieve many of its successes: It merely brands >>> a proposal that it's targeting as a threat to the free, open and >> uncensored Internet. >>> The tactic behind this move is obvious. Recently in the US and on a >>> European Union level, a number of bills have failed due to resistance >>> from online campaigns. With its current campaign, Google is seeking to >>> use this to its own benefit -- and is openly playing on politicians' >>> widespread fear of a shitstorm. >>> >>> >>> >>> Legal but Risky Business >>> >>> >>> >>> The vehemence with which Google is pursuing its campaigns is >>> astonishing because it entails considerable risks for the company. The >>> discrepancy between Google's lofty words and its agenda is far too >>> evident: Of course the company is not primarily interested in the >>> freedom of Internet users, but rather in defending its own freedom >>> against any government regulation of its monopoly-like power over the >>> market and public opinion. This raises the question of whether such an >>> approach does more harm than good to its own interests. >>> >>> >>> >>> Well worth reading the whole article. >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>> From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >>> >>> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 2:52 AM >>> >>> To: 'ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net'; >>> cracin-canada at vancouvercommunity.net >>> >>> Subject: FW: Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? >>> >>> >>> >>> http://delimiter.com.au/2012/11/23/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-g >>> oogle-tax-avoidance/ >>> >>> [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/d9fhmhx >>> >>> >>> >>> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/15431664/france-says-google- >>> would-lose-court-case-over-taxes/ >>> >>> [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/c43nfs8 >>> >>> >>> >>> http://en.apa.az/news_google_italy_suspected_of_tax_evasion__183392.ht >>> ml >>> >>> [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/cc4ayk2 >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.3news.co.nz/Starbucks-Google-Amazon-accused-of-UK-tax-evasi >>> on/tabid/369/articleID/276457/Default.aspx >>> >>> [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/dylfaxy >>> >>> >>> >>> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledge >>> s-action-on-google-tax-evasion >>> >>> >>> >>> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-ituwcit-thinking-about-in >>> ternet-regulatory-policy-from-an-ldc-perspective/ >>> >>> [MG>] http://tinyurl.com/8cw6tux >>> >>> >>> >>> http://tinyurl.com/choul5g >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.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 avri at acm.org Tue Dec 4 14:31:52 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 23:31:52 +0400 Subject: [governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs In-Reply-To: References: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: Hi, Or maybe, other policies will/can be developed though the multistakeholder model. The NTIA statement is a conditional statement. (If X then Y). And if that model based on routing requirements is not longer the only valid model, which I beleive is the case, then perhaps the requirements can be changed by a multistakeholder process. I think it is good that NTIA supports the models that have been determined by a multitstakeholder process. And I would think it good it this particular model was reviewed for something more fitting to the current realties and needs. This is no longer 1993 or the age of RFC 1518. avri On 4 Dec 2012, at 20:29, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Last parag reads: > > «Consistent with the policies developed through the current multistakeholder model, the USG believes that all IP numbers are allocated for use on a needs basis and should be returned to the numbering pool when no longer needed.» > > The USG "believes", that's all. Others may believe differently. > "when no longer needed" (lol), there will always be some needs somewhere, as transfer/sale is not prohibited. > > Louis > - - - > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2012/united-states-government-s-internet-protocol-numbering-principles > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.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 garth.graham at telus.net Tue Dec 4 16:00:22 2012 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:00:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Ereuters=2Ecom/articl?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e/2012/11/27/net-us-un-internet-idUSBRE8AQ06320121127?= In-Reply-To: <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> References: <0b3b01cdcd04$dae6bb50$90b431f0$@gmail.com> <0ddd01cdcd91$4f368ee0$eda3aca0$@gmail.com> <0e6e01cdcd9e$f6ac3460$e4049d20$@gmail.com>,<50B8A89E.1090500@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB7409F@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <013501cdcf13$d7c320b0$87496210$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <099784FA-B788-4985-8EF6-505343788B9D@telus.net> On 2012-11-30, at 8:00 AM, michael gurstein wrote: figuring a rather more globally equitable way of determining which of those governance/regulatory issues should be addressed and in what venue(s) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 arin.net Tue Dec 4 16:11:01 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 21:11:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs In-Reply-To: References: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Dec 4, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > And I would think it good it this particular model was reviewed for something more fitting to the current realties and needs. This is no longer 1993 or the age of RFC 1518. Agreed. Presently, we're up to about 1996, i.e. age of RFC 2050, and specifically with respect to ARIN, we allow transfers to recipients within the ARIN region, as well as to recipients who are in another region. Transfer policy does reflect the "documented need" principles expressed in RFC2050: "7. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly from the IR." I don't know whether this approach is good or bad, but do know that it has received extensive discussion both online and in many of ARIN's public policy meetings, and in the end was deemed to be supported by the community. Discussions subsequent to the ARIN's original transfer policy have enjoyed even more participation from those in the legacy community and emerging address broker community, with the result being changes to consider longer need- assessment horizons (and therefor supporting transfer of larger address blocks) as well as the change to allow Inter-RIR transfers. While I won't judge the resulting policy, I will say that the overall multistakeholder policy development process seems to working fairly well with respect to discussions of incremental change. I harbor a concern that incremental change may be the only type of change that open multistakeholder deliberations can actually support, as the discussions of more revolutionary changes seem to inevitably jump to more authoritarian questions such as "who is charge", "who can approve this", etc. This is a topic worth thinking about in general about MS governance processes. /John Disclaimer: I am the President and CEO of ARIN, although the observations made above are solely my own based on my experiences to date and do not represent any formal position of the organization. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Tue Dec 4 17:29:57 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 23:29:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution Message-ID: Dear all, John Curran wrote recently on this list: " I harbor a concern that incremental change may be the only type of change that open multistakeholder deliberations can actually support, as the discussions of more revolutionary changes seem to inevitably jump to more authoritarian questions such as "who is charge", "who can approve this", etc. This is a topic worth thinking about in general about MS governance processes." Is there any serious research analyzing the extent to which multi-stakeholder processes favour evolutionary vs revolutionary decisions / changes, in the Internet world or elsewhere? Thanks, Andrea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 4 18:45:24 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:15:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Or, to address johns point, they are another form of a struggle to wrest control from the incumbents, so possibly a power grab dressed in e appropriate civil society jargon? --srs (iPad) On 05-Dec-2012, at 3:59, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > Dear all, > > John Curran wrote recently on this list: > > " I harbor a concern that incremental change may be the only type of change that open multistakeholder deliberations can actually support, as the discussions of more revolutionary changes seem to inevitably jump to more authoritarian questions such as "who is charge", "who can approve this", etc. This is a topic worth thinking about in general about MS governance processes." > > Is there any serious research analyzing the extent to which multi-stakeholder processes favour evolutionary vs revolutionary decisions / changes, in the Internet world or elsewhere? > > Thanks, > > Andrea > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 23:04:27 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 23:04:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Your research question is very interesting, Andrea. I wonder if your departure point is similar to mine: considering legacy, can there be real disjunctive events in the field of Internet governance? Regards Diego On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Or, to address johns point, they are another form of a struggle to wrest > control from the incumbents, so possibly a power grab dressed in e > appropriate civil society jargon? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 05-Dec-2012, at 3:59, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > > Dear all, > > John Curran wrote recently on this list: > > " I harbor a concern that incremental change may be the only type of > change that open multistakeholder deliberations can actually support, as > the discussions of more revolutionary changes seem to inevitably jump to > more authoritarian questions such as "who is charge", "who can approve > this", etc. This is a topic worth thinking about in general about MS > governance processes." > > Is there any serious research analyzing the extent to which > multi-stakeholder processes favour evolutionary vs revolutionary decisions > / changes, in the Internet world or elsewhere? > > Thanks, > > Andrea > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.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 > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Tue Dec 4 23:30:12 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 05:30:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > Your research question is very interesting, Andrea. I wonder if your > departure point is similar to mine: considering legacy, can there be real > disjunctive events in the field of Internet governance? To be honest the question came from John Curran, but I admit this was something I've been wondering for quite a while. It seems to me discussions and debates in this field are rather repetitive and the overall structures / processes do not really seem designed to allow "disruptive" ideas to emerge (never mind whether / how they could be implemented). But it might be just my anecdotal impression and this is why I was asking if some serious research had been done. I also have the impression these discussions suffer very much from "Internet exceptionalism", and this is why I was asking if research on multi-stakeholder systems in other areas had been conducted. Ciao, -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Tue Dec 4 23:51:23 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 23:51:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bene, I understand your concern. My fellowship supervisor here at the National Center for Digital Government works with the notion of "digitally mediated institutional development." (reference attached bellow). She is a long-standing researcher who surveys the role of organizational and institutional variables in the enactment of technology for digital governance. As she likes to point out, "after twenty years of digital governance", there is a lot of evidence of path-dependency following decisions, long-term trends in agency action, as well as institutional stability. Whenever you have legacy, agency favoring the status quo and institutional constraints for reforms/revolutions, it seems that disjunctions might only be the exception. I'm working to connect the dots between those theoretical notions and the field of Internet governance in my dissertation. Regards Diego http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1916392 *Abstract: * Current attention to social media and governance has focused on the enactment of networked communication and information use by and for governance with particular attention to the role of civil society. This paper argues that such a focus, while illuminating a possibly utopian perspective on political participation, often obscures even recent government reforms, existing institutional arrangements, and the myriad processes by which knowledge is translated to action in political settings. Drawing from and extending core perspectives within historical institutionalism, the paper examines three streams of theory and research: temporal models, coordination models, and the political effects of public policies where policies themselves may be conceptualized as institutions. Illustrations are drawn from American and European politics and used to ground as well as to probe models. The objective of the paper is a conceptualization that rebalances attention between agency and structure and that simultaneously considers the political past as well as the future. *Number of Pages in PDF File:* 50 *Keywords:* institutions, institutional change, networked governance, e-government, public management, public administration On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < > diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Your research question is very interesting, Andrea. I wonder if your >> departure point is similar to mine: considering legacy, can there be real >> disjunctive events in the field of Internet governance? > > > To be honest the question came from John Curran, but I admit this was > something I've been wondering for quite a while. It seems to me discussions > and debates in this field are rather repetitive and the overall structures > / processes do not really seem designed to allow "disruptive" ideas to > emerge (never mind whether / how they could be implemented). But it might > be just my anecdotal impression and this is why I was asking if some > serious research had been done. > > I also have the impression these discussions suffer very much from > "Internet exceptionalism", and this is why I was asking if research on > multi-stakeholder systems in other areas had been conducted. > > Ciao, > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep > it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Dec 5 00:12:32 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 06:12:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Diego, On Dec 5, 2012 5:51 AM, "Diego Rafael Canabarro" wrote: > > Bene, > I understand your concern. My fellowship supervisor here at the National Center for Digital Government works with the notion of "digitally mediated institutional development." (reference attached bellow). She is a long-standing researcher who surveys the role of organizational and institutional variables in the enactment of technology for digital governance. As she likes to point out, "after twenty years of digital governance", there is a lot of evidence of path-dependency following decisions, long-term trends in agency action, as well as institutional stability. Whenever you have legacy, agency favoring the status quo and institutional constraints for reforms/revolutions, it seems that disjunctions might only be the exception. I'm working to connect the dots between those theoretical notions and the field of Internet governance in my dissertation. Thanks a lot for the reference to this paper. I would be more than interested to know more about the development of your research. Best, Andrea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 5 04:08:42 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:38:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Who should govern the internet?" - a set of interesting panels Message-ID: Well worth watching. Includes several people active on this list. http://www.newamerica.net/events/2012/who_should_govern_the_internet -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 05:13:57 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:13:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Pandora Goes After Artist Royalties In Big Risk Message-ID: <50BF1E65.2060309@gmail.com> Jason Cherkis Become a fan jason.cherkis at huffingtonpost.com Pandora Goes After Artist Royalties In Big Risk Posted: 12/04/2012 6:19 pm EST Updated: 12/04/2012 6:34 pm EST WASHINGTON -- Since Pandora launched its Internet radio service in 2007, it has grown from a startup facing near-bankruptcy to a leader of the digital streaming market. With more than 60 million users in the past month, the company is now estimated to be worth billions, with revenue doubling every year. "On the growth side, it's been a wonderful story," founder Tim Westergren declared at a recent conference . "Our listenership just keeps exploding, and so does our revenue." It's quite a success for a company that sold itself as an artist-friendly, transformational force that didn't just make radio cool again, but also offered -- through royalty fees -- a potential path to prosperity for musicians who've seen physical record sales plummet. Westergren is a musician himself, and takes pride in championing indies and majors alike. Pandora uses an algorithm that essentially modernized the much beloved free-form radio formats of the 1960s and '70s. But Pandora has come to see its dominant market share not as an against-all-odds triumph, but as a burden. The more successful it became, the more money it paid musicians in royalties. Lowering its rate, the company has argued, would make it easier for Internet radio companies to thrive, theoretically providing more ways for artists to get compensated. Last week, Pandora CEO Joe Kennedy appeared at a hearing on Capitol Hill in support of the Internet Radio Fairness Act, or IFRA, which would lower the amount of royalties that Pandora and other Internet radio services pay to artists. The industry has estimated the act would allow Pandora to reduce payments to artists by as much as 85 percent. The company has been spending big to make its case in Washington. Pandora dished out $180,000 on lobbying in 2011 and $160,000 in 2012, according to the Center For Responsive Politics. For much of its lobbying this year , the company retained TwinLogic Strategies, whose other clients include Amazon, Chevron, Motorola and Yahoo. During the past election cycle, Westergren donated more than $65,000 to candidates, a PAC and state Democratic Party organizations, including $2,000 to Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who introduced the Internet Radio Fairness Act. Westergren also has given thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to members of the House Judiciary Committee, which could help steer legislation friendly to Pandora. But all of Pandora's lobbying in support for the bill has antagonized musicians, and lawmakers. If it's not careful, industry insiders said, Pandora could end up jeopardizing their business. "Pandora has to be applauded for doing such great work to grow the webcasting marketplace," said Casey Rae, deputy director of theFuture of Music Coalition . "Over the years it's been pretty clear there's been major benefits to musicians. ... When you are looking at IRFA and the potential effects -- the sheen starts to come off a bit." The bill has attracted a We-Are-The-World collection of foes, with musicians, unions and industry executives joining forces. More than 100 artists and musicians across all major genres -- including big-name stars like Katy Perry, Rihanna and Cee Lo Green -- signed an open letter in Billboard magazine in November opposing Pandora and the Internet Radio Fairness Act. The NAACP has also attacked the bill. Pandora's push seems to have stripped the company of a lot of the goodwill it had built within the industry and put the spotlight on its balance sheets. Musicians argue that Pandora already pays them a pittance. "When you do the math, it's horrifying for an artist," Eric Hilton, who runs ESL Music and is one half of the band Thievery Corporation, told The Huffington Post in an email. Laura Ballance , co-founder of one of the most successful indie labels, Merge Records , whose roster includes bands such as Arcade Fire, the Magnetic Fields and Spoon, said she isn't happy with Pandora's current rate either. "It should be higher," she told HuffPost. "It doesn't make me feel badly for [Pandora] at all that they should be paying out half of their revenue or more to artists -- that is entirely how their revenue is generated." At the hearing last week before the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, Jimmy Jam, the famed R&B producer and songwriter, calculated that for every spin of a song on Pandora, the copyright holders and musicians get just one-tenth of one cent. "Put another way, the listener would have to hear that song on Pandora every single day for nearly two years to equal the payments" from one digital purchase on Amazon, Jimmy Jam said. He noted that for each 99-cent download on Amazon, the company pays about 70 cents to rights holders and creators. Lawmakers on the committee questioned whether royalty rates were the real problem, pointing out that traditional FM/AM stations pay no royalties to performers at all. Rather than lowering the rates that Pandora pays, some congressmen proposed that getting terrestrial radio stations to pay up could be part of a fairer, more comprehensive solution. Others suggested that Pandora might need to fix its business model and perhaps sell more ads. "We need to find a solution that brings together all stakeholders and ensures that we are not back here in another year adjusting the rates again and inserting ourselves into the market," Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) said in an e-mail statement to HuffPost after the hearing. But Kennedy, Pandora's CEO, maintained that the solution is to lower the rates his company pays to artists, telling HuffPost that the company is not interested in lobbying radio to start paying royalties. "We don't have a dog in that fight," he said. "We think it's important that Internet radio not be held hostage to that issue." Pandora's legislative push has exposed the company as far short of the transformational force it has hoped to be. It may have a musician as a founder, but it's still a publicly traded company with shareholders to please. The company, critics said, seems less inclined to revolutionize the music business than to enhance its stock price. "These are all investment bankers," said Danny Goldberg , a veteran manager and former label executive with Warner and Atlantic. He said Pandora is no different than industry's heavyweights. "They are all cut from the same cloth, which is fight for any penny. ... I don't know where the self-righteousness comes from." "Maybe Pandora's business doesn't work," Goldberg said. "That's okay. There's no inherent moral right to have a business plan work." If Pandora's business model is going to work, it needs musicians and record labels to buy in and supply it with content. Having a deep catalog of music is essential for any digital music startup looking to attract users (and venture capital funding). A lower royalty rate could mean a smaller catalog. "I think that some artists and musicians would indeed pull out of the company if Pandora manages to get the rate lowered," Ballance said. If Pandora's users start finding that their favorite bands aren't available through the radio service, they may migrate elsewhere. At least for now, the vast majority of artists do not have the rights to pull their songs from Pandora. But as they sour on the Internet radio service, they are starting to search for alternatives. Damon Krukowski, a member of indie icons Galaxie 500 and Damon & Naomi, began streaming his music for free at his own site partly in response to what he considered to be Pandora's and fellow Internet music service Spotify's paltry royalties. He detailed his decision in a Pitchfork essay , which became something of a sensation. "The reaction [to the essay] has been a surprise to me, just in that there was so much of it," Krukowski told HuffPost. "I didn't break any news -- those royalty rates have been discussed before. ... I'm always glad to share information and ideas with other musicians. In my experience, we depend on one another for that kind of help. Who else can we ask about that kind of thing, other than one another?" All the uncertainty in the digital realm reminded Krukowski of being a young indie rocker in the 1980s, when putting out an album and organizing a tour required a pioneering spirit. "There's no normal again," he explained. "I don't think anybody has an answer. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. It might just get very creative." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 06:01:55 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 12:01:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Smartphones in China References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD6F2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/12/04/smartphone-makers-worried-over-new-china-requirements/tab/print/ FYI w -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Wed Dec 5 09:24:08 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 18:24:08 +0400 Subject: [governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs In-Reply-To: References: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: On 5 Dec 2012, at 01:11, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 4, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> And I would think it good it this particular model was reviewed for something more fitting to the current realties and needs. This is no longer 1993 or the age of RFC 1518. > > Agreed. Presently, we're up to about 1996, i.e. age of RFC 2050, > and specifically with respect to ARIN, we allow transfers to > recipients within the ARIN region, as well as to recipients > who are in another region. Transfer policy does reflect the > "documented need" principles expressed in RFC2050: > > "7. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be > approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain > the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were > requesting an IP address directly from the IR." Indeed, but this is still based on the CIDR as the prevailing reason for the allocation guidelines. It is not the guideline, so much, that I am questioning, but the prevailing reason that establishes the criteria discussed in those guidelines. If the demands of a hierarchical routing structure no longer hold in today's de-facto flattened routing architecture, then perhaps the reason behind the guidelines needs review and possible revision. We need policies and guidelines that reflect current realties. I question whether that is currently the case. > > I don't know whether this approach is good or bad, but do know > that it has received extensive discussion both online and in > many of ARIN's public policy meetings, and in the end was deemed > to be supported by the community. Discussions subsequent to the > ARIN's original transfer policy have enjoyed even more participation > from those in the legacy community and emerging address broker > community, with the result being changes to consider longer need- > assessment horizons (and therefor supporting transfer of larger > address blocks) as well as the change to allow Inter-RIR transfers. > > While I won't judge the resulting policy, I will say that the > overall multistakeholder policy development process seems to > working fairly well with respect to discussions of incremental > change. I harbor a concern that incremental change may be the > only type of change that open multistakeholder deliberations > can actually support, as the discussions of more revolutionary > changes seem to inevitably jump to more authoritarian questions > such as "who is charge", "who can approve this", etc. This is > a topic worth thinking about in general about MS governance > processes. I very much agree with an evolutionary approach to Internet architectural change. And while this is not the place to get into it, I would contend that the primary reason some of the major changes some are attempting to make in the network aren't as effective as some would hope, was that evolutionary approaches were not well enough studied, understood or implemented. I think as Internet architects a lot can be learned from evolutionary theory. But getting back to the point. The problem rests not with the NTIA, but with us as the stakeholders. And on that, I think we agree. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 09:33:18 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:03:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's second update .. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50BF5B2E.6050609@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 04 December 2012 11:24 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Tis, after minister Sibal held a bunch of multistakeholder > consultations, and then blandly said that while there was no time to > submit changed documents, India's viewpoints at WCIT would not let the > ITU be involved in igov, The minister said no such thing. He said that it is certainly not India's intention that ITU gets into content regulation, and if there is any misconception about it coming from the existing language they are ready to amend it to that extent. I inter alia suggested at the meeting with the minister that language promoting freedom of expression be proposed for the preamble to the ITRs, and promised to provide such language. The enclosed was submitted to the minister's office a few days back.... As the enclosed submission suggests, we remain rather concerned that while ENTO like specific proposals will surely not go through, some more cleverly and lightly put language, as we saw in the Indian proposal, that opens the door for a 'sender pays' regime in the future, may still get in. /* It is our view that the greatest loss coming from the WCIT and new ITRs could such kind of language that is not very specific, but suggests the possibility of a sender pays regime in the future. It would at least give an anti net neutrality signal to the regulators at the national levels. */ In order to protect net neutrality, it is not enough for civil society to oppose ETNO proposal. Everyone knows that without regulation, net neutrality cannot survive. It will certainly be violated. Market forces left to themselves will undoubtedly move towards a non net neutral Internet. And therefore the only way to save net neutrality is to get a global agreement on net neutrality as an essential, or at least important, principle. ITRs,, and I quote from the text of the existing ITRs, 'establish general principles which relate to the provision and operation of international telecommunication services' Therefore, the ITRs is the right place to get net neutrality, as a key principle of an egalitarian Internet, mentioned as a global norm. Unfortunately, even the civil society did not fight for it - so anxious it has been to keep 'the Internet out of the ITRs'. In having done so they may have given up the case of global net neutrality - something that was recently identified as a key cross border Internet policy issue by an experts group of the Council of Europe. We did suggest to the Indian delegation to insert pro net neutrality language as below ( instead of the problematic text that is there at present in the Indian position. ) /*Member States should endeavour to take measures to ensure that there is no discrimination by network operators vis a vis different sources of content, and the principle of net neutrality, including in terms of global inter-connections, is upheld as far as possible. */ But without any support even from the civil society for such a position we dont see much chance of this text getting in. parminder > and would support the multistakeholder model > > Now we have http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/ind/20/2 .. A single > paragraph that seems to imply that one government shouldn't ddos the > other. > > Sheesh. > > --srs (iPad) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ITfC's Input for Indian position on ITRs.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 109831 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 vanda at uol.com.br Wed Dec 5 09:39:15 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 12:39:15 -0200 Subject: RES: [governance] India's second update .. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014d01cdd2f6$4fc87f20$ef597d60$@uol.com.br> Glad to hear! Hope hthe Minister will convince our Minister! De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Suresh Ramasubramanian Enviada em: terça-feira, 4 de dezembro de 2012 15:54 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: Pranesh Prakash Assunto: [governance] India's second update .. Tis, after minister Sibal held a bunch of multistakeholder consultations, and then blandly said that while there was no time to submit changed documents, India's viewpoints at WCIT would not let the ITU be involved in igov, and would support the multistakeholder model Now we have http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/ind/20/2 .. A single paragraph that seems to imply that one government shouldn't ddos the other. Sheesh. --srs (iPad) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 09:42:22 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 09:42:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs In-Reply-To: References: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 5 Dec 2012, at 01:11, John Curran wrote: > >> On Dec 4, 2012, at 2:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> And I would think it good it this particular model was reviewed for something more fitting to the current realties and needs. This is no longer 1993 or the age of RFC 1518. >> >> Agreed. Presently, we're up to about 1996, i.e. age of RFC 2050, >> and specifically with respect to ARIN, we allow transfers to >> recipients within the ARIN region, as well as to recipients >> who are in another region. Transfer policy does reflect the >> "documented need" principles expressed in RFC2050: >> >> "7. The transfer of IP addresses from one party to another must be >> approved by the regional registries. The party trying to obtain >> the IP address must meet the same criteria as if they were >> requesting an IP address directly from the IR." > > > Indeed, but this is still based on the CIDR as the prevailing reason for the allocation guidelines. > > It is not the guideline, so much, that I am questioning, but the prevailing reason that establishes the criteria discussed in those guidelines. If the demands of a hierarchical routing structure no longer hold in today's de-facto flattened routing architecture Is this really the case? My ISP is my LIR and routes my packets to and fro for me. I think this is still the paradigm for most folks, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 5 09:48:38 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 20:18:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] India's second update .. In-Reply-To: <50BF5B2E.6050609@itforchange.net> References: <50BF5B2E.6050609@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <23D10C81-3E34-4339-AA1B-A176F36D08D9@hserus.net> He also did say in Baku, as I recall, that "the internet and governance were oxymorons, and there was a need for a collaborative, inclusive [etc] process" Sender pays regimes are present across multiple country submissions, including at least some language I think I noticed that makes them mandatory without the possibility of optout, should a country (or rather, most of the OECD economies) choose to step away from the ITRs and/or refuse to ratify certain sections as amended. --srs (iPad) On 05-Dec-2012, at 20:03, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 04 December 2012 11:24 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Tis, after minister Sibal held a bunch of multistakeholder consultations, and then blandly said that while there was no time to submit changed documents, India's viewpoints at WCIT would not let the ITU be involved in igov, > > The minister said no such thing. He said that it is certainly not India's intention that ITU gets into content regulation, and if there is any misconception about it coming from the existing language they are ready to amend it to that extent. > > I inter alia suggested at the meeting with the minister that language promoting freedom of expression be proposed for the preamble to the ITRs, and promised to provide such language. The enclosed was submitted to the minister's office a few days back.... > > As the enclosed submission suggests, we remain rather concerned that while ENTO like specific proposals will surely not go through, some more cleverly and lightly put language, as we saw in the Indian proposal, that opens the door for a 'sender pays' regime in the future, may still get in. > > It is our view that the greatest loss coming from the WCIT and new ITRs could such kind of language that is not very specific, but suggests the possibility of a sender pays regime in the future. It would at least give an anti net neutrality signal to the regulators at the national levels. > > In order to protect net neutrality, it is not enough for civil society to oppose ETNO proposal. Everyone knows that without regulation, net neutrality cannot survive. It will certainly be violated. Market forces left to themselves will undoubtedly move towards a non net neutral Internet. And therefore the only way to save net neutrality is to get a global agreement on net neutrality as an essential, or at least important, principle. ITRs,, and I quote from the text of the existing ITRs, > 'establish general principles which relate to the provision and operation of international telecommunication services' > > Therefore, the ITRs is the right place to get net neutrality, as a key principle of an egalitarian Internet, mentioned as a global norm. Unfortunately, even the civil society did not fight for it - so anxious it has been to keep 'the Internet out of the ITRs'. In having done so they may have given up the case of global net neutrality - something that was recently identified as a key cross border Internet policy issue by an experts group of the Council of Europe. > > We did suggest to the Indian delegation to insert pro net neutrality language as below ( instead of the problematic text that is there at present in the Indian position. ) > > Member States should endeavour to take measures to ensure that there is no discrimination by network operators vis a vis different sources of content, and the principle of net neutrality, including in terms of global inter-connections, is upheld as far as possible. > > > But without any support even from the civil society for such a position we dont see much chance of this text getting in. > > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > >> and would support the multistakeholder model >> >> Now we have http://news.dot-nxt.com/itu/wcit/ind/20/2 .. A single paragraph that seems to imply that one government shouldn't ddos the other. >> >> Sheesh. >> >> --srs (iPad) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 avri at acm.org Wed Dec 5 09:59:08 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 18:59:08 +0400 Subject: [governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs In-Reply-To: References: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: Hi, Yes, but there are very few levels of hierarchy, nothing like what was expected in 1993/95. By and large the structure is flat and the tables are large and the routers can handle it, especially when you consider that routing is mostly based on AS numbers and peering rather than on prefix length. Also living in a world where routers need to support both v6 routing information tables and v4 routing information tables, a few extra prefixes are not anybody's routing problem these days. avri On 5 Dec 2012, at 18:42, McTim wrote: > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> >> Indeed, but this is still based on the CIDR as the prevailing reason for the allocation guidelines. >> >> It is not the guideline, so much, that I am questioning, but the prevailing reason that establishes the criteria discussed in those guidelines. If the demands of a hierarchical routing structure no longer hold in today's de-facto flattened routing architecture > > Is this really the case? > > My ISP is my LIR and routes my packets to and fro for me. I think > this is still the paradigm for most folks, 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 5 10:04:32 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 20:34:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs In-Reply-To: References: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: <653BAB14-1DA4-4433-95F2-9D3F3023194F@hserus.net> That would be news to Geoff Huston and Philip Smith, who have been publishing the CIDR report for years, requesting ASNs to aggregate their v4 announcements. www.cidr-report.org Full routing tables due to overly prolific announcements is already a concern with v4 - and it remains to be seen how routing tables look and how you feel like when you are faced with periodic router upgrade bills just to deal with exploding routing table size. In other words - routing table bloat definitely remains a problem, even with newer and more powerful routers. --srs (iPad) On 05-Dec-2012, at 20:29, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, but there are very few levels of hierarchy, nothing like what was expected in 1993/95. By and large the structure is flat and the tables are large and the routers can handle it, especially when you consider that routing is mostly based on AS numbers and peering rather than on prefix length. > > Also living in a world where routers need to support both v6 routing information tables and v4 routing information tables, a few extra prefixes are not anybody's routing problem these >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 10:38:18 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 07:38:18 -0800 Subject: [governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs In-Reply-To: References: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: <1992EF00-B1CC-4717-ABEB-CAFD9EB4495F@virtualized.org> On Dec 5, 2012, at 6:42 AM, McTim wrote: >> Indeed, but this is still based on the CIDR as the prevailing reason for the allocation guidelines. >> >> It is not the guideline, so much, that I am questioning, but the prevailing reason that establishes the criteria discussed in those guidelines. If the demands of a hierarchical routing structure no longer hold in today's de-facto flattened routing architecture > > Is this really the case? No. 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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 12:22:03 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 09:22:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign Message-ID: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jodywestby/2012/12/04/googles-media-campaign-aga inst-the-un-slapped-down/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 14:03:10 2012 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 11:03:10 -0800 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Two Cheers for Anarchism: Six Easy Pieces on Autonomy, Dignity, and Meaningful Work and Play by James C. Scott (Oct 14, 2012) Amazon description here: http://www.amazon.com/Two-Cheers-Anarchism-Autonomy-Meaningful/dp/0691155291/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1354733902&sr=1-1&keywords=two+cheers+for+anarchism+six+easy+pieces+on+autonomy For me, the author presents a useful backdrop for considering what works and what doesn't and why. Sylvia -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 14:04:34 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 20:04:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign In-Reply-To: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> Thanks Michaël. In the United States, it does still exist free spirits who can think critically. Under the Google and alii propaganda tsunami, it's not so easy. -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 05/12/12 18:22, michael gurstein a écrit : > http://www.forbes.com/sites/jodywestby/2012/12/04/googles-media-campaign-aga > inst-the-un-slapped-down/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 14:26:29 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 19:26:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> "Frankly", development of the TCP/IP protocols were supported by military research contracts, which had no intention of supporting a commercial industry. "The Internet" spread to the general population and succeeded because of telecommunications liberalization and a free market. The government played an important role in facilitating that process by privatizing control and paving the way for competition among ISPs. There is no doubt about that. While we are being frank, perhaps you can tell me how successful European efforts to subsidize search engine technology to compete with Google has been? Please frankly, Milton, did internet begin in the US by free market or by the US Gov action? @+, Dom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 14:37:03 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 19:37:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50BCFC39.9040200@panamo.eu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCFC39.9040200@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> So Google and other application/content providers pay nothing for telecom infrastructures? And the Google employees who live in the countries pay no income taxes, no VAT,? And the offices they own pay no rent or no property taxes? I suggest that you think more before you write such things. (And since when were telecom infrastructures supported by taxes? Have you entered the 21st century yet, or are you still in the 19th century system of state-owned PTTs?) The discussion is not about whether anyone should ever pay any taxes. The discussion is about your assumption that all taxes are good, and no taxation is ever too much. It is similar to the stupid conversations we have about the military budget (or school budgets) in the U.S. If you challenge the size of the military budget a host of rightwing nationalists will start screaming about how dangerous the world is and how important national security is. But they do not tell us why are no safer now than we were when the budget was 1/10th of its current size. If you challenge the size of school spending, teachers unions will start screaming about how vital education is. But they will not say anything about the frequent lack of correlation between spending and improved education. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dominique Lacroix Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 2:24 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Le 03/12/12 15:36, Milton L Mueller a écrit : Suresh, I think the debates are related. Now it is not just ETNO and the old telecom incumbents who want to grab a share of the new wealth being generated by over the top internet services, it's national governments as well. The wealth created by the Internet companies that do not pay taxes is a catch, the result of cuckoo economy models. They do not pay neither for telecom infrastructures, nor for others: roads, schools, justice, military, police, customs, safety organizations: everything that enable firms to develop their business and do commerce in peace. So what is new here? Governments want to tax whatever they can for their own (political) self-interest, while businesses (and most citizens) want to reduce their taxes as much as possible. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 14:50:07 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 19:50:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign In-Reply-To: <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BD2E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> I was debunking the ITU scare 6 months ago, though without the anti-Google overtones. Regarding the latter, it might be good if you knew a bit more about who Jody Westby is and what she stands for CEO of Global Cyber Risk LLC, a boutique firm that provides first-tier advisory, forensic, and technical services to corporations, non-profit organizations, and governments, focusing on privacy, security, cybercrime, and breach management. She launched In-Q-Tel, an IT solutions/venture capital company founded by the CIA She was appointed to the United Nations' ITU High Level Experts Group on Cyber Security and chaired the development of the ITU Toolkit for Cybercrime Legislation. She was co-author and editor of the United Nations' ITU 2010 publication, The Quest for Cyber Peace. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dominique Lacroix Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2:05 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign Thanks Michaël. In the United States, it does still exist free spirits who can think critically. Under the Google and alii propaganda tsunami, it's not so easy. -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 05/12/12 18:22, michael gurstein a écrit : http://www.forbes.com/sites/jodywestby/2012/12/04/googles-media-campaign-aga inst-the-un-slapped-down/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 14:51:46 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 19:51:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs In-Reply-To: References: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BD4B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Avri: Would the dual stack world where routers must handle BOTH v6 and v4 tables mean that routing table bloat is more of a problem than ever? (This is a question, not rhetoric) Yes, but there are very few levels of hierarchy, nothing like what was expected in 1993/95. By and large the structure is flat and the tables are large and the routers can handle it, especially when you consider that routing is mostly based on AS numbers and peering rather than on prefix length. Also living in a world where routers need to support both v6 routing information tables and v4 routing information tables, a few extra prefixes are not anybody's routing problem these days. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 15:01:12 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 20:01:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50BD5FD7.50301@ITforChange.net> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BD14BD.4010703@gmail.com> <50BD5FD7.50301@ITforChange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BD78@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Riaz, on economics: I am not a neoclassicist but an institutionalist. But of course you don't know the difference, do you? Let's not have an ideological debate. It is uninteresting to me. Let's have a relevant, factual one. Take a look at the facts about telephone penetration in any society that had a state-owned monopoly before and after competition was introduced in the 1990s or before. If there is some specific point you want to make about market failures and how specific policies helped to overcome them, make it. On 12/04/2012 02:38 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: It is one thing to claim this in fact and then generalise the principle that markets "do best". The same cannot be said for eg on the railroad revolution in the US - which enjoyed massive subsidies. In many developing countries, regulation that fixed the number of operators ensured a mix of competition and oligopoly to fund the high infrastructure entry costs by limiting the number of entrants. In other areas, other publicly established infrastructure was utilised as well (in some countries to improve coverage, UCTAD recommends intervention - sharing of infrastructure costs like cell masts). In the US railroad revolution the sharing of these fixed infrastructure costs (from taxes) in this way improved American economic performance. If one used neoclassical economics to judge the impact of the transformational railroad, the result is that it "only" improved US economic performance by 3 to 4%. This was such a major change in the US economy (it integrated the US as a single market - a huge increase in scale). Contrary to the ahistorical writing of history by neoclassicals , the American economic system in its formative years was radically different from neoclassicals- rather following Alex Hamilton, Richard Ely, Daniel Raymond, Frederich List... Then, the understanding was that low cost infrastructure enhanced economic performance/production. Nowadays, the neoclassicals believe that "free" infrastructure is bad, and to improve competitiveness things must be privatised or private - the tollbooth economy. Arguments against regulation, as the neoclassicals do, actually reduce democractic choices about how markets can be shaped and structured - and how plastic they are - which is no wonder that oligopolists/monopolists love the arguments on "free markets" because what while what may be "true" in theory is very beneficial to them in fact. In some of these markets the market is too violent and perhaps the possibility of looking at the functioning of the extant reality - oligopolistic market structures: which are not going to disappear with neoclassical utopia of perfect competition just around the corner if we only would liberalise and deregulate more and faster. While perhaps not directed at Mueller per se, but it would take much more to deal credibly with an economic theory (or its prescriptions - neoclassical) after a financial crisis which for it is a theoretical impossibility: i.e. it cannot happen. But it did. So the neoclassical jingle of leaving it to markets is controversial. Markets do work, and when they do they should be left well alone. But do markets always work? Well that simply depends... On 2012/12/03 08:29 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: Just so you know: competition and liberalization have done more to extend telecom infrastructure to the largest number of people than any social equity program. Taxes and subsidies (at best) pick up the margins/ high cost areas, the really poor, but the real work is always done by the market. At worst, taxes and subsidies keep monopoly incumbents in place, prevent new technologies from emerging, and raise costs. From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] I would be the first one to argue for a transparent, net neutral, open access, free speech Internet but I'm also for an inclusive Internet in a decent socially equitable environment with proper schools, and healthcare, and an adequate physical and social infrastructure for all, not just for the rich (or those in rich countries) and that means that companies, like everyone else has to pay their fair share. Greed is greed and the best way to keep from paying taxes as you have pointed out, is to make sure that there are no laws/regulations in place to require you to pay taxes. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 6:36 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Dominique Lacroix' Subject: RE: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Suresh, I think the debates are related. Now it is not just ETNO and the old telecom incumbents who want to grab a share of the new wealth being generated by over the top internet services, it's national governments as well. So what is new here? Governments want to tax whatever they can for their own (political) self-interest, while businesses (and most citizens) want to reduce their taxes as much as possible. What's interesting is how un-selfconsciously the Dominiques and Gursteins of the world assume that more taxation = always better for society. Not a shred of critical perspective on the governments' demands for more revenue. And as usual, Gurstein approaches the debate by attaching labels ("Reaganomics") rather than mounting a serious argument. Do governments have some kind of right to these revenues? If so, what is the basis? If so, what is a reasonable rate of taxation? How are these revenues used? How do they benefit the internet users who generated them? Might be good for you all to contemplate the answers to some of those questions. The implication of your statement is that more taxation is always better. You don’t have to be a supply-side economist to understand that taxation can reach a point of diminishing returns and that it can destroy economic activity as well as help sustain social services. Please, a more intelligent perspective on this… Some Internet companies can escape taxes because their activities aren't linked to territories. Others are linked to countries and pay full taxes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 15:05:17 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:05:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BD2E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BD2E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50BFA8FD.8080500@panamo.eu> I read who is Jody Westbybefore answering Michaël's post. But I'm used to comment writings on the basis of what they tell and not on the basis of who is the author. I don't like /ad feminam/ arguments ;-) Yes, In-Q-Tel is another example of US Gov's action in the field of Internet... I was just writing that to you in another answer to be posted... @+, Dominique Le 05/12/12 20:50, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > > I was debunking the ITU scare 6 months ago, though without the > anti-Google overtones. Regarding the latter, it might be good if you > knew a bit more about who Jody Westby is and what she stands for > > CEO of Global Cyber Risk LLC, a boutique firm that provides first-tier > advisory, forensic, and technical services to corporations, non-profit > organizations, and governments, focusing on privacy, security, > cybercrime, and breach management. > > She launched In-Q-Tel, an IT solutions/venture capital company founded > by the CIA > > She was appointed to the United Nations' ITU High Level Experts Group > on Cyber Security and chaired the development of the ITU /Toolkit for > Cybercrime Legislation/. She was co-author and editor of the United > Nations' ITU 2010 publication, /The Quest for Cyber Peace/. > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of > *Dominique Lacroix > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2:05 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign > > Thanks Michaël. > In the United States, it does still exist free spirits who can think > critically. > Under the Google and alii propaganda tsunami, it's not so easy. > > -- > Dominique Lacroix > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr > > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > Le 05/12/12 18:22, michael gurstein a écrit : > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/jodywestby/2012/12/04/googles-media-campaign-aga > > inst-the-un-slapped-down/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 15:06:25 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 15:06:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign In-Reply-To: <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Thanks Michaël. > In the United States, it does still exist free spirits who can think > critically. > So you are saying that CDT, AccessNow, ISOC and a number of other respected CS groups aren't thinking critically? > > Under the Google and alii propaganda tsunami, it's not so easy. > Have you read the leaked ITU retreat notes that outlined their own propaganda campaign? -- 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 Dec 5 15:11:12 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:11:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCFC39.9040200@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50BFAA60.8040802@panamo.eu> Le 05/12/12 20:37, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > The discussion is about your assumption that all taxes are good, and > no taxation is ever too much. Where the deuce did you read that? In my posts, it's impossible, as I don't think that. Milton, are you discussing with another Dominique? @+, Dom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 15:19:51 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:19:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign In-Reply-To: References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <50BFAC67.9060902@panamo.eu> Le 05/12/12 21:06, McTim a écrit : > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Dominique Lacroix
> wrote: > > Thanks Michaël. > In the United States, it does still exist free spirits who can > think critically. > > > > So you are saying that CDT, AccessNow, ISOC and a number of other > respected CS groups aren't thinking critically? Beside some good ideas, Isoc is a war machine. They fight for US IT industry, that is their sponsors. They sent 50 delegates to the WCIT. And they tell that it's a locked meeting! They have a great influence and can bring reasonable organisations with them. @+, Dom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 15:24:02 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 12:24:02 -0800 Subject: [governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs In-Reply-To: References: <50be19a0.KtTF/3rRG58bqsBM%suresh@hserus.net> Message-ID: <09C31896-6235-4E49-BB7F-0DB6CD978180@virtualized.org> Avri, On Dec 5, 2012, at 6:59 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Yes, but there are very few levels of hierarchy, nothing like what was expected in 1993/95. Network operators (as opposed to protocol designers) were quite well aware that it was unlikely that the routing hierarchy would get very deep and argued quite strongly in the IETF that a new routing architecture was necessary. The network operators were told their input wasn't necessary (and many network operators are still bitter about this). This unfortunately did not stop the protocol designers from coming up with proposals completely divorced from reality like RFC 2450. > By and large the structure is flat and the tables are large and the routers can handle it, As I've been told: it's not the size that matters, it's the magic that's in it. The amount of routes a router can accept is less important than the time it takes to propagate and converge those routes. Without hierarchy, individual hosts going up and down must be propagated globally to each "core" (that is, without a default route) router. This simply will not scale. As you're aware, the current routing system is two or three levels of hierarchy: your machine's address isn't advertised to the routing system individually, it is aggregated into your organization's or service provider's prefix. If your service provider is small, it is possible that their prefixes are aggregated into their service provider's prefixes. But that's usually as far as it goes. This means the routing system more or less scales to the number of service providers which is (probably) doable. Where things get sticky is when the routing system has to scale to the number of organizations or infinitely worse, devices (think: cell phones as personal routers for your "personal area network" with multiple carriers for reliability). The absolute size of the routing tables hasn't really been an issue since the mid- to late-90s. It is, of course, possible to throw huge piles of money at Cisco, Juniper, Huawei, et al. to get boxes with ever more insanely expensive content addressable memory in order to make forwarding decisions in the nanoseconds that you're given at today's line speeds, but how frequently do you want network operators to spend the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars necessary to redeploy their core network infrastructure hardware and who is going to pay for it? The real problems lie in transistor density (routing engines are already some of the largest and most complex chunks of silicon out there) and how long it takes to create new versions of that silicon, transistor element crosstalk (electronic noise jumping between metal traces separated by nanometers), power consumption, heat dissipation, etc. Ever look at how much it costs (both in money and in time) to buy, power, and cool a fully configured Cisco CRS-3? And people used to think class 5 telephone switches were too expensive... > especially when you consider that routing is mostly based on AS numbers and peering rather than on prefix length. AS numbers are merely a way of grouping prefixes so you can apply a particular routing policy in order to figure out where to send packets destined to those prefixes. The fact that routing policy is defined by groupings doesn't mean that a prefix dropping and coming back doesn't cause a routing update to be sent to all the world's "core" routers. > Also living in a world where routers need to support both v6 routing information tables and v4 routing information tables, a few extra prefixes are not anybody's routing problem these days. This is equivalent to saying that a few more coal burning power plants are not anybody's climate change problem these days. Perhaps true, until you look at how many plants are projected in (say) China. 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 Wed Dec 5 15:25:42 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:25:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> Le 05/12/12 20:26, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > > "Frankly", development of the TCP/IP protocols were supported by > military research contracts, which had no intention of supporting a > commercial industry. "The Internet" spread to the general population > and succeeded because of telecommunications liberalization and a free > market. > Dear Milton, you seem a little dizzy. You skipped merrily the NSF action in the 1981-1995 years... And then, also, the CIA action, via the In-Q-Tel venture capital firm, launched in 1999. And also the military orders in the advanced IT field. Perhaps I forget something. I'm also a bit dizzy... > > The government played an important role in facilitating that process > by privatizing control and paving the way for competition among ISPs. > There is no doubt about that. > Exact. And not enough: Google should be prosecuted for dominance abuse. > > While we are being frank, perhaps you can tell me how successful > European efforts to subsidize search engine technology to compete with > Google has been? > I assume you already heard about the networks effect that gives an advantage to the first big player. That's exactly why China and other countries protect their boundaries in order to help their IT industry to find existence. Do you think that Europe also ought to close their virtual boundaries? @+, Dom > Please frankly, Milton, did internet begin in the US by free market or > by the US Gov action? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 15:42:14 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 22:42:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BD78@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BD14BD.4010703@gmail.com> <50BD5FD7.50301@ITforChange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BD78@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50BFB1A6.7030705@gmail.com> My point, in case you missed it was that one cannot generalise about markets (from the specific proposition that holds in ICTs to a general outlook), as I understood your post. Markets work well under certain conditions, and can be made to work better in an enabling environment where "market failures" exist (and "market failure" is too commodious a term, when used as an exception to the rule of markets work best, a nuance I am sure you would appreciate). Even the neoclassical World Bank admits (after horrendous ideological implementation of privatisation - markets are best) that private ownership does not always improve performance. There are varieties of institutionalism (e.g Douglas North, the Ptolemite imho) and there are also those that hold that markets are created, and intensely political and/or structured by law and "habits". My evidence in point is that oligopolistic arrangements particularly as regards mobile in developing countries were also conducive to ICT diffusion. This is/was a political decision, also helped by low barriers to market entry in related sectors. And it also simply will not do to forget that the telecoms shebang was financed by a huge tech-bubble - that points to Institutional indicators that something was not quite right. Of course, given current circumstances of a financial bubble and currency wars, the creative destruction of capitalism in ICTs was far preferable. Not quite even the theory of second best... On 2012/12/05 10:01 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Riaz, on economics: I am not a neoclassicist but an institutionalist. > But of course you don't know the difference, do you? > > Let's not have an ideological debate. It is uninteresting to me. Let's > have a relevant, factual one. Take a look at the facts about telephone > penetration in any society that had a state-owned monopoly before and > after competition was introduced in the 1990s or before. If there is > some specific point you want to make about market failures and how > specific policies helped to overcome them, make it. > > On 12/04/2012 02:38 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > It is one thing to claim this in fact and then generalise the > principle that markets "do best". The same cannot be said for eg > on the railroad revolution in the US - which enjoyed massive > subsidies. In many developing countries, regulation that fixed the > number of operators ensured a mix of competition and oligopoly to > fund the high infrastructure entry costs by limiting the number of > entrants. In other areas, other publicly established > infrastructure was utilised as well (in some countries to improve > coverage, UCTAD recommends intervention - sharing of > infrastructure costs like cell masts). > > In the US railroad revolution the sharing of these fixed > infrastructure costs (from taxes) in this way improved American > economic performance. If one used neoclassical economics to judge > the impact of the transformational railroad, the result is that it > "only" improved US economic performance by 3 to 4%. This was such > a major change in the US economy (it integrated the US as a single > market - a huge increase in scale). Contrary to the ahistorical > writing of history by neoclassicals , the American economic system > in its formative years was radically different from neoclassicals- > rather following Alex Hamilton, Richard Ely, Daniel Raymond, > Frederich List... Then, the understanding was that low cost > infrastructure enhanced economic performance/production. Nowadays, > the neoclassicals believe that "free" infrastructure is bad, and > to improve competitiveness things must be privatised or private - > the tollbooth economy. > > Arguments against regulation, as the neoclassicals do, actually > reduce democractic choices about how markets can be shaped and > structured - and how plastic they are - which is no wonder that > oligopolists/monopolists love the arguments on "free markets" > because what while what may be "true" in theory is very beneficial > to them in fact. In some of these markets the market is too > violent and perhaps the possibility of looking at the functioning > of the extant reality - oligopolistic market structures: which are > not going to disappear with neoclassical utopia of perfect > competition just around the corner if we only would liberalise and > deregulate more and faster. > > While perhaps not directed at Mueller per se, but it would take > much more to deal credibly with an economic theory (or its > prescriptions - neoclassical) after a financial crisis which for > it is a theoretical impossibility: i.e. it cannot happen. But it did. > > So the neoclassical jingle of leaving it to markets is > controversial. Markets do work, and when they do they should be > left well alone. But do markets always work? Well that simply > depends... > > On 2012/12/03 08:29 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Just so you know: competition and liberalization have done > more to extend telecom infrastructure to the largest number of > people than any social equity program. Taxes and subsidies (at > best) pick up the margins/ high cost areas, the really poor, > but the real work is always done by the market. At worst, > taxes and subsidies keep monopoly incumbents in place, prevent > new technologies from emerging, and raise costs. > > *From:*michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > > > I would be the first one to argue for a transparent, net > neutral, open access, free speech Internet but I'm also for an > inclusive Internet in a decent socially equitable environment > with proper schools, and healthcare, and an adequate physical > and social infrastructure for all, not just for the rich (or > those in rich countries) and that means that companies, like > everyone else has to pay their fair share. > > Greed is greed and the best way to keep from paying taxes as > you have pointed out, is to make sure that there are no > laws/regulations in place to require you to pay taxes. > > M > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of > *Milton L Mueller > *Sent:* Monday, December 03, 2012 6:36 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; 'Dominique Lacroix' > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet > Freedom!"... (from taxes? > > Suresh, I think the debates are related. Now it is not just > ETNO and the old telecom incumbents who want to grab a share > of the new wealth being generated by over the top internet > services, it's national governments as well. So what is new > here? Governments want to tax whatever they can for their own > (political) self-interest, while businesses (and most > citizens) want to reduce their taxes as much as possible. > > What's interesting is how un-selfconsciously the Dominiques > and Gursteins of the world assume that more taxation = always > better for society. Not a shred of critical perspective on the > governments' demands for more revenue. And as usual, Gurstein > approaches the debate by attaching labels ("Reaganomics") > rather than mounting a serious argument. > > Do governments have some kind of right to these revenues? If > so, what is the basis? If so, what is a reasonable rate of > taxation? How are these revenues used? How do they benefit the > internet users who generated them? Might be good for you all > to contemplate the answers to some of those questions. The > implication of your statement is that more taxation is always > better. You don’t have to be a supply-side economist to > understand that taxation can reach a point of diminishing > returns and that it can destroy economic activity as well as > help sustain social services. Please, a more intelligent > perspective on this… > > Some Internet companies can escape taxes because their > activities aren't linked to territories. Others are linked to > countries and pay full taxes. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 15:44:58 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 20:44:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BDDC@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Milton, are you discussing with another Dominique? Unfortunately, not. I was hoping for Dominique Swain but she didn't answer my emails. Anyway, here as a reminder are your comments about taxation: Democracy has a cost, that must be covered by special contributions named taxes. No tax, no democracy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Dec 5 15:54:23 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:54:23 -0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Message-ID: 20th century in many cases - Brazil only privatized in 1998 (in a huge, government-sponsored stealing of public assets known in Brazil as the "privataria tucana"). --c.a. Carlos A. AfonsoMilton L Mueller escreveu:So Google and other application/content providers pay nothing for telecom infrastructures? And the Google employees who live in the countries pay no income taxes, no VAT,? And the offices they own pay no rent or no property taxes? I suggest that you think more before you write such things.   (And since when were telecom infrastructures supported by taxes? Have you entered the 21st century yet, or are you still in the 19th century system of state-owned PTTs?)   The discussion is not about whether anyone should ever pay any taxes. The discussion is about your assumption that all taxes are good, and no taxation is ever too much.     It is similar to the stupid conversations we have about the military budget (or school budgets) in the U.S. If you challenge the size of the military budget a host of rightwing nationalists will start screaming about how dangerous the world is and how important national security is. But they do not tell us why are no safer now than we were when the budget was 1/10th of its current size. If you challenge the size of school spending, teachers unions will start screaming about how vital education is. But they will not say anything about the frequent lack of correlation between spending and improved education.   From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dominique Lacroix Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 2:24 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes?   Le 03/12/12 15:36, Milton L Mueller a écrit : Suresh, I think the debates are related. Now it is not just ETNO and the old telecom incumbents who want to grab a share of the new wealth being generated by over the top internet services, it's national governments as well.  The wealth created by the Internet companies that do not pay taxes is a catch, the result of cuckoo economy models. They do not pay neither for telecom infrastructures, nor for others: roads, schools, justice, military, police, customs, safety organizations: everything that enable firms to develop their business and do commerce in peace. So what is new here? Governments want to tax whatever they can for their own (political) self-interest, while businesses (and most citizens) want to reduce their taxes as much as possible.   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 16:05:42 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 23:05:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> Frankly I am not sure what kind of institutionalist Milton is. This is not the Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Rayomond, Richard Ely, E Pershine Smith, Frederich List and JK Galbraith, who all had a keen head for facts and history. Britain used free trade ideas as a means to maintain its dominance over other nations. The workshop of the world that encouraged everyone to liberalise, that free trade (and then classical economics) was best. And in the Pax (?) Americana, neoclassical economics (in infinite disguises) and the Washington Consensus serves the same function. Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is room for disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry Milton, for some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be included in the "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from his Institutionalism - not having read all his work, is no different from American Exceptionalists on this list. Of course I am aware that in the American context(where what passes for progressive is quit different, this may well be the case. It simply cannot be generalised. And in the "competition" through subsidised efforts Europe builds capabilities - both the tech no-(harware) and -ology (its people). One of the key elements of benefiting from a network is that skills can be diffused. Consumption of technology rich goods is not the same as producing them. Actually in a reverse sort of way the status quoists (exceptionalists, Institutionalists of a special type, neoliberals, etc) seek to maintain the US dominance by playing to that nations comparative advantage - also in institutions like ICANN and the posse that goes with it. On 2012/12/05 10:25 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > Le 05/12/12 20:26, Milton L Mueller a écrit : >> >> "Frankly", development of the TCP/IP protocols were supported by >> military research contracts, which had no intention of supporting a >> commercial industry. "The Internet" spread to the general population >> and succeeded because of telecommunications liberalization and a free >> market. >> > Dear Milton, you seem a little dizzy. You skipped merrily the NSF > action in the 1981-1995 years... > And then, also, the CIA action, via the In-Q-Tel venture capital firm, > launched in 1999. > And also the military orders in the advanced IT field. > Perhaps I forget something. I'm also a bit dizzy... >> >> The government played an important role in facilitating that process >> by privatizing control and paving the way for competition among ISPs. >> There is no doubt about that. >> > Exact. And not enough: Google should be prosecuted for dominance abuse. >> >> While we are being frank, perhaps you can tell me how successful >> European efforts to subsidize search engine technology to compete >> with Google has been? >> > I assume you already heard about the networks effect that gives an > advantage to the first big player. > That's exactly why China and other countries protect their boundaries > in order to help their IT industry to find existence. > > Do you think that Europe also ought to close their virtual boundaries? > > @+, Dom > >> Please frankly, Milton, did internet begin in the US by free market >> or by the US Gov action? >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 16:17:10 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:17:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign In-Reply-To: <50BFAC67.9060902@panamo.eu> References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> <50BFAC67.9060902@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Le 05/12/12 21:06, McTim a écrit : > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > >> Thanks Michaël. >> In the United States, it does still exist free spirits who can think >> critically. >> > > > So you are saying that CDT, AccessNow, ISOC and a number of other > respected CS groups aren't thinking critically? > > > Beside some good ideas, Isoc is a war machine. They fight for US IT > industry, that is their sponsors. > If you had lived in the developing world for much of the last decade, as I have done, you would have noticed the support ISOC gives to ICT4D projects, capacity building (NOGs INETs), non-profit IXP building, etc. > They sent 50 delegates to the WCIT. > And they tell that it's a locked meeting! > I wish they had sent 50 delegates. There are approximately that many who are active ISOC members, but only a few who represent ISOC directly (and they don't have a vote as "Sector Members"). > They have a great influence and can bring reasonable organisations with > them. > agreed -- 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 Wed Dec 5 16:22:18 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 16:22:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> Message-ID: Riaz, On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these > approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is room for > disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry Milton, for some > Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be included in the > "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from his Institutionalism - not > having read all his work, is no different from American Exceptionalists on > this list. > Can you point to any of those? I have challenged you on this before, and from what I can see there are none (even amongst the Americans on the list, some of whom are amongst the strongest voices for "internationalising ICANN"). -- 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 sylvia.caras at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 16:57:00 2012 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 13:57:00 -0800 Subject: [governance] Local Twitter subpoenas, photos released Message-ID: A local instance of what is happening in the US - this instance is about Occupy and San Francisco. https://supporttheacac19.wordpress.com/ In Santa Cruz, California where I live there have been similar conspiracy charges and video footage posted on Facebook by the District Attorney. http://santacruzeleven.org/ Both Pirates and Police use the tools they have to do whatever they can. It's hard to see how to govern in a way that does not constrain the tools themselves. Sylvia -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 17:00:50 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 11:00:50 +1300 Subject: [governance] Local Twitter subpoenas, photos released In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is interesting, thanks Sylvia. On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Sylvia Caras wrote: > A local instance of what is happening in the US - this instance is > about Occupy and San Francisco. > > https://supporttheacac19.wordpress.com/ > > In Santa Cruz, California where I live there have been similar > conspiracy charges and video footage posted on Facebook by the > District Attorney. http://santacruzeleven.org/ > > Both Pirates and Police use the tools they have to do whatever they > can. It's hard to see how to govern in a way that does not constrain > the tools themselves. > > Sylvia > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 Tel: +679 3544828 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 5 17:51:57 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 04:21:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BD2E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BD2E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, I too was in charge of one of those iTU toolkits, for botnet mitigation in my case. And just how active is the HLEG on cybersecurity, do you know? --srs (iPad) On 06-Dec-2012, at 1:20, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I was debunking the ITU scare 6 months ago, though without the anti-Google overtones. Regarding the latter, it might be good if you knew a bit more about who Jody Westby is and what she stands for > > CEO of Global Cyber Risk LLC, a boutique firm that provides first-tier advisory, forensic, and technical services to corporations, non-profit organizations, and governments, focusing on privacy, security, cybercrime, and breach management. > > She launched In-Q-Tel, an IT solutions/venture capital company founded by the CIA > > She was appointed to the United Nations' ITU High Level Experts Group on Cyber Security and chaired the development of the ITU Toolkit for Cybercrime Legislation. She was co-author and editor of the United Nations' ITU 2010 publication, The Quest for Cyber Peace. > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dominique Lacroix > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 2:05 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign > > Thanks Michaël. > In the United States, it does still exist free spirits who can think critically. > Under the Google and alii propaganda tsunami, it's not so easy. > > -- > Dominique Lacroix > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr > > Société européenne de l'Internet > http://www.ies-france.eu > +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > Le 05/12/12 18:22, michael gurstein a écrit : > http://www.forbes.com/sites/jodywestby/2012/12/04/googles-media-campaign-aga > inst-the-un-slapped-down/ > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Wed Dec 5 17:53:36 2012 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 14:53:36 -0800 Subject: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BD2E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BD2E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <64526F7C-E947-4D80-82F1-0C962E6B6228@telus.net> On 2012-12-05, at 11:50 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: it might be good if you knew a bit more about who Jody Westby is and what she stands for In that Forbes article, Jody Westby says: > [U.S. Government] ... goes on to declare that the groups that have long played an important role in the development of the Internet, such as the Internet Society, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), “are most capable of addressing issues with the speed and flexibility required in this rapidly changing Internet environment.” One is left to wonder how these groups are going to be able to do this without interacting with all of the communications providers that actually deliver content. Without the interconnectivity and interoperability of networks, content will sit on servers. Actually, "Without the interconnectivity and interoperability of networks," this one here is left to wonder how any discussion of what the Internet is and does, and how it is steadily driving the cost of transporting "content" towards zero, thus blowing away the business plans of communications carriers, is even possible. Also "content" is NOT created "in " the interoperable networks. It's created at the edges (I and thou), where the desire and will and public benefit (i.e if you must, market demand) to interconnect and interoperate exists. GG -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 5 18:36:45 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 23:36:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B170431@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, I've been busy infiltrating Internet Rights and Principles into the capitalist elite - CIOs of banks like UBS, Bank of America, Commonwealth Bank of Australia...and hanging with China Mobile and partners...so have missed all your fun on list of past few days. (more on that, later in the week). And not to get in a debate on economics; but rather to elaborate on the historical record, since certain transition points of past may be instructive for the possible future. So to add to the discussion (?) Re: "Frankly", development of the TCP/IP protocols were supported by military research contracts, which had no intention of supporting a commercial industry. "The Internet" spread to the general population and succeeded because of telecommunications liberalization and a free market. The sequence was: DARPA->NSF->Department of Commerce, with IETF->ISOC->ICANN + RIRs created along the way paralleling the transition from a defense/computer science research project to a commercial + multistakeholder environment. Telecoms liberalization helped speed the net along but the key steps were taken before the '96 Telecom Act passed. So (more) telecoms liberalization helped spur the net bubble but did not create the commercial Internet. To be very precise, it was the 'Gore Bill' or High Performance Computing Act (of '89? or '90?) which was the key legislative milestone in getting us to the commercial net of today, and that was because of its explicit subsidy of expanding the net backbone in that still pre-full commercialization stage. And then shutting off the subsidy, and nsfnet backbone, April 1, 1995. (Someone had a sense of humor - don't know if it was Gore - unlikely according to his reputation - or Bush or some Congressional Republican). A billion $ of US taxpayers $$ went a long way back then - 5 yrs @ $200m/yr was what it took. By April 2nd '95 noone noticed the US government had exited the net backbone 'market,' and the rest of the story is pretty well known. Some of you can thank us US taxpayers now, or later, for - George Bush the senior working the deal with Gore, back in the day, that got us here. Of course, what this all has to with how the net of nets should be coordinated in 2013 is - unclear. Other than to indicate reasonably orderly transitions from one - state - to another have happened multiple times before, and certainly can in future as well; even if the now global dimensions of the challenge, and the market, make it a bit harder than US federal agencies cooperating - though even that is not easy, as anyone ever dealing with government agencies knows well. Lee PS: So yes, really, Gore should be credited for the commercial Internet, not because he 'invented' it; but yeah for real he personally was the one guy who deserves credit for getting it funded, and launched. That's why it was called 'the Gore Bill.' ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:22 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Riaz, On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is room for disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry Milton, for some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be included in the "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from his Institutionalism - not having read all his work, is no different from American Exceptionalists on this list. Can you point to any of those? I have challenged you on this before, and from what I can see there are none (even amongst the Americans on the list, some of whom are amongst the strongest voices for "internationalising ICANN"). -- 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 pouzin at well.com Wed Dec 5 20:38:21 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 02:38:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] "Who should govern the internet?" - a set of interesting panels In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Who is the speaker, I didn't catch his name. Louis - - - On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Well worth watching. Includes several people active on this list. > > http://www.newamerica.net/events/2012/who_should_govern_the_internet > > -- > Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists 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 drc at virtualized.org Wed Dec 5 20:30:05 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 17:30:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B170431@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B170431@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Lee, > By April 2nd '95 noone noticed the US government had exited the net backbone 'market,' and the rest of the story is pretty well known. On the contrary: I was working with UUNet at the time and we broke out the champaign when the USG stopped distorting the market :) 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 5 20:52:24 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 20:52:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] "Who should govern the internet?" - a set of interesting panels In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Who is the speaker, I didn't catch his name. > Andrew McLaughlin, he was at WSIS, but been in netgov long before 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 pouzin at well.com Wed Dec 5 21:50:15 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 03:50:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] "Who should govern the internet?" - a set of interesting panels In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:52 AM, McTim wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> Who is the speaker, I didn't catch his name. >> > > Andrew McLaughlin, he was at WSIS, but been in netgov long before that. > Thanks Mac Tim, Louis. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 5 23:05:26 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 09:35:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] "Who should govern the internet?" - a set of interesting panels In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46A2B241-3BBB-4376-996F-C31DE4A295EF@hserus.net> Hi Louis, as you seemed struck with Andrew McLaughlin's comments, could you please share your opinions? A discussion on the various topics raised in this panel would be interesting. thanks --srs (iPad) On 06-Dec-2012, at 8:20, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 2:52 AM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >>> Who is the speaker, I didn't catch his name. >> >> Andrew McLaughlin, he was at WSIS, but been in netgov long before that. > > Thanks Mac Tim, Louis. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu Dec 6 00:01:30 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 10:31:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign In-Reply-To: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50C026AA.8030001@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 05 December 2012 10:52 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://www.forbes.com/sites/jodywestby/2012/12/04/googles-media-campaign-aga > inst-the-un-slapped-down/ Highlights very well the bogey that ITU has nothing to do with the Internet. It always had and will. ITRs that were written in the pre Internet era, in 1988, being revised in 2012 have to take explicit notice of this fact. That would be the default. But how much propaganda and subterfuge has gone to deny this simple and obvious point. Content regulation, globally versus nationally configured routing of Internet traffic and DNS management are specific issues in IG and if these areas are to be kept out of ITU/ITRs (as I believe they should) then we should directly say that.... and put specific text to that effect in the ITRs. Keeping these specific issues away from ITU/ITR does not need us to say that the entire Internet system has to remain untouched by ITRs/ITU. Not to take explicit note of the Internet in the ITRs would simply look too contrived, and by itself give a strong message. And that exactly is what the powers that illegitimately dominate how the Internet is being shaped today want - to give out the clear and strong message 'Internet is to be kept beyond any/all regulation'. That is all, or mostly, what is there to the Google's campaign and US backing or rather fronting of it. Absence of any explicit mention of the Internet in the ITRs will send an especially clear and strong signal to the national regulatory systems to keep their hands off the Internet - which would, inter alia, mean the end of net neutrality movement apart from end to any other regulatory influence on our communications systems of the future. This ill-serves pulbic interest, especially the interest of the weaker and marginalised sections. But their voices have not been present in the civil society debates around ITR/ITU. That is the problem with multistakeholderism of the kind practised in the IG space - whoever can manage to reach the table will be heard... 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Dec 6 03:57:35 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 19:57:35 +1100 Subject: [governance] Does anyone have further information or clarification on this? Message-ID: http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/now-the-un-has-adopted-chinas-web-snooping-plan-civil-society-must-boycott-the-internet-governance-forum/ “Now the UN has adopted China’s Web snooping plan, civil society must boycott the Internet Governance Forum” - Simon Davies -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 04:07:54 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:07:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Does anyone have further information or clarification on this? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A resolution adopted at WTSA last week (or the week before) See ITU blog for their view Note 2nd para "The World Telecommunication Standardisation Assembly (WTSA) held in Dubai last November resolved some concerns regarding maintaining privacy after it was noted that the standard deals with the identification of the application used rather than the inspection of users content. The standard does not allow access to users’ private information and allows measures to ensure the secrecy of correspondence." I have no idea if this is correct. Might be best to ask someone who was at WTSA what happened in the discussions, ISOC was there and will have taken note. Best, Adam On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/now-the-un-has-adopted-chinas-web-snooping-plan-civil-society-must-boycott-the-internet-governance-forum/ > > > “Now the UN has adopted China’s Web snooping plan, civil society must > boycott the Internet Governance Forum” - Simon Davies > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Dec 6 04:48:05 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:48:05 +1300 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 05/12/2012, at 11:29 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > John Curran wrote recently on this list: > > " I harbor a concern that incremental change may be the only type of change that open multistakeholder deliberations can actually support, as the discussions of more revolutionary changes seem to inevitably jump to more authoritarian questions such as "who is charge", "who can approve this", etc. This is a topic worth thinking about in general about MS governance processes." > Cross-posting something that I just sent to the Best Bits list, that is relevant to the above: I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which most are approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to any global norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's institutions, and that Internet policy development will thereby be confined to the national level. This is not helped by the US government's predisposition to avoid taking on international obligations (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest example, besides the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the Cybercrime Convention, the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of course through multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work on addressing that perception, and point out that: 1. Multi-stakeholder Internet governance will be soft law, guidance rather than compulsion. 2. Even the US is promulgating global Internet norms through fora that suit it (OECD, APEC, and the "free flow of information" provisions in the TPP). 3. So we need to move this into multi-stakeholder global fora, at a higher level that does not bind anyone, and need not restrict national policy space. 4. There are various non-technical Internet policy issues that have no appropriate global home (nor should the ITU become their home). 5. For example, a potential core competency is connecting Internet governance with human rights, as a framework to guide the development of national and multilateral norms for IP enforcement. 6. Let's propose an IGF-based multi-stakeholder enhanced cooperation mechanism that would be an acceptable way to deal with such issues. We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is necessary to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers (look at the failure of IPv6 adoption). The existing loose network of Internet governance institutions, even if their "cooperation" is "enhanced", isn't structured enough to provide such guidance in a way that will satisfy the stakeholders (governmental and non-governmental) who are seeking more from the enhanced cooperation process. At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But the status quo is not going to hold. One way or another, Internet governance is going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us. We've spoken loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what do we want? -- 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 jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Dec 6 04:55:53 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:55:53 +1300 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 06/12/2012, at 10:48 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which most are approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to any global norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's institutions, and that Internet policy development will thereby be confined to the national level. This is not helped by the US government's predisposition to avoid taking on international obligations (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest example, besides the Law of the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the Cybercrime Convention, the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of course through multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work on addressing that perception, and point out that: Of course ignore "Cybercrime Convention" above, don't know why I wrote that. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 6 05:12:03 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 02:12:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121206101203.GA29355@hserus.net> Yes, I was wondering. Because the US has signed on to the budapest convention early on, except for a section that deals with glorification of naziism / racial hatred and such, which comes into conflict with the first amendement. Jeremy Malcolm [06/12/12 22:55 +1300]: >On 06/12/2012, at 10:48 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> I worry that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" meme with which most >> are approaching WCIT will solidify into a general opposition to any >> global norm-setting outside of the Internet technical community's >> institutions, and that Internet policy development will thereby be >> confined to the national level. This is not helped by the US >> government's predisposition to avoid taking on international obligations >> (the Disabilities Treaty being the latest example, besides the Law of >> the Sea, the International Criminal Court, the Cybercrime Convention, >> the Treaty for the Visually Impaired, etc) - except of course through >> multilateral trade agreements! I think we need to work on addressing >> that perception, and point out that: > >Of course ignore "Cybercrime Convention" above, don't know why I wrote that. > >-- >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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 6 05:26:11 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:56:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Does anyone have further information or clarification on this? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Technology from one vendor or the other, with sufficient lobbying and / or other ways and means of ensuring their government's ITU delegation's support, does make the rounds of ITU-T study groups, and does get adopted from time to time. Jumping the gap between that and adoption in the industry is well .. easier said than done. Though China has been known to mandate some obscure standard that its local vendors develop, for cellular telephony or anything else, and then mandate that anybody selling gear in china has to comply with it. What part of this is due to the lobbying pull a local vendor has with the chinese regulators / ministry and what part of this is due to an overall design to snoop on all their citizens is up for debate. Like for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WLAN_Authentication_and_Privacy_Infrastructure - which they issued, submitted to the ISO, got into an ugly and messy fight (complete with xinhua articles piously declaiming against IEEE campaigns against this "technology") etc etc. It appears to have been quietly withdrawn after an overwhelming lack of support. Or this other, extremely amusing, episode, from 2004. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/06/ipv9_hype_dismissed/ I've been pointing that out on Simon Davies' facebook post, --srs (iPad) On 06-Dec-2012, at 14:37, Adam Peake wrote: > A resolution adopted at WTSA last week (or the week before) > > See ITU blog for their view > > > Note 2nd para "The World Telecommunication Standardisation Assembly > (WTSA) held in Dubai last November resolved some concerns regarding > maintaining privacy after it was noted that the standard deals with > the identification of the application used rather than the inspection > of users content. The standard does not allow access to users’ private > information and allows measures to ensure the secrecy of > correspondence." I have no idea if this is correct. > > Might be best to ask someone who was at WTSA what happened in the > discussions, ISOC was there and will have taken note. > > Best, > > Adam > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/now-the-un-has-adopted-chinas-web-snooping-plan-civil-society-must-boycott-the-internet-governance-forum/ >> >> >> “Now the UN has adopted China’s Web snooping plan, civil society must >> boycott the Internet Governance Forum” - Simon Davies >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 Thu Dec 6 05:42:42 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 19:42:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] WCIT proposals - new website Message-ID: Makes all the WCIT proposals available in a pretty easy to use format. It's good. Discussions starting to get serious and contentious issues seem to have moved to informal working groups, particularly the definition of telecoms and whether for the purposes of the ITRs it should include Internet, and to what entities the ITRs should apply: Recognized Operating Agencies (effectively telecommunications companies licensed at that national level) or Operating Agencies (any and all providers of International telecommunications, from a rural telecentre to Google, Skype and AT&T.) Other issues seem to be dumped it committee sub-groups that aren't being webcast (at least not today.) Russia's proposal on "Internet" also seems to be discussed in one of these informal sessions (and for some reason Dr. Toure is silent, thou he promised WCIC wouldn't be about Internet governance.) Russian text copied below. Adam REVISION 1 TO DOCUMENT 27-E 17 NOVEMBER 2012 ORIGINAL: RUSSIAN ARTICLE 3A Internet ADD RUS/27/7 31A 3A.1 Internet governance shall be effected through the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. Reasons: § 34 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS, Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005. ADD RUS/27/8 31B 3A.2 Member States shall have equal rights to manage the Internet, including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of Internet numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources and to support for the operation and development of basic Internet infrastructure. Reasons: §§ 38, 52 and 53 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS, Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005. ADD RUS/27/9 31C 3A.3 Member States shall have the sovereign right to establish and implement public policy, including international policy, on matters of Internet governance, and to regulate the national Internet segment, as well as the activities within their territory of operating agencies providing Internet access or carrying Internet traffic. Reasons: Preamble to the ITU Constitution and §§ 35a, 58, 64, 65, 68 and 69 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS, Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005. ADD RUS/27/10 31D 3A.4 Member States should endeavour to establish policies aimed at meeting public requirements with respect to Internet access and use, and at assisting, including through international cooperation, administrations and operating agencies in supporting the operation and development of the Internet. Reasons: Article 33 of the ITU Constitution and §§ 31, 37, 49 and 50 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS, Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005. ADD RUS/27/11 31E 3A.5 Member States should ensure that administrations and operating agencies cooperate in ensuring the integrity, reliable operation and security of the national Internet segment, direct relations for the carrying of Internet traffic and the basic Internet infrastructure. Reasons: Article 38 of the ITU Constitution, §§ 39-41, 44 and 45 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS, Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 05:56:53 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 17:56:53 +0700 Subject: [governance] WCIT proposals - new website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50C079F5.6030500@gmx.net> On 12/6/2012 5:42 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > Makes all the WCIT proposals available in a pretty easy to use format. > It's good. [snip] Nice work - no author mentioned. 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 06:07:40 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:07:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50C07C7C.7010006@gmail.com> McTim Well I am not about to trawl for names and their arguments, but let me summarise - which is from my perspective: bearing in mind that the "list" has an imbalance in what is considered balanced. When push comes to shove, as the saying goes, the argument is that one MUST engage with ICANN to achieve some reforms of the system. The question of legitimacy is dealt with here in two primary ways. One, and often the most vociferous, is to "ignore" the issue of legitimacy. The second is to say we need to reform it from within (which simply begs the question of how they relate to those "outside" the system - which ranges from active engagement (I was pleasantly surprised by the candid yet studied feedback IT4C submission received on this list :) so its not all bad) to disdain. It is not that I question the sincerity of those who work from within, it is the hardest to deal with insiders who seek to do what needs to be done in the constraints they find themselves in. That said, it also goes up and down and round and about. So it is not just about people, but also how the context plays out. Look at a recent thread. I and another was accused of an ad hominem attack on a discussion that immediately went substantive. Not to put to fine a point on it, but how does an ad hominem attack go substantive because by definition it cannot. This imbalance in treatment of views and personalities is incredible to watch, but from my or "our" perspective it is easy to make deductions about the game being played. And lets agree that ICANN and its followers are remarkable, they stymied with single root the multiple rooters... which is remarkable, even if one disagrees. So, it may or may not be an explicit US Exceptionalism position, but in practice on my deductions it is. Although there are some who put it openly as US exceptionalism, and that is a valid and legitimate view within civil society. But I would be silly if that were allowed and legitimacy issues were then "excluded"/marginalised/ridiculed or even subject to faux attacks. On rights issues there is also a disjunct between developing country moves to assert control and Developed countries. The standards seem to me to differ. After all it is better to live in the advanced countries as these protections go, ain't it? That is fine as it goes, but cannot be generalised. As much as techies may like to think this is not politics, some of us (or simply me) take it almost all as politics. And that means that even seemingly neutral positions are placed on a political spectrum. But don't get your knickers in a knot about any of this because I and some of us are happy to change our minds if persuaded of the validity of another position or placement of a group/view on the political spectrum... Riaz On 2012/12/05 11:22 PM, McTim wrote: > Riaz, > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > > > > Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these > approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is room > for disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry Milton, > for some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be > included in the "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from > his Institutionalism - not having read all his work, is no > different from American Exceptionalists on this list. > > > Can you point to any of those? I have challenged you on this before, > and from what I can see there are none (even amongst the Americans on > the list, some of whom are amongst the strongest voices for > "internationalising ICANN"). > > > -- > 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 Thu Dec 6 06:13:23 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:13:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B170431@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B170431@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50C07DD3.5030908@gmail.com> Thanks for this Lee. It is good to have greater detail on this in such a sum up. If this is the case, then Milton I suspect just because you shouted out that I am being "ideological", if the "facts" don't support your contention, then perhaps it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black? Or is Lee wrong (bearing in mind that correlation ought not to be confused with causation)? On 2012/12/06 01:36 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > I've been busy infiltrating Internet Rights and Principles into the > capitalist elite - CIOs of banks like UBS, Bank of America, > Commonwealth Bank of Australia...and hanging with China Mobile and > partners...so have missed all your fun on list of past few days. (more > on that, later in the week). > > And not to get in a debate on economics; but rather to elaborate on > the historical record, since certain transition points of past may be > instructive for the possible future. > > So to add to the discussion (?) > > Re: "Frankly", development of the TCP/IP protocols were supported by > military research contracts, which had no intention of supporting a > commercial industry. "The Internet" spread to the general population > and succeeded because of telecommunications liberalization and a free > market. > > The sequence was: DARPA->NSF->Department of Commerce, with > > IETF->ISOC->ICANN + RIRs created along the way > > paralleling the transition from a defense/computer science research > project to a commercial + multistakeholder environment. > > Telecoms liberalization helped speed the net along but the key steps > were taken before the '96 Telecom Act passed. > > So (more) telecoms liberalization helped spur the net bubble but did > not create the commercial Internet. > > To be very precise, it was the 'Gore Bill' or High Performance > Computing Act (of '89? or '90?) which was the key legislative > milestone in getting us to the commercial net of today, and that was > because of its explicit subsidy of expanding the net backbone in that > still pre-full commercialization stage. > > And then shutting off the subsidy, and nsfnet backbone, April 1, 1995. > (Someone had a sense of humor - don't know if it was Gore - unlikely > according to his reputation - or Bush or some Congressional Republican). > > A billion $ of US taxpayers $$ went a long way back then - 5 yrs @ > $200m/yr was what it took. > > By April 2nd '95 noone noticed the US government had exited the net > backbone 'market,' and the rest of the story is pretty well known. > > Some of you can thank us US taxpayers now, or later, for - George > Bush the senior working the deal with Gore, back in the day, that got > us here. > > Of course, what this all has to with how the net of nets should be > coordinated in 2013 is - unclear. > > Other than to indicate reasonably orderly transitions from one - state > - to another have happened multiple times before, and certainly can in > future as well; even if the now global dimensions of the challenge, > and the market, make it a bit harder than US federal agencies > cooperating - though even that is not easy, as anyone ever dealing > with government agencies knows well. > > Lee > > PS: So yes, really, Gore should be credited for the commercial > Internet, not because he 'invented' it; but yeah for real he > personally was the one guy who deserves credit for getting it funded, > and launched. That's why it was called 'the Gore Bill.' > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim > [dogwallah at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:22 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... > (from taxes? > > Riaz, > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > > > > Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these > approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is room > for disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry Milton, > for some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be > included in the "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from > his Institutionalism - not having read all his work, is no > different from American Exceptionalists on this list. > > > Can you point to any of those? I have challenged you on this before, > and from what I can see there are none (even amongst the Americans on > the list, some of whom are amongst the strongest voices for > "internationalising ICANN"). > > > -- > 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 sana.pryhod at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 06:14:05 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:14:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] WCIT proposals - new website In-Reply-To: <50C079F5.6030500@gmx.net> References: <50C079F5.6030500@gmx.net> Message-ID: Could you please tell me where can I find voting results of my official delegation (from Ukraine)? Thank you in advance, Oksana 2012/12/6 Norbert Klein : > On 12/6/2012 5:42 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> Makes all the WCIT proposals available in a pretty easy to use format. >> It's good. > > [snip] > > Nice work - no author mentioned. > > > Norbert Klein > Cambodia > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 6 06:17:20 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:47:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50C07C7C.7010006@gmail.com> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <50C07C7C.7010006@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1D269D03-6D5C-4223-A0C4-188B0579C2BD@hserus.net> Riaz bhai, can you please make this a bit clearer? I tried hard, but .. I can't quite see your point. 1. What is wrong with change from within, in ICANN, or anywhere else? And do you see any barriers to participation at ICANN? Compared to say participation at the IGF, WCIT, or wherever else? 2. If a technology is technically infeasible and risky from an engineering standpoint, it remains that way unless work is actually done on the technology. Doing a socio political analysis of the technology will not alter it one whit, or make it any more or less feasible than it already is. 3. Most of the "ad hominem" was of two kinds - * Comments that decided to abuse Google's other business practices (ranging from tax avoidance to monopolistic tendencies) as a substitute to addressing public policy points that Google raised. * A long thread that ensued when some on the list took violent exception when the same tactic was [not] applied on actual people - but used to attempt to kickstart a discussion on propaganda. And yes as you say, common sense reasserted itself on the part of most of the list, that went on to turn the points raised into a substantive discussion. [... what next ...] --srs (iPad) On 06-Dec-2012, at 16:37, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > McTim > > Well I am not about to trawl for names and their arguments, but let me summarise - which is from my perspective: bearing in mind that the "list" has an imbalance in what is considered balanced. > > When push comes to shove, as the saying goes, the argument is that one MUST engage with ICANN to achieve some reforms of the system. The question of legitimacy is dealt with here in two primary ways. One, and often the most vociferous, is to "ignore" the issue of legitimacy. The second is to say we need to reform it from within (which simply begs the question of how they relate to those "outside" the system - which ranges from active engagement (I was pleasantly surprised by the candid yet studied feedback IT4C submission received on this list :) so its not all bad) to disdain. It is not that I question the sincerity of those who work from within, it is the hardest to deal with insiders who seek to do what needs to be done in the constraints they find themselves in. That said, it also goes up and down and round and about. So it is not just about people, but also how the context plays out. Look at a recent thread. I and another was accused of an ad hominem attack on a discussion that immediately went substantive. Not to put to fine a point on it, but how does an ad hominem attack go substantive because by definition it cannot. This imbalance in treatment of views and personalities is incredible to watch, but from my or "our" perspective it is easy to make deductions about the game being played. And lets agree that ICANN and its followers are remarkable, they stymied with single root the multiple rooters... which is remarkable, even if one disagrees. So, it may or may not be an explicit US Exceptionalism position, but in practice on my deductions it is. Although there are some who put it openly as US exceptionalism, and that is a valid and legitimate view within civil society. But I would be silly if that were allowed and legitimacy issues were then "excluded"/marginalised/ridiculed or even subject to faux attacks. > > On rights issues there is also a disjunct between developing country moves to assert control and Developed countries. The standards seem to me to differ. After all it is better to live in the advanced countries as these protections go, ain't it? That is fine as it goes, but cannot be generalised. > > As much as techies may like to think this is not politics, some of us (or simply me) take it almost all as politics. And that means that even seemingly neutral positions are placed on a political spectrum. > > But don't get your knickers in a knot about any of this because I and some of us are happy to change our minds if persuaded of the validity of another position or placement of a group/view on the political spectrum... > > Riaz > > > On 2012/12/05 11:22 PM, McTim wrote: >> Riaz, >> >> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> >> >> >>> Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is room for disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry Milton, for some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be included in the "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from his Institutionalism - not having read all his work, is no different from American Exceptionalists on this list. >> >> Can you point to any of those? I have challenged you on this before, and from what I can see there are none (even amongst the Americans on the list, some of whom are amongst the strongest voices for "internationalising ICANN"). >> >> >> -- >> 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 06:33:31 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:33:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <1D269D03-6D5C-4223-A0C4-188B0579C2BD@hserus.net> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <50C07C7C.7010006@gmail.com> <1D269D03-6D5C-4223-A0C4-188B0579C2BD@hserus.net> Message-ID: <50C0828B.7050305@gmail.com> Suresh Will be brief, but been over this many times on this list. On 2012/12/06 01:17 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Riaz bhai, can you please make this a bit clearer? I tried hard, but > .. I can't quite see your point. > > 1. What is wrong with change from within, in ICANN, or anywhere else? > And do you see any barriers to participation at ICANN? Compared to > say participation at the IGF, WCIT, or wherever else? There is nothing wrong with collaboration, change from within or dealing with extant ICANN. LIkewise there is nothing wrong in regarding it as a despotic organisation hell bent on maintaining its pre-eminence and has a large number of people in toe to do its bidding irrespective of how "functional" it is. If one takes legitimacy and/or participation/inclusiveness seriously then *the relationship between the inside and the outside* (those who exercise their democratic rights NOT to "join" the ICANN system) becomes serious. And the way this is dealt with on this list leaves a lot to be desired. Just look at how tedious discussions provoked by the "usual suspects" Gurstein, Parminder, Guru, Auerbach, Norbert are ... some issues are subject to inquisitions, while others views are not. I don't care either way as reason is the ticket for engagement and as long as that is the tenor I/we can deal with things; and agree to disagree, > > 2. If a technology is technically infeasible and risky from an > engineering standpoint, it remains that way unless work is actually > done on the technology. Doing a socio political analysis of the > technology will not alter it one whit, or make it any more or less > feasible than it already is. Let me deal with the Luddite in me. What you say is true. But Lessig makes the point (long time since I read him, but well worth a read) that the matter is not so black and white as it seems. The tech can and is often policy. They are mutually constitutive. This makes more sense, than saying well web URL is a trade mark. Engineering nor legally was this the case. Yet it is largely now. > > 3. Most of the "ad hominem" was of two kinds - We can differ on this. All I am doing implicitly is pointing to how imbalanced the claims of imbalance are from those who claim to be standing for balance. I trust I make myself obscure. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 6 06:39:24 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 17:09:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50C0828B.7050305@gmail.com> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <50C07C7C.7010006@gmail.com> <1D269D03-6D5C-4223-A0C4-188B0579C2BD@hserus.net> <50C0828B.7050305@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 06-Dec-2012, at 17:03, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Just look at how tedious discussions provoked by the "usual suspects" Gurstein, Parminder, Guru, Auerbach, Norbert are ... some issues are subject to inquisitions, while others views are not. I don't care either way as reason is the ticket for engagement and as long as that is the tenor I/we can deal with things; and agree to disagree, > ... see, there's a difference between policy, politics and plain old ranting from someone who has seen it all and doesn't want any part of it, but likewise, doesn't have an agenda. > Let me deal with the Luddite in me. What you say is true. But Lessig makes the point (long time since I read him, but well worth a read) that the matter is not so black and white as it seems. The tech can and is often policy. They are mutually constitutive. This makes more sense, than saying well web URL is a trade mark. Engineering nor legally was this the case. Yet it is largely now. > Please don't bring twitter sized soundbites (Lessigisms, Shirkyisms ..) into the discussion. They're the new age equivalent of confucian aphorisms, and well, they don't quite do justice to a nuanced issue. And tech is tech, policy is policy, and while there's a substantial intersection there are clear limits and distinctions where the two are distinct and separate. One can't subsume the other, or totally ignore the other. --srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 06:39:15 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 12:39:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Does anyone have further information or clarification on this? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Beyond the substance related to the DPI standard, Simon seems to confuse several fora: the UN, the ITU, WTSA, WCIT, WSIS and the IGF. Advocating boycotting the IGF because something was adopted at WTSA seems a strange conclusion. I would argue this is one more reason to participate in IGF and potentially raise this topic there. Best Bertrand On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/now-the-un-has-adopted-chinas-web-snooping-plan-civil-society-must-boycott-the-internet-governance-forum/ > > “Now the UN has adopted China’s Web snooping plan, civil society must > boycott the Internet Governance Forum” - Simon Davies > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy ( www.internetjurisdiction.net) Member, ICANN Board of Directors Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 06:51:01 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:51:01 +0400 Subject: [governance] WCIT proposals - new website In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CC15334-87DE-46A3-A13A-7E79607F9131@uzh.ch> Adam On Dec 6, 2012, at 14:42, Adam Peake wrote: > > Other issues seem to be dumped it committee sub-groups that aren't > being webcast (at least not today.) and from which civil society people not on delegations are being blocked or ejected. Most important stuff really off line. > > Russia's proposal on "Internet" also seems to be discussed in one of > these informal sessions (and for some reason Dr. Toure is silent, > thou he promised WCIC wouldn't be about Internet governance.) assume a substantial known unknown. 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 Dec 6 06:53:39 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:53:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Former FCC Commissioner: Big Media Dumbs Down Democracy Message-ID: <50C08743.2010302@gmail.com> Former FCC Commissioner: Big Media Dumbs Down Democracy By Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company 05 December 12 his week, we're focusing on the Federal Communications Commission's proposal to relax the rules that prevent one company from owning radio stations, television stations and newspapers all in the same city - a move activists say would hurt diversity and be a boon for the Rupert Murdochs of the world. It's déjà vu for Michael Copps, who served on the commission from 2001-2011 and was acting chairman from January to June 2009 - a tenure marked by his concern for diversity and opposition to media consolidation. Copps is now the senior advisor for media and democracy reform at Common Cause . He stopped by our office Monday to share his concerns about the FCC's latest proposal. *Bill Moyers: After all the conversations we've had over the years, why are we still talking about media concentration today?* *Michael Copps:* Because media concentration is still very much a reality today. If you opened up the papers last week, you'll see Rupert Murdoch is maybe thinking about buying the Los Angeles Times or the Chicago Tribune. Every time you have one of these consolidation transactions, they look around for all of these wonderful economies and efficiencies that they're supposed to harvest from becoming big conglomerates. The first thing they think is, "How do we impress Wall Street now? Where do we cut?" And the first place they cut is the newsroom. We've had, across this country, hundreds of newsrooms shuttered, thousands of reporters who are walking the streets in search of a job, rather than walking the beats in search of stories. And the consequence of that is, I think, a dramatically dumbed down civic dialogue that is probably - and I don't think I'm exaggerating - insufficient to sustain self-government as we would like to have it. There's this wonderful story about Bill Paley, who I never knew, but - *Moyers: - founder and chairman of the board of CBS -* *Copps:* Right. Getting his news folks together back in the '50s or '60s, whenever it was, and saying, "I want you folks to go out and get the news. And don't worry where the money's coming from. I got Jack Benny. He'll provide the money and you go get the news." Can you imagine any of the current CEOs of the media companies here, Les Moonves or anybody like that, telling their news people, "You just go and get the news and don't worry where the money's coming from"? *Moyers: The argument we hear in rebuttal is "Well look, we don't have to worry about monopoly today, we don't have to worry about cartels today, because we have the Internet, which is the most democratic source of opinion, expression and free speech that's available to us. You and Moyers are outdated because of your concerns about broadcasting and newspapers and all of this."* *Copps:* I don't buy that argument at all. The Internet has the potential for all of that. The Internet has the potential for a new town square of democracy, paved with broadband bricks. But it's very, very far from being the reality. The reality is - and you don't have to really look too closely - throughout history, we've seen every means of communication go down this road toward more and more consolidation. Wouldn't it be a tragedy if you took this potential of this open and dynamic technology, capable of addressing just about every problem that the country has - no problem that we have doesn't have a broadband component to its solution somewhere along the line - and let the biggest invention since the printing press probably as communication goes, morph into a cable-ized Internet? That's what I think is happening. Most of the news generated on the Internet, is still coming from the newspaper newsroom, or the TV newsroom. It's just there's so damn much less of it because of the consolidation that we've been through, because of the downsizing, and because of a government that has been absent without leave from its public interest responsibilities for many, many years - a better part of a generation now. *Moyers: You came to the commission advocating more ownership, more diversity, more participation by minorities and women - where does that stand now? Have they made gains?* *Copps:* It stands pretty much where it stood when the new commissioner came through the door in 2009. We have pending before the commission dozens and dozens of recommendations to incentivize minority and female ownership. It can't right now be truly a race-conscious policy - I hope it will be some day - because we don't have the legal justification, and that's due to the FCC's not doing its homework. But they have something called overcoming disadvantage, sort of like the University of Texas and all that, where you can take into consideration a number criteria, and one of those would be minority status. I wrote a piece on Benton's blog that came out today, and I go back and quote from Barack Obama in previous years. This is Barack Obama at an FCC hearing, he submitted this statement, 2007, September 20th: "I believe that the nation's media ownership rules remain necessary and are critical to the public interest. We should be doing much more to encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and establish greater clarity in public interest obligations of broadcasters occupying the nation's spectrum." Seven months later, in February, he and Dick Durbin wrote the commission: "The broadcast ownership rules directly implicate core American values such as diversity, localism, representation and a competitive marketplace of ideas." And listen to this: "I object"- this is Obama, as candidate, October 22, 2007: "I object to the agency moving forward to allow greater consolidation in the media market without first fully understanding how that would limit opportunities for minority, small business and women-owned firms." *Moyers: But, to the contrary, we hear these reports that the man President Obama put on the commission as the chairman is considering further relaxation of the rules prohibiting concentration. How do you explain that?* *Copps:* Well, first of all, they definitely are considering it. Nobody has seen the document yet except the commissioners, but in point of fact, they are going to liberalize - that's the wrong term - they're going to loosen the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership [rules] and loosen the constraints on radio and TV stations owning each other. How do you explain that? I don't know if it's a question of less interest than there should be in the media issues, because people maybe deem them to be an older issue, and let's talk about new media and wireless and spectrum and all of that. And all of that is important, but here's my take. You know, you really have to get people away from this idea of thinking old media versus new media. We have in this country one media ecosystem, and it is partly composed of traditional media - newspapers, radio, television, cable. It's partly composed of new media - broadband and the Internet. And it's going to stay that way, for years yet. I mean there'll be evolution, but we're going to have both of these things to contend with. And neither one of them is operating, at either extreme, where they should. The traditional media is a shell of its former self, as I talked about before, really as hollowed out as Midwestern steel mill, a rust belt steel mill. But the new media - there's wonderful entrepreneurship and experimentation taking place in the new media, but there's no business plan to support expensive investigative journalism. How does a little website run by one or two people, how does somebody say, "Well, you take off six or eight months and go dig out this story in the state capital, would you please?" Or, "Go look at this insurance company and how it's operating," or the city council. You don't get that anymore. You just wonder how many stories are going untold, how many of the powerful are being held completely unaccountable for what they did. So the new media, for all the good things it has done - and it has done a lot of cool things, with the instant pictures and instant stories and the Arab Spring and all that stuff, but it hasn't replaced what we've lost in traditional media, from the standpoint of serious and sustained investigative accountability, hold-the-powerful-accountable journalism. Until we address both parts of that equation, we will not have a media system that is worthy of the government. You can go back to the beginnings of our country and find the founding fathers were vitally interested in our news and information ecosystem, or infrastructure, whatever they called it. So important that they subsidized postal roads, subsidized post offices. They said "Let all the newspapers in the country get out. We've got this daring new experiment in self-government. We don't know if it can work or not. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but the only way it will work is if citizens have information so they can vote and be a part of self-government." Fast forward to the beginning of the broadcast era. I think that was the same kind of mentality then. We've got this public resource here. It can help the news and information infrastructure, so if we're going to license broadcasters to use this spectrum, we can expect them to serve the public interest in return. I think broadcasters took that seriously for a while, until they discovered, 20 or 30 years later, that the FCC wasn't really serious about it in the first place. Now that's all gone, from inattention, and also from the fact that FCC, beginning in the late '70s and coming up with a vengeance after Ronald Reagan, eviscerated all the public interest guidelines that we used to have. *Moyers: On this particular decision now under consideration, the relaxation of some rules prohibiting further concentration, what can ordinary people do?* *Copps:* Well, they can get involved. It can become a grassroots movement. I spent 40 years in Washington, working on policy with the belief that you can do some good things from the top down, and I still believe that. But the real systemic reforms and the substantive reforms in this country, from abolition to women's rights and civil rights, and labor rights and all that, came from the bottom up. And I think there's enough frustration out there that it's possible to build on that right now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rsn-T.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 512 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 Thu Dec 6 07:15:55 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 17:45:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50C08C7B.3010100@itforchange.net> On Thursday 06 December 2012 02:52 AM, McTim wrote: > Riaz, > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > > > > snip > > > Can you point to any of those? I have challenged you on this before, > and from what I can see there are none (even amongst the Americans on > the list, some of whom are amongst the strongest voices for > "internationalising ICANN"). One needs to do more than say I/we are for "internationalising ICANN". That would be merely rhetoric unless one is ready to present (and engage with) a credible plan and roadmap, which all those, whom Riaz may call as "US exceptionalists" and I often call as "US apologists", have never done here. Have they ever? IF they have, please point me to it. No, it isnt enough to say that the US should just terminate the ICANN contract (including the IANA part) . One needs to propose under what kind of arrangement will the new internationalised ICANN get institutionalised and subsist. One needs at least framework level indications/ details. Would it still be headquarter-ed in the US. If so what kind of immunities would it have from US jurisdiction, and how will they be ensured? It is very central to the internationalisation issue that neither the US executive nor its courts are able to interfere with ICANN's decisions. What is the plan to ensure this? There are other issues but lets first get a fix on these. That would be internationalisation. So would all those 'strongest' voices for "internationalising ICANN" that you refer to, and in which you presumably include yourself, tell me what they mean by "internationalising ICANN" and what is their basic framework to achieve it? parminder > > > -- > 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 Thu Dec 6 07:28:08 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 14:28:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <50C07C7C.7010006@gmail.com> <1D269D03-6D5C-4223-A0C4-188B0579C2BD@hserus.net> <50C0828B.7050305@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50C08F58.8050700@gmail.com> On 2012/12/06 01:39 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 06-Dec-2012, at 17:03, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> Just look at how tedious discussions provoked by the "usual suspects" Gurstein, Parminder, Guru, Auerbach, Norbert are ... some issues are subject to inquisitions, while others views are not. I don't care either way as reason is the ticket for engagement and as long as that is the tenor I/we can deal with things; and agree to disagree, >> > ... see, there's a difference between policy, politics and plain old ranting from someone who has seen it all and doesn't want any part of it, but likewise, doesn't have an agenda. No point even engaging then is there... if it comes across like there is no agenda. > >> Let me deal with the Luddite in me. What you say is true. But Lessig makes the point (long time since I read him, but well worth a read) that the matter is not so black and white as it seems. The tech can and is often policy. They are mutually constitutive. This makes more sense, than saying well web URL is a trade mark. Engineering nor legally was this the case. Yet it is largely now. >> > Please don't bring twitter sized soundbites (Lessigisms, Shirkyisms ..) into the discussion. They're the new age equivalent of confucian aphorisms, and well, they don't quite do justice to a nuanced issue. And tech is tech, policy is policy, and while there's a substantial intersection there are clear limits and distinctions where the two are distinct and separate. One can't subsume the other, or totally ignore the other. Thanks for the advice on how to conduct myself. I will consider it where relevant. I can entertain, even if not accept your view, and conclude that I am more for Lessig and btw envy your certainty. > > --srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu Dec 6 08:18:02 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:18:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Does anyone have further information or clarification on this? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's no secret that DPI is used routinely by major operators for traffic management, a prelude to service differentiation. They only need identifying packet type (text, phone, image, video, etc), unless more is required by national laws. It's also a constituent of mass surveillance systems, first developed in 2002 by ATT and Boeing/Narus for NSA. One reaps what one sawed. Louis - - - On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/now-the-un-has-adopted-chinas-web-snooping-plan-civil-society-must-boycott-the-internet-governance-forum/ >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 6 08:23:37 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 18:53:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Does anyone have further information or clarification on this? Message-ID: It is also routinely used to protect an isps users against malicious network threats So why demonize a tool rather than regulate its usage and restrict it to applications that are respectful of user privacy? --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Louis Pouzin (well)" To: Cc: "Ian Peter" Subject: [governance] Does anyone have further information or clarification on this? Date: Thu, Dec 6, 2012 6:48 PM It's no secret that DPI is used routinely by major operators for traffic management, a prelude to service differentiation. They only need identifying packet type (text, phone, image, video, etc), unless more is required by national laws. It's also a constituent of mass surveillance systems, first developed in 2002 by ATT and Boeing/Narus for NSA. One reaps what one sawed. Louis - - - On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/now-the-un-has-adopted-chinas-web-snooping-plan-civil-society-must-boycott-the-internet-governance-forum/ >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 08:38:45 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 08:38:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50C08C7B.3010100@itforchange.net> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <50C08C7B.3010100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:15 AM, parminder wrote: > One needs to do more than say I/we are for "internationalising ICANN". > That would be merely rhetoric unless one is ready to present (and engage > with) a credible plan and roadmap, which all those, whom Riaz may call as > "US exceptionalists" and I often call as "US apologists", have never done > here. Have they ever? IF they have, please point me to it. > > Please see Drake's reply to you the last time we talked about this. I don't have a link however. > No, it isnt enough to say that the US should just terminate the ICANN > contract (including the IANA part) . One needs to propose under what kind > of arrangement will the new internationalised ICANN get institutionalised > and subsist. > Why? Isn't a "free-floating" ICANN the next major step in the ongoing evolution? > One needs at least framework level indications/ details. Would it still be > headquarter-ed in the US. If so what kind of immunities would it have from > US jurisdiction, and how will they be ensured? > Evolution means a series of minor changes, this would be several steps down the road, and unless ICANN HQ is moved to the moon (or perhaps a private island [we could call it "Internetistan"] purchased with new gTLD monies) there will always be a jurisdictional issue. Of course, if ICANN became an IGO of the UN system then your requirements might be met, but none of us ( I think) want an "intergovernmental only" ICANN. > It is very central to the internationalisation issue that neither the US > executive nor its courts are able to interfere with ICANN's decisions. > It is central to your version of "internationalisation", not to all versions. It would be enough for the moment if we could get everyone on the list to stop top-posting and trim your mails, that would be a useful next step! -- 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 Thu Dec 6 09:02:40 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 14:02:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228C393@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Riaz, Like Parminder, you’ve overused this charge of “American exceptionalism,” to the point where it reflects more on you than on the target. Indeed if you, like Parminder, apply it to me it shows that you are completely ignorant of my writings on the subject or that you are simply hurling a blanket epithet at whoever is standing around, whenever they disagree. So, no point in discussing further. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Riaz K Tayob Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:06 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dominique Lacroix Subject: Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Frankly I am not sure what kind of institutionalist Milton is. This is not the Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Rayomond, Richard Ely, E Pershine Smith, Frederich List and JK Galbraith, who all had a keen head for facts and history. Britain used free trade ideas as a means to maintain its dominance over other nations. The workshop of the world that encouraged everyone to liberalise, that free trade (and then classical economics) was best. And in the Pax (?) Americana, neoclassical economics (in infinite disguises) and the Washington Consensus serves the same function. Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is room for disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry Milton, for some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be included in the "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from his Institutionalism - not having read all his work, is no different from American Exceptionalists on this list. Of course I am aware that in the American context(where what passes for progressive is quit different, this may well be the case. It simply cannot be generalised. And in the "competition" through subsidised efforts Europe builds capabilities - both the tech no-(harware) and -ology (its people). One of the key elements of benefiting from a network is that skills can be diffused. Consumption of technology rich goods is not the same as producing them. Actually in a reverse sort of way the status quoists (exceptionalists, Institutionalists of a special type, neoliberals, etc) seek to maintain the US dominance by playing to that nations comparative advantage - also in institutions like ICANN and the posse that goes with it. On 2012/12/05 10:25 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: Le 05/12/12 20:26, Milton L Mueller a écrit : "Frankly", development of the TCP/IP protocols were supported by military research contracts, which had no intention of supporting a commercial industry. "The Internet" spread to the general population and succeeded because of telecommunications liberalization and a free market. Dear Milton, you seem a little dizzy. You skipped merrily the NSF action in the 1981-1995 years... And then, also, the CIA action, via the In-Q-Tel venture capital firm, launched in 1999. And also the military orders in the advanced IT field. Perhaps I forget something. I'm also a bit dizzy... The government played an important role in facilitating that process by privatizing control and paving the way for competition among ISPs. There is no doubt about that. Exact. And not enough: Google should be prosecuted for dominance abuse. While we are being frank, perhaps you can tell me how successful European efforts to subsidize search engine technology to compete with Google has been? I assume you already heard about the networks effect that gives an advantage to the first big player. That's exactly why China and other countries protect their boundaries in order to help their IT industry to find existence. Do you think that Europe also ought to close their virtual boundaries? @+, Dom Please frankly, Milton, did internet begin in the US by free market or by the US Gov action? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 09:18:28 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 12:18:28 -0200 Subject: [governance] WCIT proposals - new website Message-ID: I find the use of the term "agency" a bit odd. In the UN context, "agencies" are sectoral bodies of the UN (like the ITU of course). The word should be "agents" instead I guess. --c.a. Carlos A. AfonsoAdam Peake escreveu: Makes all the WCIT proposals available in a pretty easy to use format. It's good. Discussions starting to get serious and contentious issues seem to have moved to informal working groups, particularly the definition of telecoms and whether for the purposes of the ITRs it should include Internet, and to what entities the ITRs should apply:  Recognized Operating Agencies (effectively telecommunications companies licensed at that national level) or Operating Agencies (any and all providers of International telecommunications, from a rural telecentre to Google, Skype and AT&T.) Other issues seem to be dumped it committee sub-groups that aren't being webcast (at least not today.) Russia's proposal on "Internet" also seems to be discussed in one of these informal sessions  (and for some reason Dr. Toure is silent, thou he promised WCIC wouldn't be about Internet governance.) Russian text copied below. Adam REVISION 1 TO DOCUMENT 27-E 17 NOVEMBER 2012 ORIGINAL: RUSSIAN ARTICLE 3A Internet ADD RUS/27/7 31A 3A.1 Internet governance shall be effected through the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. Reasons: § 34 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS, Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005. ADD RUS/27/8 31B 3A.2 Member States shall have equal rights to manage the Internet, including in regard to the allotment, assignment and reclamation of Internet numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources and to support for the operation and development of basic Internet infrastructure. Reasons: §§ 38, 52 and 53 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS, Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005. ADD RUS/27/9 31C 3A.3 Member States shall have the sovereign right to establish and implement public policy, including international policy, on matters of Internet governance, and to regulate the national Internet segment, as well as the activities within their territory of operating agencies providing Internet access or carrying Internet traffic. Reasons: Preamble to the ITU Constitution and §§ 35a, 58, 64, 65, 68 and 69 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS, Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005. ADD RUS/27/10 31D 3A.4 Member States should endeavour to establish policies aimed at meeting public requirements with respect to Internet access and use, and at assisting, including through international cooperation, administrations and operating agencies in supporting the operation and development of the Internet. Reasons: Article 33 of the ITU Constitution and §§ 31, 37, 49 and 50 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS, Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005. ADD RUS/27/11 31E 3A.5 Member States should ensure that administrations and operating agencies cooperate in ensuring the integrity, reliable operation and security of the national Internet segment, direct relations for the carrying of Internet traffic and the basic Internet infrastructure. Reasons: Article 38 of the ITU Constitution, §§ 39-41, 44 and 45 of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, WSIS, Geneva 2003 - Tunis 2005. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 09:31:32 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 09:31:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Message-ID: All, If domiciling ICANN in a nation state is problematic, perhaps ICANN could buy this cruise ship as a HQ: http://cruiseship.homestead.com/Cruise-Ship.html It would help solve the problem of internationalisation, be a permanent host for ICANN meetings (2450 berths....saving hotel costs for all) and generate revenue intersessionally. It's a 3-fer, plus it's a snip @~ 300 million USD!! -- 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 garth.graham at telus.net Thu Dec 6 09:41:39 2012 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 06:41:39 -0800 Subject: [governance] Safeguarding a free Internet Message-ID: "Most of all, it will take sustained dialogue." GG Gordon Smith and Mark Raymond. Safeguarding a free Internet. The Globe and Mail, Dec. 05 2012. http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/safeguarding-a-free-internet/article5978383/?service=mobile On Dec. 3, a major treaty negotiation began in Dubai: The World Conference on International Telecommunications aims to update the International Telecommunication Regulations that were last revised in 1988, before the emergence of the Internet as a part of everyday life. In the interim, an array of Internet-specific governance arrangements has evolved. While these mechanisms leave room for incremental improvement, they have enabled technological, social and economic changes comparable to the Industrial Revolution. Fundamentally altering the rules of the game midway through such a complex process as the adoption of Internet technologies entails massive risks. Caution is even more strongly indicated if the proposed rules amount to repudiation of the basic values embedded in the Internet that have contributed to its successes. And yet a variety of WCIT proposals seek to erect new Internet governance arrangements that raise red flags. One set of proposals would substantially change the economic model of the Internet – allowing states, for example, to collect fees for the transit of Internet traffic through their territory or requiring companies using high amounts of bandwidth to pay network operators for the traffic generated by their businesses. The net effect of these kinds of measures would be to redistribute wealth from the industrial world toward companies and individuals in a small number of states, including Russia and China. Charging for Internet traffic requires knowing where data packets originate. Thus, efforts to employ international regulations to extract resources fit naturally with other WCIT proposals to enable increased state surveillance and blocking of Internet traffic. Such efforts are not new and don’t require international rules (as the recent Internet shutdown in Syria demonstrates), but such rules can make monitoring and blocking more effective and also potentially more legitimate. These proposals are being advanced by a group of states led by Russia and China and with significant representation from the Arab world. While the strict decision rules for multilateral treaty negotiations will likely prevent them from prevailing at the WCIT, they will have ample opportunity to further their agenda in other venues. The next such major opportunity is the World Technology Policy Forum in Geneva next May. In contrast, the group of countries broadly committed to the current multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance remains fragmented. This group lacks an overall strategic vision of what they want the Internet to look like. Such a lack of vision is a fundamental disadvantage in negotiation. Absent clear values and preferences, it’s impossible to pursue a positive agenda, limiting negotiators to a defensive, rearguard action. Further, it hampers efforts to manage tradeoffs between distinct values such as civil liberties and security. The result could be a gradual move in the direction of more state control. The perception that Internet governance outcomes are leading to a more state-controlled Internet, whether by design or by accident, risks creating a backlash. While large-scale disruption of the Internet must be avoided due to its integration with financial markets and critical infrastructure, dissent and opposition online should not be seen as intrinsically threatening or illegitimate. In particular, such political speech must be carefully distinguished from cybercrime and cyberterrorism. The appropriate conceptual frame is civil disobedience. Maintaining this distinction will take leadership and training on the part of law enforcement and security organizations, just as it will require restraint and moderation on the part of Internet activists such as hacker collective Anonymous. Most of all, it will take sustained dialogue. This kind of genuine engagement is important not only to minimize the immense potential damage from major Internet disruptions, but also to communicate that, at least in this case, major industrial democracies and loose-knit hacker groups have substantially overlapping interests in preventing a heavily state-dominated Internet along the lines of the one desired by Russia, China and other authoritarian states. Ensuring real opportunities for people who feel passionately about online freedoms to play a constructive role in the future of the Internet can help ensure vital civil liberties – freedoms crucial to the Internet’s creative potential – are not lost in the process of achieving other Internet governance goals, such as security. That is, it can help states committed to a multi-stakeholder regime for Internet governance maintain their focus on a strategic vision for the Internet as they play a long game against determined adversaries. Gordon Smith is a distinguished fellow and Mark Raymond a research fellow at the Waterloo-based Centre for International Governance Innovation. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 10:38:19 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 15:38:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB8C1C9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> McTim, all those advantages pale before the largest disadvantage: we would be forever plagued with speeches about "steering this ship in a storm", "rearranging the deck chairs", and... wait! it has been done! 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 McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Enviado el: jueves, 06 de diciembre de 2012 08:31 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! All, If domiciling ICANN in a nation state is problematic, perhaps ICANN could buy this cruise ship as a HQ: http://cruiseship.homestead.com/Cruise-Ship.html It would help solve the problem of internationalisation, be a permanent host for ICANN meetings (2450 berths....saving hotel costs for all) and generate revenue intersessionally. It's a 3-fer, plus it's a snip @~ 300 million USD!! -- 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 Dec 6 11:23:56 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:23:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Leaked: ITU's secret Internet surveillance standard discussion draft - Boing Boin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B170751@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> See also ITU reply in comments. Lee ________________________________ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 10:33 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Leaked: ITU's secret Internet surveillance standard discussion draft - Boing Boin http://boingboing.net/2012/12/05/leaked-itus-secret-internet.html Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu Dec 6 12:38:12 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:38:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks Message-ID: Available in pdf *ITU-T Study Group 13 Future networks including mobile and NGN *DRAFT NEW RECOMMENDATION ITU-T Y.2770 PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL AT THE WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION STANDARDIZATION CONFERENCE (WTSA-12) *Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks * http://cryptome.org/2012/12/itu-future-networks.pdf take a breath, 87 pages 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Dec 6 12:49:25 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 18:49:25 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD6FD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Was it formally adopted or is it still a draft? wolfgang ________________________________ Von: pouzin at gmail.com im Auftrag von Louis Pouzin (well) Gesendet: Do 06.12.2012 18:38 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight Betreff: [governance] Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks Available in pdf ITU-T Study Group 13 Future networks including mobile and NGN DRAFT NEW RECOMMENDATION ITU-T Y.2770 PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL AT THE WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION STANDARDIZATION CONFERENCE (WTSA-12) Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks http://cryptome.org/2012/12/itu-future-networks.pdf take a breath, 87 pages Louis -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu Dec 6 12:59:31 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 18:59:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD6FD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD6FD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 6:49 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Was it formally adopted or is it still a draft? > > wolfgang > - - - Contact: TSB Tel: +41 22 730 5126 Fax: +41 22 730 5853 Email: tsbsg13 at itu.int 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 13:38:13 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 20:38:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <50C08C7B.3010100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50C0E615.9040402@gmail.com> While I cannot speak for Parminder: On 2012/12/06 03:38 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:15 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > > One needs to do more than say I/we are for "internationalising > ICANN". That would be merely rhetoric unless one is ready to > present (and engage with) a credible plan and roadmap, which all > those, whom Riaz may call as "US exceptionalists" and I often call > as "US apologists", have never done here. Have they ever? IF they > have, please point me to it. > > > Please see Drake's reply to you the last time we talked about this. I > don't have a link however. Drake has also had an evolution on these matters. Politically at least, I think we can go for Sapere Aude (we make up our own minds, of course always open to persuasion - especially if the facts change). > > > No, it isnt enough to say that the US should just terminate the > ICANN contract (including the IANA part) . One needs to propose > under what kind of arrangement will the new internationalised > ICANN get institutionalised and subsist. > > > > Why? Isn't a "free-floating" ICANN the next major step in the ongoing > evolution? > Why does Parminder have to give a utopian vision for the future while others are precluded from this requirement? Where is the balance in that? > One needs at least framework level indications/ details. Would it > still be headquarter-ed in the US. If so what kind of immunities > would it have from US jurisdiction, and how will they be ensured? > > > Evolution means a series of minor changes, this would be several steps > down the road, and unless ICANN HQ is moved to the moon (or perhaps a > private island [we could call it "Internetistan"] purchased with new > gTLD monies) there will always be a jurisdictional issue. Of course, > if ICANN became an IGO of the UN system then your requirements might > be met, but none of us ( I think) want an "intergovernmental only" ICANN. > There is also disruptive evolution (see preceding comment). However, I cannot see how the legitimacy issue can be dealt with if even basic discussions (think Vint Cerf and Nick Gowing at the first IGF also) cannot be had. If I/we are contrary, then with balance I can say we are outnumbered, what are the others' excuses? > > It is very central to the internationalisation issue that neither > the US executive nor its courts are able to interfere with ICANN's > decisions. > > > > It is central to your version of "internationalisation", not to all > versions. > And how exactly is this internationalisation when US domestic institutions dominate? Of course there is a matter of degree... and that can be run with... but there may be substantive differences in this commodious term... > It would be enough for the moment if we could get everyone on the list > to stop top-posting and trim your mails, that would be a useful next step! > > -- > 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 Thu Dec 6 13:33:10 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 20:33:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228C393@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228C393@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50C0E4E6.2050506@gmail.com> I do not mind the response Milton. However, if anything was ad hominem then this is it. There are substantive challenges to you, not only from me, as well an explanation of how I locate you politically. And as for hurling epithets, then well don't give (as good) unless you can take it. There is a need to discuss and thrash these matters out. But if you cannot engage substantively, then you are right there is not a point to it. Riaz On 2012/12/06 04:02 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Riaz, > > Like Parminder, you’ve overused this charge of “American > exceptionalism,” to the point where it reflects more on you than on > the target. Indeed if you, like Parminder, apply it to me it shows > that you are completely ignorant of my writings on the subject or that > you are simply hurling a blanket epithet at whoever is standing > around, whenever they disagree. So, no point in discussing further. > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Riaz K Tayob > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:06 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dominique Lacroix > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... > (from taxes? > > Frankly I am not sure what kind of institutionalist Milton is. This is > not the Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Rayomond, Richard Ely, E Pershine > Smith, Frederich List and JK Galbraith, who all had a keen head for > facts and history. > > Britain used free trade ideas as a means to maintain its dominance > over other nations. The workshop of the world that encouraged everyone > to liberalise, that free trade (and then classical economics) was > best. And in the Pax (?) Americana, neoclassical economics (in > infinite disguises) and the Washington Consensus serves the same > function. > > Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these > approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is room for > disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry Milton, for > some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be included in > the "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from his > Institutionalism - not having read all his work, is no different from > American Exceptionalists on this list. Of course I am aware that in > the American context(where what passes for progressive is quit > different, this may well be the case. It simply cannot be generalised. > > And in the "competition" through subsidised efforts Europe builds > capabilities - both the tech no-(harware) and -ology (its people). One > of the key elements of benefiting from a network is that skills can be > diffused. Consumption of technology rich goods is not the same as > producing them. Actually in a reverse sort of way the status quoists > (exceptionalists, Institutionalists of a special type, neoliberals, > etc) seek to maintain the US dominance by playing to that nations > comparative advantage - also in institutions like ICANN and the posse > that goes with it. > > > On 2012/12/05 10:25 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > > Le 05/12/12 20:26, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > > "Frankly", development of the TCP/IP protocols were supported > by military research contracts, which had no intention of > supporting a commercial industry. "The Internet" spread to the > general population and succeeded because of telecommunications > liberalization and a free market. > > Dear Milton, you seem a little dizzy. You skipped merrily the NSF > action in the 1981-1995 years... > And then, also, the CIA action, via the In-Q-Tel venture capital > firm, launched in 1999. > And also the military orders in the advanced IT field. > Perhaps I forget something. I'm also a bit dizzy... > > The government played an important role in facilitating that > process by privatizing control and paving the way for competition > among ISPs. There is no doubt about that. > > Exact. And not enough: Google should be prosecuted for dominance > abuse. > > While we are being frank, perhaps you can tell me how successful > European efforts to subsidize search engine technology to compete > with Google has been? > > I assume you already heard about the networks effect that gives an > advantage to the first big player. > That's exactly why China and other countries protect their > boundaries in order to help their IT industry to find existence. > > Do you think that Europe also ought to close their virtual boundaries? > > @+, Dom > > > Please frankly, Milton, did internet begin in the US by free > market or by the US Gov action? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 13:50:28 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 07:50:28 +1300 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Of course the tax dispute is not with the telecom regulators of those > countries and would continue regardless of the outcome in the WCIT, so you > will forgive me if I don't quite get the connection > > --srs (htc one x) A few thoughts from me: Well it not new that the US has always maintained that the Internet should be a tax free zone as per the US Congress's Tax Freedom Act 1998 (*authored by **Representative Christopher Cox and Senator Ron Wyden and signed into law on October 21 1998 by then President Clinton*) which following expiry continued to be reauthorised and it most recent reauthorisation (legal speak for extension) was in October 2007 where this has been extended till 2014. The OECD and the EU have been holding the opposite view (Kurbaliha,J. 2010) - see their Ottawa Principles where they find that there is no difference between traditional and e taxation that would require special regulations. It followed that in 2003 when the EU introduced a regulation requesting non EU e commerce companies to pay value added tax (VAT) if they sold goods within the EU. The main driver or motivation was that non-EU companies (many of whom are US companies) had an edge over European companies. See one of the Reports - http://www.oecd.org/tax/taxadministration/20499630.pdf The point of controversy is also location (US is pro-origin) and destination (EU is pro-destination) when assessing tarriffs so when take for example as is with Trade. This is why MNCs (multinational corporations) are careful and selective of jurisdictions in which they plonk their servers in or offices in because it has to make sense to the bottom line. In my view nothing wrong with the bottom line as long as people behave responsibly and fairly so that global public interest is protected. The only problem is that history and current trends show that the self regulatory model does'nt work (see some of the links that Michael provided). [question for us is finding that place of balance where we can all win]. Why is South Korea so important in the mix? Well aside from the Samsung v Apple and Apple v Samsung circus, South Korea also leads the world in terms of being number 1 in the IDI ranking but if you peel the layers, volume and content are massive triggers as far as generating revenue. Ask any ISP or MNC...If taxation were introduced globally, the apple cart would be upset. Of course, at the end of the day, the reality is that the EU is in financial crisis and it should not come as a shock as to what their position will be in terms of "enhancing stability". The fact that even the IMF is struggling to find viable solutions shows that hourglass is in motion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Thu Dec 6 14:27:32 2012 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 20:27:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jeremy, On Thursday, December 6, 2012, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But the status quo is not going to hold. One way or another, Internet governance is going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us. We've spoken loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what do we want? Since I was unable, for biological reasons, to attend the IGF, is there a written report of these discussions? Thanks, Andrea -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From m.ermert at gmx.de Thu Dec 6 14:41:32 2012 From: m.ermert at gmx.de (Monika Ermert) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 20:41:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD6FD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <50C0F4EC.8080104@gmx.de> It has been adopted by WTSA, best, Monika Am 06.12.2012 18:59, schrieb Louis Pouzin (well): > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 6:49 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > wrote: > > Was it formally adopted or is it still a draft? > > wolfgang > > - - - > > Contact: TSB Tel: +41 22 730 5126 > Fax: +41 22 730 5853 > Email: tsbsg13 at itu.int > > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 16:22:55 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:22:55 +1300 Subject: [governance] US Ambassador Terry Kramer on WCIT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, See below: Economic, Energy, Agricultural and Trade Issues: Development and Progress of the World Conference on International Telecommunications Currently Being Held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates Until December 14, 2012 12/06/2012 02:45 PM EST Development and Progress of the World Conference on International Telecommunications Currently Being Held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates Until December 14, 2012 Special Briefing Terry Kramer Ambassador U.S. Head of Delegation, World Conference on International Telecommunications Via Teleconference December 6, 2012 ------------------------------ *MR. HENSMAN: *Thank you. Good morning, everyone, or afternoon. Thanks for joining us. Today we’ve got an on-the-record conference call with Ambassador Terry Kramer, who is the U.S. Head of Delegation for the World Conference on International Telecommunications taking place in Dubai. We do have journalists that are in the room as well as dialed in, so we’re going to try and alternate as best we can within the time allowed to get questions from both groups. With that, let me turn it over to Ambassador Kramer. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Great. Well, thank you very much, and I wanted to welcome all of you that are here in Dubai as well as all of you on the phone. I wanted to also to start out by thanking all of you for your ongoing coverage, because transparency in the process and the nature of the discussions here is absolutely critical, so thanks to all of you. I also wanted to just take a minute to thank the ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Toure. I think he’s done a very good job of laying out a vision for what the conference is all about and also ensuring that there’s an active and honest dialogue amongst everyone here. So a special thank you to Hamadoun Toure. I wanted to reiterate his vision for this conference, which is: How do we find the best ways to accelerate broadband availability globally. I also want to thank the city of Dubai, the leaders of Dubai, for hosting what has been a good event. I think this city is a great example of what we talk about in the telecomm and the internet sectors, the city being dynamic, being entrepreneurial, being growth oriented, it’s a great setting for what we’re doing here. And finally, I wanted to thank the conference chair, Mr. Mohamed Al Ghanim. And he’s had – really done a great job at being able to look at a lot of different issues, but also move through issues at a good pace. So he’s done a great job. What we wanted to do on this call is take stock of where we’re at – we’re obviously a few days into this conference – and share where we see progress and also share where we need to see further progress to ensure a successful outcome. Now, as all of you know, our own vision for this conference is to ensure that we’re seeing a successful environment for the telecomm and internet sectors. It’s important to continue to remind ourselves that that’s the goal of what we all should be doing here as leaders. As we’re only a few days into it, I can say we’ve seen a couple of good elements of progress in our work. As many of you know, a week ago we submitted, along with our Canadian colleagues, a proposal that called for an immediate look at a foundational element in this conference. And that specifically is: What organizations or sectors are we going to look at here? And as you know, we’re looking specifically from a U.S. and Canada point of view in this proposal to be focused on the telecomm sector, not on the internet sector. And as part of that, we feel strongly that the agencies that should be reviewed in this agreement should be recognized operating agencies. Recognized operating agencies are public providers of telecommunications services. So in the U.S., this would be providers such as AT&T and Verizon. What recognized operating agencies does not include would be private networks, which a lot of the internet players would be in there, ham radio operators would be in there, and government networks would not be in there. So we want to stay pure to the focus of this conference, which is on telecomm service providers. Now, let me tell you where a couple of the areas of success has been. First of all, it’s been agreement on the overall wording of the preamble. The preamble lays out the general focus of the conference and the references to the original constitution. There was also agreement on the definition of telecommunications, which we think is an important first step to ensure that we’re not confusing the ICT sector, companies that are involved in processing, et cetera. So the focus and definition of telecommunications was a success. A final item is the one, importantly, that is left remaining to be determined, and that’s whether the focus is going to be on recognized operating agencies or operating agencies. Operating agencies is a much broader term. Again, it includes the internet sector in that mix. So that issue has left to be worked on. We’ve been spending quite a bit of time working with a variety of countries in bilateral discussions to specifically focus on this recognized operating agency issue. Again, fundamentally, the conference, to us, should not be dealing with the internet sector. That carries significant implications that could open the doors to things such as content censorship. It could also introduce payment models that we would be significantly concerned would reduce traffic. And so we think keeping to the pure focus of this conference on advancing broadband in a telecomm arena is absolutely the right approach. Now, we’re seeing several countries throughout the world that have been good supporters of our position on keeping the internet out of this and focusing on recognized operating agencies. These are countries in a variety of regions, specifically in Europe, in Latin America, and in the Asia Pacific in addition to our partners in North America. So we’re very encouraged by that. And in that support, we see a common alignment about the need for multi-stakeholder organizations driving a lot of the successes in the market, and also the importance and criticality of liberalized markets, liberalized markets where there are competitive alternatives, where there are a variety of providers, providing a variety of alternatives that drives down prices and creates better availability. So again, a couple areas of success, an area that needs to critically be focused on, on recognized operating agencies. And we’ll be working that issue literally day and night over the next few days. So let me stop here and take any questions that you have. *OPERATOR:* Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, if you do have a question on the phone, you can press * then 1 on your touchtone phone, and you will hear a tone indicating you’ve been placed into queue. You can remove yourself from the queue by pressing the # key. If you’re using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. Once again, if you have a question on the phone, press * then 1 at this time. And one moment for the first question. *MR. HENSMEN:* Megan, if we have a question from the room, we can start there. *MS. MATTSON:* Could you state who you are and where you – what organization? *QUESTION:* Matt Smith from Reuters. I just have one little question, do you think the focus of conference should be on broadband or, something about – see what you can do about telecomm, does that contradict? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* No, broadband is basically the term for high-speed telecomm networks. So we very much believe in providing broadband access globally. That then allows people to access the internet, et cetera. What we are saying, though, is internet by itself, which gets into content, gets into applications, et cetera, is an area that should not be the focus. So again, the core network that provides all the service and the high-speed nature of it, broadband, we think is absolutely the right focus and the right vision for the conference. *MR. HENSMAN:* Okay. Let’s go to the next question from the phones. *OPERATOR:* Thank you. We go to David McAuley with Bloomberg. Your line is open. *QUESTION:* Thank you very much. Ambassador Kramer, thank you very much for this time. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Sure. Thank you, David. *QUESTION:* One comment. When there’s a question in the room, I don’t think we can hear it on the phone. Secondly, the – I understand the definition for telecommunications has been set. This morning, in the conference that the – in the media conference that the ITU holds, Director Peprah from Ghana mentioned that that’s the case, but ICT is still in the works – that is, the concept of information communications technology is still in the works, possibly as a defined term. Could you comment on that? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. We are still working through a lot of different elements of how this definition gets driven. Our view right now is it does not belong in there. There may still be people talking about ICT in different forms. And certainly, in our own discussions, people are talking about VoIP operators, Skype and others that provide what they believe is telecomm services. But we don’t feel those are appropriate. *QUESTION:* Thank you. *OPERATOR:* And our next question from the line of Rob Lever with AFP. Please go ahead. *QUESTION:* Yes, Ambassador, thank you. There have been some reports that you’ve probably seen that the ITU approved at – I guess there was some kind of a prelude to the summit in Dubai last week – a provision allowing members to use some type of internet snooping or eavesdropping they call deep packet inspection. Can you address this, whether this is – these reports are accurate? And if they are accurate, what does that mean for your whole position and the U.S. position? What would be Washington’s view on that? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So first of all, I have not seen the specific reference that you’re mentioning. Let me just talk for a second about deep packet inspections. So, deep packet inspection has a good and a bad connotation. The original connotation of deep packet inspection was for operators to be able to look at their networks and say, “Are they performing well?” So in the mobile sector, it’s do you have blocked calls and dropped calls, et cetera. What’s happened, though, is some companies have used deep packet inspection technologies to not look at aggregate customer information, traffic information, et cetera, but to look at individual customer information. So looking at individuals and what sites they’re on and how much capacity they’re using, et cetera, as you can imagine, we’re very much opposed to that because we feel that’s a violation of people’s privacy and gets into, obviously, censorship, et cetera. So again, deep packet inspection can get used in good and bad contexts. I’d have to see the specific reference, but anything that would go past aggregated customer information would be problematic. *QUESTION:* Well, and the reports say that the ITU essentially approved this. I mean, if you’re involved in that, can you – do you not know whether they did that or not? I mean, that’s kind of important. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. Dick Barrett is here with me, who’s our senior director, and he’s our deputy head of delegation. Let me have him answer it. *MR. BARRETT:* Yes, thank you, just getting settled in. There was a recommendation that had been worked on for four years involved in deep packet inspection as a means of classical traffic management. It had been gone through – it was a private sector initiative, as all of these items are coming in through the ITU-T at the technical level. It had four years of vetting. And at the end of a World Telecommunications Standardization Assembly, that document came forward without opposition. There was some editing at the end of the process of approval. Some appendices were deleted because they were kind of extraneous to the actual technical aspects of the recommendation. But then it was adopted by the World Telecommunications Standardization Assembly, as I indicated. *MR. HENSMAN:* Okay. For the next question, we’ll just go back to the room. And if I could remind folks in the room to please speak up so our colleagues on the line can hear your questions. Thank you. *QUESTION:* Yes. My first question is about internet security. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* I’m sorry, your name? *QUESTION:* My name’s Sam Hoda from Radio Free Europe. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. *QUESTION:* Internet security is one of the key things that you mentioned (inaudible). And the Russians have proposed something that (inaudible). What is the exact position of the U.S. delegation on this (inaudible)? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So this is Sam from Radio Free Europe. *MR. HENSMAN:* Ambassador, I’m sorry to interrupt – *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. And the question was on internet security, that the Russians have proposed a suggestion, a proposal on internet security. So first of all, again, there’s an important distinguishing characteristic here. There’s some people talking about network security, having to deal with telecomm networks. There are other people talking about information security or internet security. We draw a very stark line between the two, because again, anything that gets into the content or the internet, we do not feel should be part of this treaty. What can happen is what are seemingly harmless proposals can open the door to censorship, because people can then say, listen, as part of internet security, we see traffic and content that we don’t like. And people are making judgments, governments are making judgments about that content that, again, can be suppressing people’s freedoms and rights to express themselves, to share points of view, to access information, et cetera. So while there may be proposals on internet security, you can imagine we’re very much opposed to those. *MR. HENSMAN:* Let’s go and take one from the phone lines. *OPERATOR:* We go to Danny Yadron with the *Wall Street Journal*. Please go ahead. *QUESTION:* Mr. Kramer, thanks so much for doing this call. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Thank you. *QUESTION:* I mean, you probably saw some of the reports in the U.S. yesterday that the fact that the conference has not set aside internet activity was a disappointment or some sort of rejection of what the U.S. is trying to accomplish. I realize we have several more days to go, but I mean, what’s your reaction to that, that this has not been settled yet, or it’s still being negotiated? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. I don’t know that I would say I was disappointed that it hasn’t been settled by now. It’s a pretty large fundamental issue, and there is a pretty big gap in points of view between a variety of nations. This again gets down to a fundamental view about telecomm versus internet, companies – not companies but countries, nations that are focused on liberalization and free speech and commercial opportunities, et cetera, and those that have a very different view of those. So it’s not an easy issue to work through because it’s a philosophical one. So I don’t know necessarily I would have expected it to be resolved. I know what our point of view is on this, and I shared this today with Secretary General Hamadoun Toure and Chairman Mohamed Al Ghanim, is we – again, if there is a dispute on this, we need to go back to the original charter of the conference, which is: How do we advance the telecomm sector and broadband? And if there’s a dispute on the definitions and the agencies that are subject to review here, we should go back to the original ones that were in the original ITRs, which, again, are recognized operating agencies. So that, to us, is the way you work through all of this. Short of that, it’s a problematic situation, and it’s a situation that we are not likely to negotiate on because of a significant scope creep and incursion on what we think are the wrong areas to move into. *MR. HENSMAN:* I think we’ve got time for one more question, maybe two. Let’s go to the room. *QUESTION:* Oh, yes. Hi. Toula Vlahou with the AP. Have you, sir, seen the proposal from Russia, Article 3A? Have you been able to read it? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* I’ve seen a Russian proposal. I don’t remember Article 3A offhand. *QUESTION:* In general, the proposal that I believe was discussed somewhat the other day with – back in some committee. What do you think of the proposal? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* The overall Russian proposal? *QUESTION:* There is this one about government management. I didn’t read it (inaudible) -- *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* There’s -- *QUESTION:* -- having some sort of the government – as having some sort of governing over the internet. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So there is a proposal – so the most dramatic element of the Russian proposal that is suggesting that internet governance get moved away from multi-stakeholder organizations such as ICANN over to government or single organizations – potentially the ITU, although I think the ITU would say it doesn’t want to be in that business. And again, we fundamentally disagree with that, because once governments are in that role, they’re in a position to make judgments about how the internet is going to operate, what type of information’s going to flow there, et cetera. So we think that multi-stakeholder organizations that are inclusive in nature, have technical expertise, and can be making independent, agile, rapid-fire decisions are the right ones from a pragmatic standpoint and from a philosophical standpoint. *QUESTION:* Has there been discussion on this proposal anywhere besides the -- *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah, I’m sorry, have we had discussion? Yeah. We’ve looked at the proposal, but we are not keen to get into a discussion about that proposal because, again, we think it’s out of scope for the conference. *MR. HENSMAN:* Okay. Let’s take one more from the phone line, and then I think that’ll be our time, as the Secretary’s going to have her press conference. *OPERATOR:* And we go to Eliza Krigman with Politico. Your line is open. *QUESTION:* Hi. Thanks so much for taking my call. I understand that yesterday there was some kind of security attack on the network, and that hackers have claimed responsibility for it. Do we – do you know for certain that it was indeed hackers that happened? And as a follow-up, Director Peprah this morning said that this is a great example of why cyber security is so important. Has this emboldened others who think that cyber security should be an element of the treaty? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So first of all, I don’t think it’s been confirmed who did what in this situation. I mean, we are obviously very concerned about that incident because, as you remember, there’s been a big focus on transparency in this conference. And the ITU has made all the main plenary discussions available via webcasting. They posted the proposals on their site. So taking that site down creates an impression that there isn’t transparency. So we’re obviously just as concerned as everybody else is on that. We don’t know exactly who did what. And I’m sorry, your second question was? *MR. HENSMAN:* I think we’ve lost -- *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Okay. I think the second question was: Does this embolden people on cyber security recommendations? First of all, on cyber security, we have always said we very much see the threat. As a matter of fact, we talk about malware incidents. There’s been 87,000 a day, and that number has doubled. So I don’t think there’s any debate about the cyber threat. The key issue is how do you solve those issues most effectively? And so our point of view is you’ve got to have a variety of organizations that, again, have got that technical expertise and that agility. And the fact the site went back up so rapidly – actually, the validation that you do need a lot of different organizations with different expertise, not one single one that kind of owns the problem. So again, we actually thought it was a helpful reminder to everybody about the necessary skills and speed to deal with the issues. *MR. HENSMAN:* Thank you all for joining us. I think that’s the time that we have for today. We appreciate you participating. And thank you, Ambassador Kramer. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Good. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. PRN: 2012/1928 *Ends* -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 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 Thu Dec 6 16:22:59 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:22:59 +1300 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67A5BE75-7CF8-4AAE-A403-5952B5A0E15D@ciroap.org> On 07/12/2012, at 8:27 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > On Thursday, December 6, 2012, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But the status quo is not going to hold. One way or another, Internet governance is going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us. We've spoken loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what do we want? > > Since I was unable, for biological reasons, to attend the IGF, is there a written report of these discussions? Not a detailed record; we just have the two outputs of the meeting recorded at the front page of http://bestbits.igf-online.net/. The time spent on the ITU and WCIT overran, leaving us less time to talk about a positive agenda. We just settled on a brief exhortation for the IGF to draw together the existing statements of Internet rights and principles to produce a common document for discussion. -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 6 16:24:13 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:24:13 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: US Ambassador Terry Kramer on WCIT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Did I mention that he was asked about his thoughts on "Deep Packet Inspection"? On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > See below: > > Economic, Energy, Agricultural and Trade Issues: Development and Progress > of the World Conference on International Telecommunications Currently Being > Held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates Until December 14, 2012 > 12/06/2012 02:45 PM EST > > Development and Progress of the World Conference on International > Telecommunications Currently Being Held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates > Until December 14, 2012 > > Special Briefing > Terry Kramer > Ambassador U.S. Head of Delegation, World Conference on International > Telecommunications > Via Teleconference > December 6, 2012 > > ------------------------------ > > *MR. HENSMAN: *Thank you. Good morning, everyone, or afternoon. Thanks > for joining us. Today we’ve got an on-the-record conference call with > Ambassador Terry Kramer, who is the U.S. Head of Delegation for the World > Conference on International Telecommunications taking place in Dubai. We do > have journalists that are in the room as well as dialed in, so we’re going > to try and alternate as best we can within the time allowed to get > questions from both groups. > > With that, let me turn it over to Ambassador Kramer. > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Great. Well, thank you very much, and I wanted to > welcome all of you that are here in Dubai as well as all of you on the > phone. I wanted to also to start out by thanking all of you for your > ongoing coverage, because transparency in the process and the nature of the > discussions here is absolutely critical, so thanks to all of you. > > I also wanted to just take a minute to thank the ITU Secretary General > Hamadoun Toure. I think he’s done a very good job of laying out a vision > for what the conference is all about and also ensuring that there’s an > active and honest dialogue amongst everyone here. So a special thank you to > Hamadoun Toure. > > I wanted to reiterate his vision for this conference, which is: How do we > find the best ways to accelerate broadband availability globally. I also > want to thank the city of Dubai, the leaders of Dubai, for hosting what has > been a good event. I think this city is a great example of what we talk > about in the telecomm and the internet sectors, the city being dynamic, > being entrepreneurial, being growth oriented, it’s a great setting for what > we’re doing here. > > And finally, I wanted to thank the conference chair, Mr. Mohamed Al > Ghanim. And he’s had – really done a great job at being able to look at a > lot of different issues, but also move through issues at a good pace. So > he’s done a great job. > > What we wanted to do on this call is take stock of where we’re at – we’re > obviously a few days into this conference – and share where we see progress > and also share where we need to see further progress to ensure a successful > outcome. Now, as all of you know, our own vision for this conference is to > ensure that we’re seeing a successful environment for the telecomm and > internet sectors. It’s important to continue to remind ourselves that > that’s the goal of what we all should be doing here as leaders. > > As we’re only a few days into it, I can say we’ve seen a couple of good > elements of progress in our work. As many of you know, a week ago we > submitted, along with our Canadian colleagues, a proposal that called for > an immediate look at a foundational element in this conference. And that > specifically is: What organizations or sectors are we going to look at > here? And as you know, we’re looking specifically from a U.S. and Canada > point of view in this proposal to be focused on the telecomm sector, not on > the internet sector. And as part of that, we feel strongly that the > agencies that should be reviewed in this agreement should be recognized > operating agencies. > > Recognized operating agencies are public providers of telecommunications > services. So in the U.S., this would be providers such as AT&T and Verizon. > What recognized operating agencies does not include would be private > networks, which a lot of the internet players would be in there, ham radio > operators would be in there, and government networks would not be in there. > So we want to stay pure to the focus of this conference, which is on > telecomm service providers. > > Now, let me tell you where a couple of the areas of success has been. > First of all, it’s been agreement on the overall wording of the preamble. > The preamble lays out the general focus of the conference and the > references to the original constitution. There was also agreement on the > definition of telecommunications, which we think is an important first step > to ensure that we’re not confusing the ICT sector, companies that are > involved in processing, et cetera. So the focus and definition of > telecommunications was a success. > > A final item is the one, importantly, that is left remaining to be > determined, and that’s whether the focus is going to be on recognized > operating agencies or operating agencies. Operating agencies is a much > broader term. Again, it includes the internet sector in that mix. So that > issue has left to be worked on. We’ve been spending quite a bit of time > working with a variety of countries in bilateral discussions to > specifically focus on this recognized operating agency issue. > > Again, fundamentally, the conference, to us, should not be dealing with > the internet sector. That carries significant implications that could open > the doors to things such as content censorship. It could also introduce > payment models that we would be significantly concerned would reduce > traffic. And so we think keeping to the pure focus of this conference on > advancing broadband in a telecomm arena is absolutely the right approach. > > Now, we’re seeing several countries throughout the world that have been > good supporters of our position on keeping the internet out of this and > focusing on recognized operating agencies. These are countries in a variety > of regions, specifically in Europe, in Latin America, and in the Asia > Pacific in addition to our partners in North America. So we’re very > encouraged by that. And in that support, we see a common alignment about > the need for multi-stakeholder organizations driving a lot of the successes > in the market, and also the importance and criticality of liberalized > markets, liberalized markets where there are competitive alternatives, > where there are a variety of providers, providing a variety of alternatives > that drives down prices and creates better availability. > > So again, a couple areas of success, an area that needs to critically be > focused on, on recognized operating agencies. And we’ll be working that > issue literally day and night over the next few days. > > So let me stop here and take any questions that you have. > > *OPERATOR:* Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, if you do have a > question on the phone, you can press * then 1 on your touchtone phone, and > you will hear a tone indicating you’ve been placed into queue. You can > remove yourself from the queue by pressing the # key. If you’re using a > speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. > > Once again, if you have a question on the phone, press * then 1 at this > time. And one moment for the first question. > > *MR. HENSMEN:* Megan, if we have a question from the room, we can start > there. > > *MS. MATTSON:* Could you state who you are and where you – what > organization? > > *QUESTION:* Matt Smith from Reuters. I just have one little question, do > you think the focus of conference should be on broadband or, something > about – see what you can do about telecomm, does that contradict? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* No, broadband is basically the term for high-speed > telecomm networks. So we very much believe in providing broadband access > globally. That then allows people to access the internet, et cetera. What > we are saying, though, is internet by itself, which gets into content, gets > into applications, et cetera, is an area that should not be the focus. So > again, the core network that provides all the service and the high-speed > nature of it, broadband, we think is absolutely the right focus and the > right vision for the conference. > > *MR. HENSMAN:* Okay. Let’s go to the next question from the phones. > > *OPERATOR:* Thank you. We go to David McAuley with Bloomberg. Your line > is open. > > *QUESTION:* Thank you very much. Ambassador Kramer, thank you very much > for this time. > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Sure. Thank you, David. > > *QUESTION:* One comment. When there’s a question in the room, I don’t > think we can hear it on the phone. > > Secondly, the – I understand the definition for telecommunications has > been set. This morning, in the conference that the – in the media > conference that the ITU holds, Director Peprah from Ghana mentioned that > that’s the case, but ICT is still in the works – that is, the concept of > information communications technology is still in the works, possibly as a > defined term. Could you comment on that? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. We are still working through a lot of > different elements of how this definition gets driven. Our view right now > is it does not belong in there. There may still be people talking about ICT > in different forms. And certainly, in our own discussions, people are > talking about VoIP operators, Skype and others that provide what they > believe is telecomm services. But we don’t feel those are appropriate. > > *QUESTION:* Thank you. > > *OPERATOR:* And our next question from the line of Rob Lever with AFP. > Please go ahead. > > *QUESTION:* Yes, Ambassador, thank you. There have been some reports that > you’ve probably seen that the ITU approved at – I guess there was some kind > of a prelude to the summit in Dubai last week – a provision allowing > members to use some type of internet snooping or eavesdropping they call > deep packet inspection. Can you address this, whether this is – these > reports are accurate? And if they are accurate, what does that mean for > your whole position and the U.S. position? What would be Washington’s view > on that? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So first of all, I have not seen the specific > reference that you’re mentioning. Let me just talk for a second about deep > packet inspections. > > So, deep packet inspection has a good and a bad connotation. The original > connotation of deep packet inspection was for operators to be able to look > at their networks and say, “Are they performing well?” So in the mobile > sector, it’s do you have blocked calls and dropped calls, et cetera. What’s > happened, though, is some companies have used deep packet inspection > technologies to not look at aggregate customer information, traffic > information, et cetera, but to look at individual customer information. So > looking at individuals and what sites they’re on and how much capacity > they’re using, et cetera, as you can imagine, we’re very much opposed to > that because we feel that’s a violation of people’s privacy and gets into, > obviously, censorship, et cetera. > > So again, deep packet inspection can get used in good and bad contexts. > I’d have to see the specific reference, but anything that would go past > aggregated customer information would be problematic. > > *QUESTION:* Well, and the reports say that the ITU essentially approved > this. I mean, if you’re involved in that, can you – do you not know whether > they did that or not? I mean, that’s kind of important. > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. Dick Barrett is here with me, who’s our senior > director, and he’s our deputy head of delegation. Let me have him answer it. > > *MR. BARRETT:* Yes, thank you, just getting settled in. There was a > recommendation that had been worked on for four years involved in deep > packet inspection as a means of classical traffic management. It had been > gone through – it was a private sector initiative, as all of these items > are coming in through the ITU-T at the technical level. It had four years > of vetting. And at the end of a World Telecommunications Standardization > Assembly, that document came forward without opposition. There was some > editing at the end of the process of approval. Some appendices were deleted > because they were kind of extraneous to the actual technical aspects of the > recommendation. But then it was adopted by the World Telecommunications > Standardization Assembly, as I indicated. > > *MR. HENSMAN:* Okay. For the next question, we’ll just go back to the > room. And if I could remind folks in the room to please speak up so our > colleagues on the line can hear your questions. Thank you. > > *QUESTION:* Yes. My first question is about internet security. > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* I’m sorry, your name? > > *QUESTION:* My name’s Sam Hoda from Radio Free Europe. > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. > > *QUESTION:* Internet security is one of the key things that you mentioned > (inaudible). And the Russians have proposed something that (inaudible). > What is the exact position of the U.S. delegation on this (inaudible)? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So this is Sam from Radio Free Europe. > > *MR. HENSMAN:* Ambassador, I’m sorry to interrupt – > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. And the question was on internet security, > that the Russians have proposed a suggestion, a proposal on internet > security. > > So first of all, again, there’s an important distinguishing characteristic > here. There’s some people talking about network security, having to deal > with telecomm networks. There are other people talking about information > security or internet security. We draw a very stark line between the two, > because again, anything that gets into the content or the internet, we do > not feel should be part of this treaty. > > What can happen is what are seemingly harmless proposals can open the door > to censorship, because people can then say, listen, as part of internet > security, we see traffic and content that we don’t like. And people are > making judgments, governments are making judgments about that content that, > again, can be suppressing people’s freedoms and rights to express > themselves, to share points of view, to access information, et cetera. So > while there may be proposals on internet security, you can imagine we’re > very much opposed to those. > > *MR. HENSMAN:* Let’s go and take one from the phone lines. > > *OPERATOR:* We go to Danny Yadron with the *Wall Street Journal*. Please > go ahead. > > *QUESTION:* Mr. Kramer, thanks so much for doing this call. > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Thank you. > > *QUESTION:* I mean, you probably saw some of the reports in the U.S. > yesterday that the fact that the conference has not set aside internet > activity was a disappointment or some sort of rejection of what the U.S. is > trying to accomplish. I realize we have several more days to go, but I > mean, what’s your reaction to that, that this has not been settled yet, or > it’s still being negotiated? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. I don’t know that I would say I was > disappointed that it hasn’t been settled by now. It’s a pretty large > fundamental issue, and there is a pretty big gap in points of view between > a variety of nations. This again gets down to a fundamental view about > telecomm versus internet, companies – not companies but countries, nations > that are focused on liberalization and free speech and commercial > opportunities, et cetera, and those that have a very different view of > those. > > So it’s not an easy issue to work through because it’s a philosophical > one. So I don’t know necessarily I would have expected it to be resolved. I > know what our point of view is on this, and I shared this today with > Secretary General Hamadoun Toure and Chairman Mohamed Al Ghanim, is we – > again, if there is a dispute on this, we need to go back to the original > charter of the conference, which is: How do we advance the telecomm sector > and broadband? And if there’s a dispute on the definitions and the agencies > that are subject to review here, we should go back to the original ones > that were in the original ITRs, which, again, are recognized operating > agencies. > > So that, to us, is the way you work through all of this. Short of that, > it’s a problematic situation, and it’s a situation that we are not likely > to negotiate on because of a significant scope creep and incursion on what > we think are the wrong areas to move into. > > *MR. HENSMAN:* I think we’ve got time for one more question, maybe two. > Let’s go to the room. > > *QUESTION:* Oh, yes. Hi. Toula Vlahou with the AP. Have you, sir, seen > the proposal from Russia, Article 3A? Have you been able to read it? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* I’ve seen a Russian proposal. I don’t remember > Article 3A offhand. > > *QUESTION:* In general, the proposal that I believe was discussed > somewhat the other day with – back in some committee. What do you think of > the proposal? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* The overall Russian proposal? > > *QUESTION:* There is this one about government management. I didn’t read > it (inaudible) -- > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* There’s -- > > *QUESTION:* -- having some sort of the government – as having some sort > of governing over the internet. > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So there is a proposal – so the most dramatic > element of the Russian proposal that is suggesting that internet governance > get moved away from multi-stakeholder organizations such as ICANN over to > government or single organizations – potentially the ITU, although I think > the ITU would say it doesn’t want to be in that business. And again, we > fundamentally disagree with that, because once governments are in that > role, they’re in a position to make judgments about how the internet is > going to operate, what type of information’s going to flow there, et > cetera. So we think that multi-stakeholder organizations that are inclusive > in nature, have technical expertise, and can be making independent, agile, > rapid-fire decisions are the right ones from a pragmatic standpoint and > from a philosophical standpoint. > > *QUESTION:* Has there been discussion on this proposal anywhere besides > the -- > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah, I’m sorry, have we had discussion? Yeah. We’ve > looked at the proposal, but we are not keen to get into a discussion about > that proposal because, again, we think it’s out of scope for the conference. > > *MR. HENSMAN:* Okay. Let’s take one more from the phone line, and then I > think that’ll be our time, as the Secretary’s going to have her press > conference. > > *OPERATOR:* And we go to Eliza Krigman with Politico. Your line is open. > > *QUESTION:* Hi. Thanks so much for taking my call. I understand that > yesterday there was some kind of security attack on the network, and that > hackers have claimed responsibility for it. Do we – do you know for certain > that it was indeed hackers that happened? And as a follow-up, Director > Peprah this morning said that this is a great example of why cyber security > is so important. Has this emboldened others who think that cyber security > should be an element of the treaty? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So first of all, I don’t think it’s been > confirmed who did what in this situation. I mean, we are obviously very > concerned about that incident because, as you remember, there’s been a big > focus on transparency in this conference. And the ITU has made all the main > plenary discussions available via webcasting. They posted the proposals on > their site. So taking that site down creates an impression that there isn’t > transparency. So we’re obviously just as concerned as everybody else is on > that. We don’t know exactly who did what. > > And I’m sorry, your second question was? > > *MR. HENSMAN:* I think we’ve lost -- > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Okay. I think the second question was: Does this > embolden people on cyber security recommendations? > > First of all, on cyber security, we have always said we very much see the > threat. As a matter of fact, we talk about malware incidents. There’s been > 87,000 a day, and that number has doubled. So I don’t think there’s any > debate about the cyber threat. The key issue is how do you solve those > issues most effectively? And so our point of view is you’ve got to have a > variety of organizations that, again, have got that technical expertise and > that agility. And the fact the site went back up so rapidly – actually, the > validation that you do need a lot of different organizations with different > expertise, not one single one that kind of owns the problem. So again, we > actually thought it was a helpful reminder to everybody about the necessary > skills and speed to deal with the issues. > > *MR. HENSMAN:* Thank you all for joining us. I think that’s the time that > we have for today. We appreciate you participating. And thank you, > Ambassador Kramer. > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Good. Thank you all very much. Appreciate it. > > > > PRN: 2012/1928 > > > *Ends* > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 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 jcurran at istaff.org Thu Dec 6 16:27:15 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 16:27:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign In-Reply-To: <64526F7C-E947-4D80-82F1-0C962E6B6228@telus.net> References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BD2E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <64526F7C-E947-4D80-82F1-0C962E6B6228@telus.net> Message-ID: <9617E568-0BFC-43CC-A794-DAD60E854C90@istaff.org> On Dec 5, 2012, at 5:53 PM, Garth Graham wrote: > On 2012-12-05, at 11:50 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > it might be good if you knew a bit more about who Jody Westby is and what she stands for > > In that Forbes article, Jody Westby says: >> [U.S. Government] ... goes on to declare that the groups that have long played an important role in the development of the Internet, such as the Internet Society, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), “are most capable of addressing issues with the speed and flexibility required in this rapidly changing Internet environment.” One is left to wonder how these groups are going to be able to do this without interacting with all of the communications providers that actually deliver content. Without the interconnectivity and interoperability of networks, content will sit on servers. > > Actually, "Without the interconnectivity and interoperability of networks," this one here is left to wonder how any discussion of what the Internet is and does, and how it is steadily driving the cost of transporting "content" towards zero, thus blowing away the business plans of communications carriers, is even possible. Also "content" is NOT created "in " the interoperable networks. It's created at the edges (I and thou), where the desire and will and public benefit (i.e if you must, market demand) to interconnect and interoperate exists. On Dec 5, 2012, at 5:53 PM, Garth Graham wrote: > On 2012-12-05, at 11:50 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > it might be good if you knew a bit more about who Jody Westby is and what she stands for > > In that Forbes article, Jody Westby says: >> [U.S. Government] ... goes on to declare that the groups that have long played an important role in the development of the Internet, such as the Internet Society, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), “are most capable of addressing issues with the speed and flexibility required in this rapidly changing Internet environment.” One is left to wonder how these groups are going to be able to do this without interacting with all of the communications providers that actually deliver content. Without the interconnectivity and interoperability of networks, content will sit on servers. > > Actually, "Without the interconnectivity and interoperability of networks," this one here is left to wonder how any discussion of what the Internet is and does, and how it is steadily driving the cost of transporting "content" towards zero, thus blowing away the business plans of communications carriers, is even possible. Also "content" is NOT created "in " the interoperable networks. It's created at the edges (I and thou), where the desire and will and public benefit (i.e if you must, market demand) to interconnect and interoperate exists. Agreed. Furthermore, the author seems to imply that "these groups" need the ITU to be involved with the Internet, so that they can interact "with all of the communications providers that actually deliver content." Of course, nothing could be further from reality - the Regional Internet Registries collectively have more than _nineteen thousand_ organizations as members, including nearly every communication provider, hosting company, major content firms, as well as governments, academic institutions, etc. We have very little difficulty having solid discussions on Internet number policy matters with the organizations which are directly affected by the outcomes, and somehow suggesting that the ITU is necessary for these interactions also implies a serious lack of understanding of the actual structure of the Internet ecosystem. The Forbes article's additional premise that the ITU somehow has led the Internet and must be involved in its future just doesn't reflect reality, and is anchored solely in author's strongly held belief sans evidence: "Good grief. If the multilateral organization that has been in charge of global agreements on interconnectivity, interoperability, and availability of networks and communications for 147 years has nothing to do with the Internet, who does?" Note - if one were really pressed to make the case for the ITU-led success of the Internet, one would have to cite the ITR allowance for "special arrangements" [ITR Article 9], as it allowed arrangements made between parties which were to be otherwise beyond the scope of the ITRs. The "special arrangement" option might be considered a key enabler for the Internet, but by that logic, anything else in telecommunications that was not explicitly forbidden by the ITRs at that time must also be considered an ITU-led success, and similarly that would mean that every other treaty organization that did not accidentally interfere with the success of the Internet gets to claim that that it too is another proud parent of "The Internet"... /John Disclaimers: My views alone. This post is not meant to slight any other powerful international organizations that apparently 'led' the Internet's success by not accidentally stepping on it; you too may apparently claim parenthood... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Thu Dec 6 17:14:05 2012 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 23:14:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD6FD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <779246543.94299.1354832045605.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k09> Dear Louis   Eventually it's a draft issued by SG 13. See below :     ITU-T Study Group 13 Future networks including mobile and NGN DRAFT NEW RECOMMENDATION ITU-T Y.2770 PROPOSED FOR APPROVAL AT THE WORLD TELECOMMUNICATION STANDARDIZATION CONFERENCE (WTSA-12)     Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 06/12/12 19:00 > De : "Louis Pouzin (well)" > A : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > Copie à : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Lee W McKnight" > Objet : [governance] Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 6:49 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Was it formally adopted or is it still a draft? > > wolfgang > - - - > > Contact: TSB Tel: +41 22 730 5126 > Fax: +41 22 730 5853 > Email: tsbsg13 at itu.int > > 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 6 18:56:36 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 05:26:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The Internet is an entirely different entity from a corporation that is selling services to the general public. As for picking jurisdictions where tax works better for them, even amazon realigned their distribution strategy to avoid too many US state taxes. Do remember, in the words of former US Supreme Court justice Learned Hand. Tax avoidance is not a crime, tax evasion is. --srs (iPad) On 07-Dec-2012, at 0:20, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Of course the tax dispute is not with the telecom regulators of those countries and would continue regardless of the outcome in the WCIT, so you will forgive me if I don't quite get the connection >> >> --srs (htc one x) > > A few thoughts from me: > > Well it not new that the US has always maintained that the Internet should be a tax free zone as per the US Congress's Tax Freedom Act 1998 (authored by Representative Christopher Cox and Senator Ron Wyden and signed into law on October 21 1998 by then President Clinton) which following expiry continued to be reauthorised and it most recent reauthorisation (legal speak for extension) was in October 2007 where this has been extended till 2014. > > The OECD and the EU have been holding the opposite view (Kurbaliha,J. 2010) - see their Ottawa Principles where they find that there is no difference between traditional and e taxation that would require special regulations. > > It followed that in 2003 when the EU introduced a regulation requesting non EU e commerce companies to pay value added tax (VAT) if they sold goods within the EU. The main driver or motivation was that non-EU companies (many of whom are US companies) had an edge over European companies. See one of the Reports - http://www.oecd.org/tax/taxadministration/20499630.pdf > > The point of controversy is also location (US is pro-origin) and destination (EU is pro-destination) when assessing tarriffs so when take for example as is with Trade. > > This is why MNCs (multinational corporations) are careful and selective of jurisdictions in which they plonk their servers in or offices in because it has to make sense to the bottom line. In my view nothing wrong with the bottom line as long as people behave responsibly and fairly so that global public interest is protected. The only problem is that history and current trends show that the self regulatory model does'nt work (see some of the links that Michael provided). [question for us is finding that place of balance where we can all win]. > > Why is South Korea so important in the mix? Well aside from the Samsung v Apple and Apple v Samsung circus, South Korea also leads the world in terms of being number 1 in the IDI ranking but if you peel the layers, volume and content are massive triggers as far as generating revenue. Ask any ISP or MNC...If taxation were introduced globally, the apple cart would be upset. Of course, at the end of the day, the reality is that the EU is in financial crisis and it should not come as a shock as to what their position will be in terms of "enhancing stability". The fact that even the IMF is struggling to find viable solutions shows that hourglass is in motion. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 19:06:37 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 01:06:37 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution References: <67A5BE75-7CF8-4AAE-A403-5952B5A0E15D@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD702@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> There are plans now to have another workshop on IG Principles during the forthcoming WSIS 10+ in Paris just before the IGF Consultations) which would continue with the conclusion and message from the Tacking Stock and Way Forward Sessions in Baku. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeremy Malcolm Gesendet: Do 06.12.2012 22:22 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Andrea Glorioso Betreff: Re: [governance] Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution On 07/12/2012, at 8:27 AM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: On Thursday, December 6, 2012, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > At Best Bits a few options were described, though we ran out of time to debate them. As I see it, there is a UN-linked option (which in turn divides into an IGF-based option or an IGF-independent option), or there is a UN-independent option (the Enhanced Cooperation Task Force, ECTF). So far, almost none of us have been serious about pursuing any of these. But the status quo is not going to hold. One way or another, Internet governance is going to evolve, and it will do so with us or without us. We've spoken loudly enough about what we don't want - the ITU. So, what do we want? Since I was unable, for biological reasons, to attend the IGF, is there a written report of these discussions? Not a detailed record; we just have the two outputs of the meeting recorded at the front page of http://bestbits.igf-online.net/. The time spent on the ITU and WCIT overran, leaving us less time to talk about a positive agenda. We just settled on a brief exhortation for the IGF to draw together the existing statements of Internet rights and principles to produce a common document for discussion. -- 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 6 19:08:59 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 05:38:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: US Ambassador Terry Kramer on WCIT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes.. and he is actually right. Network security, as in protecting a network and its users from a variety of online threats and malware, makes extensive use of dpi. So please let us not blame a useful and versatile technology for the way some others use it, or want to use it. --srs (iPad) On 07-Dec-2012, at 2:54, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > Did I mention that he was asked about his thoughts on "Deep Packet Inspection"? > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> >> >> AMBASSADOR KRAMER: Yeah. So first of all, I have not seen the specific reference that you’re mentioning. Let me just talk for a second about deep packet inspections. >> >> So, deep packet inspection has a good and a bad connotation. The original connotation of deep packet inspection was for operators to be able to look at their networks and say, “Are they performing well?” So in the mobile sector, it’s do you have blocked calls and dropped calls, et cetera. What’s happened, though, is some companies have used deep packet inspection technologies to not look at aggregate customer information, traffic information, et cetera, but to look at individual customer information. So looking at individuals and what sites they’re on and how much capacity they’re using, et cetera, as you can imagine, we’re very much opposed to that because we feel that’s a violation of people’s privacy and gets into, obviously, censorship, et cetera. >> >> So again, deep packet inspection can get used in good and bad contexts. I’d have to see the specific reference, but anything that would go past aggregated customer information would be problematic. >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 19:10:24 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:10:24 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: US Ambassador Terry Kramer on WCIT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > > > So please let us not blame a useful and versatile technology for the way > some others use it, or want to use it. > Excellent point. Technology is but a mere tool. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 07-Dec-2012, at 2:54, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Did I mention that he was asked about his thoughts on "Deep Packet > Inspection"? > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So first of all, I have not seen the specific >> reference that you’re mentioning. Let me just talk for a second about deep >> packet inspections. >> >> So, deep packet inspection has a good and a bad connotation. The original >> connotation of deep packet inspection was for operators to be able to look >> at their networks and say, “Are they performing well?” So in the mobile >> sector, it’s do you have blocked calls and dropped calls, et cetera. What’s >> happened, though, is some companies have used deep packet inspection >> technologies to not look at aggregate customer information, traffic >> information, et cetera, but to look at individual customer information. So >> looking at individuals and what sites they’re on and how much capacity >> they’re using, et cetera, as you can imagine, we’re very much opposed to >> that because we feel that’s a violation of people’s privacy and gets into, >> obviously, censorship, et cetera. >> >> So again, deep packet inspection can get used in good and bad contexts. >> I’d have to see the specific reference, but anything that would go past >> aggregated customer information would be problematic. >> >> >> > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 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 jcurran at istaff.org Thu Dec 6 19:14:01 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 19:14:01 -0500 Subject: ITU (was: Re: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign) In-Reply-To: <9617E568-0BFC-43CC-A794-DAD60E854C90@istaff.org> References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BD2E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <64526F7C-E947-4D80-82F1-0C962E6B6228@telus.net> <9617E568-0BFC-43CC-A794-DAD60E854C90@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2012, at 4:27 PM, John Curran wrote: > ... > Furthermore, the author seems to imply that "these groups" need the ITU > to be involved with the Internet, so that they can interact "with all of > the communications providers that actually deliver content." Of course, > nothing could be further from reality - the Regional Internet Registries > collectively have more than _nineteen thousand_ organizations as members, > including nearly every communication provider, hosting company, major > content firms, as well as governments, academic institutions, etc. > We have very little difficulty having solid discussions on Internet > number policy matters with the organizations which are directly affected > by the outcomes, and somehow suggesting that the ITU is necessary for > these interactions also implies a serious lack of understanding of the > actual structure of the Internet ecosystem. > > The Forbes article's additional premise that the ITU somehow has led the > Internet and must be involved in its future just doesn't reflect reality, > and is anchored solely in author's strongly held belief sans evidence: > > "Good grief. If the multilateral organization that has been in charge of > global agreements on interconnectivity, interoperability, and availability > of networks and communications for 147 years has nothing to do with the > Internet, who does?" > > Note - if one were really pressed to make the case for the ITU-led success of > the Internet, one would have to cite the ITR allowance for "special arrangements" > [ITR Article 9], as it allowed arrangements made between parties which were to > be otherwise beyond the scope of the ITRs. The "special arrangement" option > might be considered a key enabler for the Internet, but by that logic, anything > else in telecommunications that was not explicitly forbidden by the ITRs at that > time must also be considered an ITU-led success, and similarly that would mean > that every other treaty organization that did not accidentally interfere with > the success of the Internet gets to claim that that it too is another proud > parent of "The Internet"... > > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. This post is not meant to slight any other > powerful international organizations that apparently 'led' the Internet's > success by not accidentally stepping on it; you too may apparently claim > parenthood... FYI - To be clear, I am not advocating for or against any particular role for the ITU with respect to the Internet (e.g. it seems to be in vogue to call for dismantling the ITU, and I do not want my correction to the errant assertions in the Forbes article to be viewed as such...) There are radio spectrum & satellites orbits issues that will always need to be globally coordinated, and that's been a significant role for the ITU. There is also the significant support and outreach that the ITU provides to developing economies with respect to telecommunication matters. With respect to being _the_ organization for governments to make global obligations regarding all of the possible technological ways in which people communicate with one another, that's a pretty big task once when considers the now pervasive nature of the Internet and communications... If you were to consider that mission literally, then it could easily subsume 90% of the tasks presently in almost other treaty organization (intellectual property is about who can _communicate_ what information to whom, human rights has a large component in association expression of who can _communicate_ with whom, etc.) About the only area of inter- governmental coordination which I would have excluded is climate change (but apparently even that is germane to the ITU mission if one scopes 'communications' large enough to include the ICT technology industry...) Governments deal very well with legally-clear entities like people, organizations, and jurisdiction, whereas our global communications systems have always been very weak in supporting these same concepts, instead dealing with things like circuits & calling parties in the telecommunications age, and items like servers, IP addresses, and domain names in the Internet age. Understanding what governments actually need (and can agree to) with respect to bridging this gap is indeed an important topic that must eventually be dealt with; whether that occurs at an organization such as the ITU or in forums with the opportunity for more equitable multistakeholder participation remains to be seen. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. These views are most certainly not supported by any particular organization (and may even result in me receiving a lump of coal for the holidays from some ;-) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 19:18:24 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 13:18:24 +1300 Subject: ITU (was: Re: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign) In-Reply-To: References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BD2E@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <64526F7C-E947-4D80-82F1-0C962E6B6228@telus.net> <9617E568-0BFC-43CC-A794-DAD60E854C90@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 1:14 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 6, 2012, at 4:27 PM, John Curran wrote: > > ... > > Furthermore, the author seems to imply that "these groups" need the ITU > > to be involved with the Internet, so that they can interact "with all of > > the communications providers that actually deliver content." Of course, > > nothing could be further from reality - the Regional Internet Registries > > collectively have more than _nineteen thousand_ organizations as members, > > including nearly every communication provider, hosting company, major > > content firms, as well as governments, academic institutions, etc. > > We have very little difficulty having solid discussions on Internet > > number policy matters with the organizations which are directly affected > > by the outcomes, and somehow suggesting that the ITU is necessary for > > these interactions also implies a serious lack of understanding of the > > actual structure of the Internet ecosystem. > > > > The Forbes article's additional premise that the ITU somehow has led the > > Internet and must be involved in its future just doesn't reflect reality, > > and is anchored solely in author's strongly held belief sans evidence: > > > > "Good grief. If the multilateral organization that has been in charge of > > global agreements on interconnectivity, interoperability, and > availability > > of networks and communications for 147 years has nothing to do with the > > Internet, who does?" > > > > Note - if one were really pressed to make the case for the ITU-led > success of > > the Internet, one would have to cite the ITR allowance for "special > arrangements" > > [ITR Article 9], as it allowed arrangements made between parties which > were to > > be otherwise beyond the scope of the ITRs. The "special arrangement" > option > > might be considered a key enabler for the Internet, but by that logic, > anything > > else in telecommunications that was not explicitly forbidden by the ITRs > at that > > time must also be considered an ITU-led success, and similarly that > would mean > > that every other treaty organization that did not accidentally interfere > with > > the success of the Internet gets to claim that that it too is another > proud > > parent of "The Internet"... > > > > /John > > > > Disclaimers: My views alone. This post is not meant to slight any other > > powerful international organizations that apparently 'led' the Internet's > > success by not accidentally stepping on it; you too may apparently claim > > parenthood... > > > FYI - To be clear, I am not advocating for or against any particular > role for the ITU with respect to the Internet (e.g. it seems to be in > vogue to call for dismantling the ITU, and I do not want my correction > to the errant assertions in the Forbes article to be viewed as such...) > That came across quite clearly...I agree > There are radio spectrum & satellites orbits issues that will always > need to be globally coordinated, and that's been a significant role for > the ITU. There is also the significant support and outreach that the > ITU provides to developing economies with respect to telecommunication > matters. > I agree > > With respect to being _the_ organization for governments to make global > obligations regarding all of the possible technological ways in which > people communicate with one another, that's a pretty big task once when > considers the now pervasive nature of the Internet and communications... > If you were to consider that mission literally, then it could easily > subsume 90% of the tasks presently in almost other treaty organization > (intellectual property is about who can _communicate_ what information > to whom, human rights has a large component in association expression > of who can _communicate_ with whom, etc.) About the only area of inter- > governmental coordination which I would have excluded is climate change > (but apparently even that is germane to the ITU mission if one scopes > 'communications' large enough to include the ICT technology industry...) > > Governments deal very well with legally-clear entities like people, > organizations, and jurisdiction, whereas our global communications > systems have always been very weak in supporting these same concepts, > instead dealing with things like circuits & calling parties in the > telecommunications age, and items like servers, IP addresses, and > domain names in the Internet age. Understanding what governments > actually need (and can agree to) with respect to bridging this gap > is indeed an important topic that must eventually be dealt with; > whether that occurs at an organization such as the ITU or in forums > with the opportunity for more equitable multistakeholder participation > remains to be seen. > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. These views are most certainly not > supported by any particular organization (and may even result in > me receiving a lump of coal for the holidays from some ;-) > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 Tel: +679 3544828 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Dec 6 19:19:47 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 01:19:47 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Does anyone have further information or clarification on this? References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD705@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I can only echo Betrand. Boycott is nonsense. But we should make the Y.2770 as an issue for EURODIG in Lisbon and IGF in Bali. My understanding is that it is just a standard. The nproblems wll come with implementation and applications. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Bertrand de La Chapelle Gesendet: Do 06.12.2012 12:39 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter Betreff: Re: [governance] Does anyone have further information or clarification on this? Dear all, Beyond the substance related to the DPI standard, Simon seems to confuse several fora: the UN, the ITU, WTSA, WCIT, WSIS and the IGF. Advocating boycotting the IGF because something was adopted at WTSA seems a strange conclusion. I would argue this is one more reason to participate in IGF and potentially raise this topic there. Best Bertrand On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote: http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/now-the-un-has-adopted-chinas-web-snooping-plan-civil-society-must-boycott-the-internet-governance-forum/ "Now the UN has adopted China's Web snooping plan, civil society must boycott the Internet Governance Forum" - Simon Davies ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net ) Member, ICANN Board of Directors Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 6 19:41:27 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 06:11:27 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Does anyone have further information or clarification on this? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD705@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD705@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <66D7C6EA-C66A-42F3-BBFD-2CC9F91D51DC@hserus.net> Agree. Adoption first, before any of those two. A very strong business case (or a strong arm, goven previous experience with chinese vendor driven standards) will be needed before such a standard sees even marginal adoption. A favor. Please. Do be careful to highlight the specific privacy violations in the proposal rather than go after dpi in general as I see a tendency for a broad cross section of cs to do. --srs (iPad) On 07-Dec-2012, at 5:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > I can only echo Betrand. Boycott is nonsense. But we should make the Y.2770 as an issue for EURODIG in Lisbon and IGF in Bali. My understanding is that it is just a standard. The nproblems wll come with implementation and applications. > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Bertrand de La Chapelle > Gesendet: Do 06.12.2012 12:39 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > Betreff: Re: [governance] Does anyone have further information or clarification on this? > > > Dear all, > > Beyond the substance related to the DPI standard, Simon seems to confuse several fora: the UN, the ITU, WTSA, WCIT, WSIS and the IGF. > > Advocating boycotting the IGF because something was adopted at WTSA seems a strange conclusion. I would argue this is one more reason to participate in IGF and potentially raise this topic there. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > http://www.privacysurgeon.org/blog/incision/now-the-un-has-adopted-chinas-web-snooping-plan-civil-society-must-boycott-the-internet-governance-forum/ > > > "Now the UN has adopted China's Web snooping plan, civil society must boycott the Internet Governance Forum" - Simon Davies > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net ) > Member, ICANN Board of Directors > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Dec 6 19:59:06 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 01:59:06 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD6FD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <50C0F4EC.8080104@gmx.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD70C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Indeed is is approved http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/workprog/wp_item.aspx?isn=7082 w ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Monika Ermert Gesendet: Do 06.12.2012 20:41 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: [governance] Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks It has been adopted by WTSA, best, Monika Am 06.12.2012 18:59, schrieb Louis Pouzin (well): On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 6:49 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: Was it formally adopted or is it still a draft? wolfgang - - - Contact: TSB Tel: +41 22 730 5126 Fax: +41 22 730 5853 Email: tsbsg13 at itu.int Louis - - - -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 6 20:09:38 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 20:09:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50C0E615.9040402@gmail.com> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <50C08C7B.3010100@itforchange.net> <50C0E615.9040402@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > While I cannot speak for Parminder: > > > No, it isnt enough to say that the US should just terminate the ICANN >> contract (including the IANA part) . One needs to propose under what kind >> of arrangement will the new internationalised ICANN get institutionalised >> and subsist. >> > > > Why? Isn't a "free-floating" ICANN the next major step in the ongoing > evolution? > > > Why does Parminder have to give a utopian vision for the future while > others are precluded from this requirement? Where is the balance in that? > I don't believe I asked for a utopian vision. I simply questioned why " One needs to propose under what kind of arrangement will the new internationalised ICANN get institutionalised and subsist.", and then asked if the severing of the DoC contract with ICANN is not the next step in the evolution of that realtionship. > > > >> One needs at least framework level indications/ details. Would it still >> be headquarter-ed in the US. If so what kind of immunities would it have >> from US jurisdiction, and how will they be ensured? >> > > Evolution means a series of minor changes, this would be several steps > down the road, and unless ICANN HQ is moved to the moon (or perhaps a > private island [we could call it "Internetistan"] purchased with new gTLD > monies) there will always be a jurisdictional issue. Of course, if ICANN > became an IGO of the UN system then your requirements might be met, but > none of us ( I think) want an "intergovernmental only" ICANN. > > > There is also disruptive evolution (see preceding comment). However, I > cannot see how the legitimacy issue can be dealt with if even basic > discussions (think Vint Cerf and Nick Gowing at the first IGF also) cannot > be had. If I/we are contrary, then with balance I can say we are > outnumbered, what are the others' excuses? > which legitimacy issue? > > > > > >> It is very central to the internationalisation issue that neither the US >> executive nor its courts are able to interfere with ICANN's decisions. >> > > > It is central to your version of "internationalisation", not to all > versions. > > > And how exactly is this internationalisation when US domestic institutions > dominate? Of course there is a matter of degree... and that can be run > with... but there may be substantive differences in this commodious term... > Where would like to see ICANN HQ'ed? Where is your "Internet-istan"? -- 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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Dec 6 22:27:36 2012 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 22:27:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] US Ambassador Terry Kramer on WCIT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <96C94F58-DC3D-4B8C-8797-6BD6BAE7AAB7@post.harvard.edu> This would almost be amusing - if so much were not at stake. Those who remember the long history of policy debate, leading up finally to divestiture of AT&T, know that there were a series of so- called Computer Inquiries, official inquiries (in the US of course). They revolved around trying to divine a dividing line, between telecommunications and computing. This proved to be a Gordian knot, which could not be untied. But the argument went forward, seemingly endlessly, for many years actually, with much foolish policy mooted, in an effort to separate the two, computers and networks. As one of the sages of the era told me (when interviewed for an intellectual history), the mess will be straightened out only when we correct the mistake, that is, our attempt to separate the two. George Santayana can be heard once again from the grave, it seems, with his: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." If each generation has to learn all over again, instead of building from the hard-won lessons already travelled ... Notably - even a bit ironically - there, in those Computer Inquiries, as here in the Dubai struggle, the core issue was / is (if by different names): What we then called the common carrier obligation - the telecoms carrier was not allowed to interfere with or change in any way the messages being carried. What today we tussle over with the rubric network neutrality. And what might be generalized to: freedom of expression. David On Dec 6, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Economic, Energy, Agricultural and Trade Issues: Development and > Progress of the World Conference on International Telecommunications > Currently Being Held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates Until December > 14, 2012 > 12/06/2012 02:45 PM EST > > Development and Progress of the World Conference on International > Telecommunications Currently Being Held in Dubai, United Arab > Emirates Until December 14, 2012 > > > Special Briefing > Terry Kramer > Ambassador U.S. Head of Delegation, World Conference on > International Telecommunications > Via Teleconference > December 6, 2012 > > ... > QUESTION: ... I understand the definition for telecommunications has > been set. This morning, in the conference that the – in the media > conference that the ITU holds, Director Peprah from Ghana mentioned > that that’s the case, but ICT is still in the works – that is, the > concept of information communications technology is still in the > works, possibly as a defined term. Could you comment on that? > AMBASSADOR KRAMER: Yeah. We are still working through a lot of > different elements of how this definition gets driven. Our view > right now is it does not belong in there. There may still be people > talking about ICT in different forms. And certainly, in our own > discussions, people are talking about VoIP operators, Skype and > others that provide what they believe is telecomm services. But we > don’t feel those are appropriate. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 02:01:34 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:31:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <50C08C7B.3010100@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50C1944E.508@itforchange.net> On Thursday 06 December 2012 07:08 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:15 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > > One needs to do more than say I/we are for "internationalising > ICANN". That would be merely rhetoric unless one is ready to > present (and engage with) a credible plan and roadmap, which all > those, whom Riaz may call as "US exceptionalists" and I often call > as "US apologists", have never done here. Have they ever? IF they > have, please point me to it. > > > Please see Drake's reply to you the last time we talked about this. I > don't have a link however. McTim, it is you who is advocating a particular kind on ICANN internationalism, and therefore you must tell us the road map, at least the outlines of it.... you cant vaguely refer to 'some email of Bill Drake' and not remember what was it about. That is as a strange a reply as I have ever got... > > > No, it isnt enough to say that the US should just terminate the > ICANN contract (including the IANA part) . One needs to propose > under what kind of arrangement will the new internationalised > ICANN get institutionalised and subsist. > > > > Why? Isn't a "free-floating" ICANN the next major step in the ongoing > evolution? Because nothing free floats without some kind of anchorage in a polity...... But if you want to, you may describe your vision of a free floating ICANN giving some details and we can discuss it. > > One needs at least framework level indications/ details. Would it > still be headquarter-ed in the US. If so what kind of immunities > would it have from US jurisdiction, and how will they be ensured? > > > Evolution means a series of minor changes, this would be several steps > down the road, and unless ICANN HQ is moved to the moon (or perhaps a > private island [we could call it "Internetistan"] purchased with new > gTLD monies) there will always be a jurisdictional issue. Of course, > if ICANN became an IGO of the UN system then your requirements might > be met, but none of us ( I think) want an "intergovernmental only" ICANN. So, you are saying that your version of 'internationalised ICANN' will remain subject to US jurisdiction. Well, as you might suspect, that is not internationalisation in my view. I cant see on what basis you call it internationalisation... I would call it 'phoney internationalisation'. As I have said often, one adverse decision by a US court on an ICANN policy or action, and this whole phoney thing will come unravelled. Why wait for it when we know it is around the corner..... > > > It is very central to the internationalisation issue that neither > the US executive nor its courts are able to interfere with ICANN's > decisions. > > > > It is central to your version of "internationalisation", not to all > versions. That solves the original problem which was your challenge to Riaz (and your frustration that he hasnt taken your earlier challenges on the same issue) to show to you anyone on the list who is against 'Internationalising ICANN' or rather who is an 'US exceptionalist'. We see now that the simple fact is that you and Riaz mean very different things when they use these expressions. parminder > > It would be enough for the moment if we could get everyone on the list > to stop top-posting and trim your mails, that would be a useful next step! > > -- > 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 Dec 7 02:09:46 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:39:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228C393@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228C393@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50C1963A.2060506@itforchange.net> On Thursday 06 December 2012 07:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Riaz, > > Like Parminder, you’ve overused this charge of “American > exceptionalism,” to the point where it reflects more on you than on > the target. Indeed if you, like Parminder, apply it to me it shows > that you are completely ignorant of my writings on the subject or that > you are simply hurling a blanket epithet at whoever is standing > around, whenever they disagree. So, no point in discussing further. > Milton, Dont know why you are pulling me into this out of nowhere .... but if you want me to come in, here i am, at your service :) (BTW, I must first say that I find your recent comments to Riaz extremely rude, and I hope that the concerned duty bearers are taking note.) So, you object to the use of the term 'US exceptionalism'! You are on record asserting repeatedly that you think ICANN should continue to be subject to US laws, at least in the areas of regulation of non-profits, competition and FoE...... presumable more...... (in any case an entity is either subject to a jurisdiction, or it is not; there are no choices available for an entity to be subject to some laws and not others). Have you not said so? Please do let us know if you havent, and even if you have changed your mind now. In the above regard you dont even agree with those who seek, what I call as, 'phoney internationalisation' (McTim's case) whereby ICANN internationalisation is sought without being able to suggest any credible institutional basis for doing it. (You are perhaps too politically clued-in and can make out that such phony internationalisation without providing the political- institutional basis for it is simply not possible.) You however do not agree for ICANN to be subject to international law, or laws of other countries (do you agree to ICANN shifting to New Delhi?) , and you want it to be subject to US laws. Now that is literately 'US exceptionalism', isnt it! I cant see how the term can be applied more accurately than in this case..... parminder > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Riaz K Tayob > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:06 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dominique Lacroix > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... > (from taxes? > > Frankly I am not sure what kind of institutionalist Milton is. This is > not the Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Rayomond, Richard Ely, E Pershine > Smith, Frederich List and JK Galbraith, who all had a keen head for > facts and history. > > Britain used free trade ideas as a means to maintain its dominance > over other nations. The workshop of the world that encouraged everyone > to liberalise, that free trade (and then classical economics) was > best. And in the Pax (?) Americana, neoclassical economics (in > infinite disguises) and the Washington Consensus serves the same > function. > > Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these > approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is room for > disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry Milton, for > some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be included in > the "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from his > Institutionalism - not having read all his work, is no different from > American Exceptionalists on this list. Of course I am aware that in > the American context(where what passes for progressive is quit > different, this may well be the case. It simply cannot be generalised. > > And in the "competition" through subsidised efforts Europe builds > capabilities - both the tech no-(harware) and -ology (its people). One > of the key elements of benefiting from a network is that skills can be > diffused. Consumption of technology rich goods is not the same as > producing them. Actually in a reverse sort of way the status quoists > (exceptionalists, Institutionalists of a special type, neoliberals, > etc) seek to maintain the US dominance by playing to that nations > comparative advantage - also in institutions like ICANN and the posse > that goes with it. > > > On 2012/12/05 10:25 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > > Le 05/12/12 20:26, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > > "Frankly", development of the TCP/IP protocols were supported > by military research contracts, which had no intention of > supporting a commercial industry. "The Internet" spread to the > general population and succeeded because of telecommunications > liberalization and a free market. > > Dear Milton, you seem a little dizzy. You skipped merrily the NSF > action in the 1981-1995 years... > And then, also, the CIA action, via the In-Q-Tel venture capital > firm, launched in 1999. > And also the military orders in the advanced IT field. > Perhaps I forget something. I'm also a bit dizzy... > > The government played an important role in facilitating that > process by privatizing control and paving the way for competition > among ISPs. There is no doubt about that. > > Exact. And not enough: Google should be prosecuted for dominance > abuse. > > While we are being frank, perhaps you can tell me how successful > European efforts to subsidize search engine technology to compete > with Google has been? > > I assume you already heard about the networks effect that gives an > advantage to the first big player. > That's exactly why China and other countries protect their > boundaries in order to help their IT industry to find existence. > > Do you think that Europe also ought to close their virtual boundaries? > > @+, Dom > > > Please frankly, Milton, did internet begin in the US by free > market or by the US Gov action? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Dec 7 02:27:37 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:57:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Message-ID: Parminder, if you persist in using terms like phony to refer to McTim and then call the list police down on Milton for allegedly being rude to you, that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "parminder" To: Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 12:39 PM On Thursday 06 December 2012 07:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Riaz, > > Like Parminder, you’ve overused this charge of “American > exceptionalism,” to the point where it reflects more on you than on > the target. Indeed if you, like Parminder, apply it to me it shows > that you are completely ignorant of my writings on the subject or that > you are simply hurling a blanket epithet at whoever is standing > around, whenever they disagree. So, no point in discussing further. > Milton, Dont know why you are pulling me into this out of nowhere .... but if you want me to come in, here i am, at your service :) (BTW, I must first say that I find your recent comments to Riaz extremely rude, and I hope that the concerned duty bearers are taking note.) So, you object to the use of the term 'US exceptionalism'! You are on record asserting repeatedly that you think ICANN should continue to be subject to US laws, at least in the areas of regulation of non-profits, competition and FoE...... presumable more...... (in any case an entity is either subject to a jurisdiction, or it is not; there are no choices available for an entity to be subject to some laws and not others). Have you not said so? Please do let us know if you havent, and even if you have changed your mind now. In the above regard you dont even agree with those who seek, what I call as, 'phoney internationalisation' (McTim's case) whereby ICANN internationalisation is sought without being able to suggest any credible institutional basis for doing it. (You are perhaps too politically clued-in and can make out that such phony internationalisation without providing the political- institutional basis for it is simply not possible.) You however do not agree for ICANN to be subject to international law, or laws of other countries (do you agree to ICANN shifting to New Delhi?) , and you want it to be subject to US laws. Now that is literately 'US exceptionalism', isnt it! I cant see how the term can be applied more accurately than in this case..... parminder > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Riaz K Tayob > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:06 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dominique Lacroix > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... > (from taxes? > > Frankly I am not sure what kind of institutionalist Milton is. This is > not the Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Rayomond, Richard Ely, E Pershine > Smith, Frederich List and JK Galbraith, who all had a keen head for > facts and history. > > Britain used free trade ideas as a means to maintain its dominance > over other nations. The workshop of the world that encouraged everyone > to liberalise, that free trade (and then classical economics) was > best. And in the Pax (?) Americana, neoclassical economics (in > infinite disguises) and the Washington Consensus serves the same > function. > > Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these > approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is room for > disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry Milton, for > some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be included in > the "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from his > Institutionalism - not having read all his work, is no different from > American Exceptionalists on this list. Of course I am aware that in > the American context(where what passes for progressive is quit > different, this may well be the case. It simply cannot be generalised. > > And in the "competition" through subsidised efforts Europe builds > capabilities - both the tech no-(harware) and -ology (its people). One > of the key elements of benefiting from a network is that skills can be > diffused. Consumption of technology rich goods is not the same as > producing them. Actually in a reverse sort of way the status quoists > (exceptionalists, Institutionalists of a special type, neoliberals, > etc) seek to maintain the US dominance by playing to that nations > comparative advantage - also in institutions like ICANN and the posse > that goes with it. > > > On 2012/12/05 10:25 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > > Le 05/12/12 20:26, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > > "Frankly", development of the TCP/IP protocols were supported > by military research contracts, which had no intention of > supporting a commercial industry. "The Internet" spread to the > general population and succeeded because of telecommunications > liberalization and a free market. > > Dear Milton, you seem a little dizzy. You skipped merrily the NSF > action in the 1981-1995 years... > And then, also, the CIA action, via the In-Q-Tel venture capital > firm, launched in 1999. > And also the military orders in the advanced IT field. > Perhaps I forget something. I'm also a bit dizzy... > > The government played an important role in facilitating that > process by privatizing control and paving the way for competition > among ISPs. There is no doubt about that. > > Exact. And not enough: Google should be prosecuted for dominance > abuse. > > While we are being frank, perhaps you can tell me how successful > European efforts to subsidize search engine technology to compete > with Google has been? > > I assume you already heard about the networks effect that gives an > advantage to the first big player. > That's exactly why China and other countries protect their > boundaries in order to help their IT industry to find existence. > > Do you think that Europe also ought to close their virtual boundaries? > > @+, Dom > > > Please frankly, Milton, did internet begin in the US by free > market or by the US Gov action? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 03:41:40 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 08:41:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT proposals - new website In-Reply-To: <2CC15334-87DE-46A3-A13A-7E79607F9131@uzh.ch> References: <2CC15334-87DE-46A3-A13A-7E79607F9131@uzh.ch> Message-ID: In message <2CC15334-87DE-46A3-A13A-7E79607F9131 at uzh.ch>, at 15:51:01 on Thu, 6 Dec 2012, William Drake writes >> Other issues seem to be dumped it committee sub-groups That's exactly what was expected. All the real work takes place in such sub-groups. >>that aren't being webcast (at least not today.) It would be quite a challenge to webcast them, due to the fluid nature of their scheduling (and often late into the night). Have they started to schedule any for the weekend yet (the last ITU conference I went to had subgroups 7 days a week). >and from which civil society people not on delegations are being blocked or ejected. That's because only the Plenary sessions are open to observers (of whatever kind, this isn't about CS as such). -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Dec 7 03:44:30 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:44:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: WCIT: What's happened in the first week In-Reply-To: <1811915b93740665fec761e71d4d389892c.20121207081242@mail37.us4.mcsv.net> References: <1811915b93740665fec761e71d4d389892c.20121207081242@mail37.us4.mcsv.net> Message-ID: Kieren's doing a great job reporting on WCIT. About "operating agencies", I thought the key text would be from article 6 of the constitution: "The Member States are also bound to take the necessary steps to impose the observance of the provisions of this Constitution, the Convention and the Administrative Regulations *upon operating agencies authorized* by them to establish and operate telecommunications and which engage in international services or which operate stations capable of causing harmful interference to the radio services of other countries." When there is disagreement over text for ITRs, or inconsistency between texts, the constitution prevails. And the constitution can only be modified in plenipotentiary meetings (net is 2014) Bill, Milton and others who understand this telecom stuff: thoughts? Any advice we give delegations? Adam ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: .Nxt Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 5:12 PM Subject: WCIT: What's happened in the first week To: apeake at gmail.com ** Week one of WCIT | December 6, 2012 Viewin browser Forwardto a friend Updateprofile [image: nxt] Halfway through WCIT... A rundown of the World Conference on International Telecommunications's first week [image: WCIT splits over the issue of "operating agencies"] WCIT splits over the issue of "operating agencies" Conference can't move forward until it's agreed who the treaty actually applies to Continue Reading The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) has dramatically split and may grind to a halt until a key distinction over whom precisely the resulting international treaty apply to is decided. [image: Read later on Instapaper] [image: Related] Your guide to WCIT documentation Over 200 documents and thousands of pages. Here's how to make sense of it all Full breakdown of ITR changes Every proposal for change, broken down by article and sub-article So what exactly is WCIT? A simple guide to the conference next month How to follow events live at WCIT It's a closed conference. But not if you follow this guide. [image: WCIT lowdown: it's all about Africa and Committee 5] WCIT lowdown: it's all about Africa and Committee 5 Our rough and ready guide to how the conference will pan out, who and what to watch, and a look at the bigger plans and strategies afoot. Continue Reading [image: The dirty truth about WCIT] The dirty truth about WCIT The campaign waged against the conference has already achieved most of its goals, making ongoing accusations made against the ITU look increasingly hysterical. But how would the Internet organizations that claim to be under threat manage under the same level of scrutiny? Continue Reading [image: Events] WCIT Dubai, 3-14 December [image: Other Articles] Verisign loses dot-com piggybankUS government intervenes in contract renewal, raising questions about ICANN stewardship Continue Reading Verisign shares have plunged 15 percent, wiping $850 million off the company's value, on the news that it will not be allowed to raise prices on dot-com domains for the next six years. The current wholesale price for dot-coms stands at $7.85 and the company had already agreed a six-year extension on its right to exclusively sell the domains with DNS overseeing organization ICANN. That agreement mirrored one signed in 2006 that allowed Verisign to raise the price by seven percent in four of the six years the contract ran. However the contract was subject to approval by the US Department of Commerce and it decided to remove the price-rise clause before signing. A short statementissued by the DoC quoted Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling saying that "consumer will benefit from Verisign's removal of the automatic price increase". WCIT and the Internet? It all comes down to this document The lowdown on Russia's contribution 27. Continue Reading The focal point for those fears has become a contribution by the Russian Federation, sent on 13 November - 10 days after the announced deadline - and then revised four days later. Contribution 27 appears to confirm everything that people have been worrying about - an effort to use a revision of an international treaty agreed in 1988 to provide governments with additional controls over the functioning of the Internet. So here is a rundown of what is exactly in Contribution 27 - both the originaland revisedversions - and an analysis of what the implications of its adoption would be. [image: News in Brief] ITU backs away from IP address provision Efforts to make the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) into a supra-regional Internet registry have been ditched, at least for the time being. Attendees at the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA) were surprised with a last-minute proposal, aggressively pushed by the Arab States, that the ITU become a provider of IP addresses. Discussion within Committee 4 had been focused on the allocation of IP addresses and in particular the provision of IPv6 address blocks. Our predictions for WCITFoolish as it may be, we have some predictions for what will happen between now and the end of WCIT. Here they are: - Nothing radical will appear in the ITRs. Instead it will be agreed that they will be reviewed in four or eight years' time and a range of working groups will be formed to work on various issues and report to the Council next year, take it to the ITU Plenipotentiary for initial review in 2014, and onto the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly (WTSA) in 2016 . . Day 2: Put off to tomorrow what you can't do today After a busy start, WCIT started to settle down into a familiar mode on the second day of the conference. The main highlights were: - A bid by Canada and the US to get some key definitions agreed before work starts was pushed off until the end of the week - The meeting delegates all agreed that they agreed with freedom of expression and human rights but that they didn't want to write it into a telecoms treaty - a press release was produced instead... . [image: LinkedIn] LinkedIn [image: Twitter] Twitter [image: Facebook] Facebook [image: Google+] Google+ You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website or at one of our conferences. Our mailing address is: .Nxt 426B Cole St San Francisco, CA 94117 Add us to your address book Copyright © 2012 .Nxt, All rights reserved. Sent to apeake at gmail.com — *why did I get this?* unsubscribe from this list| update subscription preferences .Nxt · 426B Cole St · San Francisco, CA 94117 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Dec 7 03:57:39 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 12:57:39 +0400 Subject: [governance] WCIT proposals - new website In-Reply-To: References: <2CC15334-87DE-46A3-A13A-7E79607F9131@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <50C1AF83.3010502@gih.com> On 07/12/2012 12:41, Roland Perry wrote: > Have they started to schedule any for the weekend yet (the last ITU > conference I went to had subgroups 7 days a week). Yes the week-end schedule is filling up. We've also been told "if you need to get some sleep, get it now, because this is likely to get much more intense next week". And I thought that starting at 8:00am and ending at 10:30pm was intense. I'm obviously new here... 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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 7 05:24:46 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:54:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] US Ambassador Terry Kramer on WCIT In-Reply-To: <96C94F58-DC3D-4B8C-8797-6BD6BAE7AAB7@post.harvard.edu> References: <96C94F58-DC3D-4B8C-8797-6BD6BAE7AAB7@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <50C1C3EE.10703@itforchange.net> Very true, David, the world is going towards a networked digital architecture, and it is difficult to separate the standalone (which was formerly the computing space) from the connecters (the former telecom space) . Also you have rightly connected net neutrality - a core regulatory issue - with FoE, a connection most civil society advocated round WCIT and otherwise seem to entirely miss or willingly bypass... parminder On Friday 07 December 2012 08:57 AM, David Allen wrote: > This would almost be amusing - if so much were not at stake. > > Those who remember the long history of policy debate, leading up > finally to divestiture of AT&T, know that there were a series of > so-called Computer Inquiries, official inquiries (in the US of > course). They revolved around trying to divine a dividing line, > between telecommunications and computing. This proved to be a Gordian > knot, which could not be untied. But the argument went forward, > seemingly endlessly, for many years actually, with much foolish policy > mooted, in an effort to separate the two, computers and networks. > > As one of the sages of the era told me (when interviewed for an > intellectual history), the mess will be straightened out only when we > correct the mistake, that is, our attempt to separate the two. > > George Santayana can be heard once again from the grave, it seems, > with his: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat > it." If each generation has to learn all over again, instead of > building from the hard-won lessons already travelled ... > > Notably - even a bit ironically - there, in those Computer Inquiries, > as here in the Dubai struggle, the core issue was / is (if by > different names): What we then called the common carrier obligation - > the telecoms carrier was not allowed to interfere with or change in > any way the messages being carried. What today we tussle over with > the rubric network neutrality. And what might be generalized to: > freedom of expression. > > David > > On Dec 6, 2012, at 4:22 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Economic, Energy, Agricultural and Trade Issues: Development and >> Progress of the World Conference on International Telecommunications >> Currently Being Held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates Until December >> 14, 2012 >> 12/06/2012 02:45 PM EST >> >> >> Development and Progress of the World Conference on International >> Telecommunications Currently Being Held in Dubai, United Arab >> Emirates Until December 14, 2012 >> >> >> Special Briefing >> Terry Kramer >> Ambassador U.S. Head of Delegation, World Conference on International >> Telecommunications >> Via Teleconference >> December 6, 2012 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> ... >> *QUESTION:* ... I understand the definition for telecommunications >> has been set. This morning, in the conference that the – in the media >> conference that the ITU holds, Director Peprah from Ghana mentioned >> that that’s the case, but ICT is still in the works – that is, the >> concept of information communications technology is still in the >> works, possibly as a defined term. Could you comment on that? >> >> *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. We are still working through a lot of >> different elements of how this definition gets driven. Our view right >> now is it does not belong in there. There may still be people talking >> about ICT in different forms. And certainly, in our own discussions, >> people are talking about VoIP operators, Skype and others that >> provide what they believe is telecomm services. But we don’t feel >> those are appropriate. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 7 05:54:44 2012 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 02:54:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] WCIT12 update - CS call to activists Message-ID: <1354877684.4777.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>   Dear all,  Just a quick update from the CS lunch-meeting: * we're finalising the letter to be submitted to the ITU Secretariat about civil society public comments and participation; if you have comments please submit them by 15:30 today; refer to this google doc: https://docs.google.com/a/publicknowledge.org/document/d/1b7ljrjIDf_h6nuvUpsm9OqPE6_IlHBMZyJs8g3hFSxk/edit - the time pressure has to do with the formal procedure to submit this; * below is the letter we have agreed to disseminate widely that comments on the negative effects of the recent blackout of the ITU website for civil society who want to follow conference proceedings; we can tweet the google doc from Nnenna's email or just forward the text; * we (civil society) have been invited to meet with the ITU SG – Harold is coordinating and will aim to organise something early next week. Next CS meeting – tentatively at 13:30 for whomever is at the venue tomorrow. Easy to cancel if there's no need for it. Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.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 nashton at ccianet.org Fri Dec 7 05:55:21 2012 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:55:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT proposals - new website In-Reply-To: <50C1AF83.3010502@gih.com> References: <2CC15334-87DE-46A3-A13A-7E79607F9131@uzh.ch> <50C1AF83.3010502@gih.com> Message-ID: <-9203724314485275439@unknownmsgid> You will soon think back to great fondness to the schedule you now have and become grateful for nights which allow more than 4 hours sleep. Welcome to week 2 of a 2 week dipcon... Sent from one of my handheld thingies, please forgive linguistic mangling On 7 Dec 2012, at 08:58, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > On 07/12/2012 12:41, Roland Perry wrote: >> Have they started to schedule any for the weekend yet (the last ITU >> conference I went to had subgroups 7 days a week). > > Yes the week-end schedule is filling up. > We've also been told "if you need to get some sleep, get it now, because > this is likely to get much more intense next week". And I thought that > starting at 8:00am and ending at 10:30pm was intense. I'm obviously new > here... > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 bavouc at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 05:58:56 2012 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Martial Bavou[Private Business Account]) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 11:58:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] WCIT12 update - CS call to activists In-Reply-To: <1354877684.4777.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1354877684.4777.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Nnena, Got this while trying to access the link: Vous devez disposer d'une autorisation pour accéder à cet élément. Vous êtes connecté avec le compte bavouc at gmail.com, mais vous n'êtes pas autorisé à accéder à cet élément. Vous pouvez demander au propriétaire de vous accorder l'accès à cet élément ou choisir un autre compte. En savoir plus Could you grant access. Thanks From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nnenna Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 11:55 AM To: IG Caucus Subject: [governance] WCIT12 update - CS call to activists Dear all, Just a quick update from the CS lunch-meeting: * we're finalising the letter to be submitted to the ITU Secretariat about civil society public comments and participation; if you have comments please submit them by 15:30 today; refer to this google doc: https://docs.google.com/a/publicknowledge.org/document/d/1b7ljrjIDf_h6nuvUpsm9OqPE6_IlHBMZyJs8g3hFSxk/edit - the time pressure has to do with the formal procedure to submit this; * below is the letter we have agreed to disseminate widely that comments on the negative effects of the recent blackout of the ITU website for civil society who want to follow conference proceedings; we can tweet the google doc from Nnenna's email or just forward the text; * we (civil society) have been invited to meet with the ITU SG – Harold is coordinating and will aim to organise something early next week. Next CS meeting – tentatively at 13:30 for whomever is at the venue tomorrow. Easy to cancel if there's no need for it. Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.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 Dec 7 06:22:44 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 20:22:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] WCIT12 update - CS call to activists In-Reply-To: <1354877684.4777.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1354877684.4777.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Nnenna, Can't access the document. Could you send as an attachment or just send the text to the list. Do you know who hacked: a protest or someone (some govt) wanting to look like a protest, what better way to justify having the hacked organization take more responsibility for cyber-security :-) Best, Adam On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Nnenna wrote: > > Dear all, > > Just a quick update from the CS lunch-meeting: > > we're finalising the letter to be submitted to the ITU Secretariat about > civil society public comments and participation; if you have comments please > submit them by 15:30 today; refer to this google doc: > https://docs.google.com/a/publicknowledge.org/document/d/1b7ljrjIDf_h6nuvUpsm9OqPE6_IlHBMZyJs8g3hFSxk/edit > - the time pressure has to do with the formal procedure to submit this; > below is the letter we have agreed to disseminate widely that comments on > the negative effects of the recent blackout of the ITU website for civil > society who want to follow conference proceedings; we can tweet the google > doc from Nnenna's email or just forward the text; > we (civil society) have been invited to meet with the ITU SG – Harold is > coordinating and will aim to organise something early next week. > > Next CS meeting – tentatively at 13:30 for whomever is at the venue > tomorrow. Easy to cancel if there's no need for it. > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 7 06:31:01 2012 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 03:31:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] WCIT12 update - CS call to activists - the text In-Reply-To: References: <1354877684.4777.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1354879861.41989.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> === The World Conference on International Telecommunications – 12 (December 3 - 14) Call to Human Rights and Technology Activists by Civil Society participants We, the physical and remote participants at The World Conference on International Telecommunications WCIT12 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, wish to call the attention of all human rights and technology activists that the recent outage of the ITU website has proved to be of considerable disadvantage to the efforts on the review of the International Telecommunications Regulations - ITRs. The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) is a critical event that the Civil Society believes is key in shaping greater connectivity and growth in international telecommunications. The satisfactory functioning of the ITU website, is central to the success of the meeting as it serves as the document repository, primary webcast channel and orientation platform for all participants. We therefore call on all concerned activists to refrain from any possible disruptions, hacks or attacks on the ITU website and its related domains. Such effort will be counterproductive, and will hugely disenfranchise remote participants. The Civil Society participation in ITU deliberations is the result of a long and a hard process that requires constructive efforts for improvement. We invite you to follow remotely onhttp://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx And #WCIT12 on Twitter Dubai World Trade Center Dubai, United Arab Emirates Friday, 7th of December 2012 ==   Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ________________________________ From: Adam Peake To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nnenna Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [governance] WCIT12 update - CS call to activists Hi Nnenna, Can't access the document.  Could you send as an attachment or just send the text to the list. Do you know who hacked:  a protest or someone (some govt) wanting to look like a protest, what better way to justify having the hacked organization take more responsibility for cyber-security :-) Best, Adam On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Nnenna wrote: > > Dear all, > > Just a quick update from the CS lunch-meeting: > > we're finalising the letter to be submitted to the ITU Secretariat about > civil society public comments and participation; if you have comments please > submit them by 15:30 today; refer to this google doc: > https://docs.google.com/a/publicknowledge.org/document/d/1b7ljrjIDf_h6nuvUpsm9OqPE6_IlHBMZyJs8g3hFSxk/edit > - the time pressure has to do with the formal procedure to submit this; > below is the letter we have agreed to disseminate widely that comments on > the negative effects of the recent blackout of the ITU website for civil > society who want to follow conference proceedings; we can tweet the google > doc from Nnenna's email or just forward the text; > we (civil society) have been invited to meet with the ITU SG – Harold is > coordinating and will aim to organise something early next week. > > Next CS meeting – tentatively at 13:30 for whomever is at the venue > tomorrow. Easy to cancel if there's no need for it. > > > Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nne75 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 7 06:44:10 2012 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 03:44:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ITU Sec Gen meeting with Civil Society - WCIT12 Message-ID: <1354880650.51728.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>  Hi people, Just  a quick info that the ITU General Secretary will be meeting with the CS of WCIT.  This meeting is now confirmed for Monday 1500 hours. If you have not arrived and will arrive in time to attend, please let us know Best Nnenna Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.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 Dec 7 06:44:30 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 20:44:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] WCIT12 update - CS call to activists - the text In-Reply-To: <1354879861.41989.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1354877684.4777.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1354879861.41989.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thank you. A good statement, if you are sure the hackers were activists. Best, Adam On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Nnenna wrote: > === > The World Conference on International Telecommunications – 12 (December 3 - > 14) > > > Call to Human Rights and Technology Activists by Civil Society participants > > > > We, the physical and remote participants at The World Conference on > International Telecommunications WCIT12 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, wish > to call the attention of all human rights and technology activists that the > recent outage of the ITU website has proved to be of considerable > disadvantage to the efforts on the review of the International > Telecommunications Regulations - ITRs. > > The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) is a > critical event that the Civil Society believes is key in shaping greater > connectivity and growth in international telecommunications. The > satisfactory functioning of the ITU website, is central to the success of > the meeting as it serves as the document repository, primary webcast channel > and orientation platform for all participants. > > We therefore call on all concerned activists to refrain from any possible > disruptions, hacks or attacks on the ITU website and its related domains. > Such effort will be counterproductive, and will hugely disenfranchise remote > participants. > > The Civil Society participation in ITU deliberations is the result of a long > and a hard process that requires constructive efforts for improvement. > > We invite you to follow remotely on > http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx > And #WCIT12 on Twitter > > > > Dubai World Trade Center > Dubai, United Arab Emirates > Friday, 7th of December 2012 > > > > == > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > ________________________________ > From: Adam Peake > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Nnenna > Sent: Friday, December 7, 2012 11:22 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] WCIT12 update - CS call to activists > > Hi Nnenna, > > Can't access the document. Could you send as an attachment or just > send the text to the list. > > Do you know who hacked: a protest or someone (some govt) wanting to > look like a protest, what better way to justify having the hacked > organization take more responsibility for cyber-security :-) > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Nnenna wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Just a quick update from the CS lunch-meeting: >> >> we're finalising the letter to be submitted to the ITU Secretariat about >> civil society public comments and participation; if you have comments >> please >> submit them by 15:30 today; refer to this google doc: >> >> https://docs.google.com/a/publicknowledge.org/document/d/1b7ljrjIDf_h6nuvUpsm9OqPE6_IlHBMZyJs8g3hFSxk/edit >> - the time pressure has to do with the formal procedure to submit this; >> below is the letter we have agreed to disseminate widely that comments on >> the negative effects of the recent blackout of the ITU website for civil >> society who want to follow conference proceedings; we can tweet the google >> doc from Nnenna's email or just forward the text; >> we (civil society) have been invited to meet with the ITU SG – Harold is >> coordinating and will aim to organise something early next week. >> >> Next CS meeting – tentatively at 13:30 for whomever is at the venue >> tomorrow. Easy to cancel if there's no need for it. >> >> >> Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants >> Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development >> Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 >> Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org >> nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.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 > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Fri Dec 7 06:44:49 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 18:44:49 +0700 Subject: AW: [governance] Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD70C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD6FD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <50C0F4EC.8080104@gmx.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD70C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <50C1D6B1.1010504@gmx.net> On 12/7/2012 7:59 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Indeed is is approved > > > http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/workprog/wp_item.aspx?isn=7082 > > w > It has been approved as a "Recommendation." Norbert Klein -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 06:54:44 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 06:54:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] WCIT12 update - CS call to activists - the text In-Reply-To: References: <1354877684.4777.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1354879861.41989.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thank you. > > A good statement, if you are sure the hackers were activists. > or are sure it was not just incompetence/inadequate capacity. -- 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 daniel at digsys.bg Fri Dec 7 07:00:10 2012 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 14:00:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50C1DA4A.3040407@digsys.bg> On 06.12.12 19:38, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > > *Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks > * > I am still curious, who cares? Back in the days when Internet was more or less scientific/university/hobby network, there were plenty of ITU recommendations of all sorts, most intended "for the public good". Internet grew up by ignoring all of these recommendations, by virtue of being, after all, an loosely interconnected network of private networks. The Internet continues to have this architecture and ownership structure -- this is why it is generally immune to regulation. As I understand it, this is an recommendation for ITU members. But who those guys are? Mostly state-owned or state-controlled telcos. Is the Internet dependent on those guys? No way, whatever they dream. None of the ISP businesses I know of and care about, are members of the ITU. Do you envision implementing this recommendation in your home network (part of the Internet), on your company network (part of the Internet), on your campus/university network (part of the Internet), on your local, regional, national, whatever ISP (part of the Internet)? I don't think so. Simply because of cost reasons and because it does not provide any value to anyone. If your Government controlled telco implements these recommendations, and possibly are they have always done so (I know this has been true for ours), and if this interferes somehow with your desires, there are always alternatives and there always will be -- this is how the Internet grep up to be what is now, in the first place. Just reroute your traffic. Just my $0.02 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 ca at cafonso.ca Fri Dec 7 07:55:55 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 10:55:55 -0200 Subject: [governance] Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks In-Reply-To: <50C1DA4A.3040407@digsys.bg> References: <50C1DA4A.3040407@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <50C1E75B.10009@cafonso.ca> Daniel, the hard fact is that telcos already use DPI extensively for monetizing and manipulating traffic in their ADSL contracts. I think they are trying to have ITU condone it officially -- shame on them all. --c.a. On 12/07/2012 10:00 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > > On 06.12.12 19:38, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> >> >> *Requirements for Deep Packet Inspection in Next Generation Networks >> * >> > > I am still curious, who cares? > > Back in the days when Internet was more or less > scientific/university/hobby network, there were plenty of ITU > recommendations of all sorts, most intended "for the public good". > Internet grew up by ignoring all of these recommendations, by virtue of > being, after all, an loosely interconnected network of private networks. > The Internet continues to have this architecture and ownership structure > -- this is why it is generally immune to regulation. > > As I understand it, this is an recommendation for ITU members. But who > those guys are? Mostly state-owned or state-controlled telcos. Is the > Internet dependent on those guys? No way, whatever they dream. None of > the ISP businesses I know of and care about, are members of the ITU. > > Do you envision implementing this recommendation in your home network > (part of the Internet), on your company network (part of the Internet), > on your campus/university network (part of the Internet), on your local, > regional, national, whatever ISP (part of the Internet)? I don't think > so. Simply because of cost reasons and because it does not provide any > value to anyone. > > If your Government controlled telco implements these recommendations, > and possibly are they have always done so (I know this has been true for > ours), and if this interferes somehow with your desires, there are > always alternatives and there always will be -- this is how the Internet > grep up to be what is now, in the first place. Just reroute your traffic. > > Just my $0.02 > > 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 rrangnath at publicknowledge.org Fri Dec 7 08:28:41 2012 From: rrangnath at publicknowledge.org (Rashmi Rangnath) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 08:28:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITU Sec Gen meeting with Civil Society - WCIT12 In-Reply-To: <1354880650.51728.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1354880650.51728.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6959241C-BB1C-4F0E-B864-E38D8A60EB57@publicknowledge.org> Nnenna: I am not in Dubai right now. But will arrive in time for the meeting and would like to attend. Rashmi Sent from my iPhone On Dec 7, 2012, at 6:44 AM, Nnenna wrote: > > Hi people, > > Just a quick info that the ITU General Secretary will be meeting with the CS of WCIT. This meeting is now confirmed for Monday 1500 hours. > > If you have not arrived and will arrive in time to attend, please let us know > > Best > > Nnenna > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 08:41:29 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:41:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50C1F209.1080502@gmail.com> Au contraire SRS He called the internationalism phony- it is even highlighted with quotes. Are you exacerbating matters here? Precision counts in a charge like this. What's your game? On 2012/12/07 09:27 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Parminder, if you persist in using terms like phony to refer to McTim > and then call the list police down on Milton for allegedly being rude > to you, that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "parminder" > To: > Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? > Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 12:39 PM > > > > On Thursday 06 December 2012 07:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > > Riaz, > > > > Like Parminder, you’ve overused this charge of “American > > exceptionalism,” to the point where it reflects more on you than on > > the target. Indeed if you, like Parminder, apply it to me it shows > > that you are completely ignorant of my writings on the subject or that > > you are simply hurling a blanket epithet at whoever is standing > > around, whenever they disagree. So, no point in discussing further. > > > > Milton, > > Dont know why you are pulling me into this out of nowhere .... but if > you want me to come in, here i am, at your service :) > > (BTW, I must first say that I find your recent comments to Riaz > extremely rude, and I hope that the concerned duty bearers are taking > note.) > > So, you object to the use of the term 'US exceptionalism'! You are on > record asserting repeatedly that you think ICANN should continue to be > subject to US laws, at least in the areas of regulation of non-profits, > competition and FoE...... presumable more...... (in any case an entity > is either subject to a jurisdiction, or it is not; there are no choices > available for an entity to be subject to some laws and not others). > > Have you not said so? Please do let us know if you havent, and even if > you have changed your mind now. > > In the above regard you dont even agree with those who seek, what I call > as, 'phoney internationalisation' (McTim's case) whereby ICANN > internationalisation is sought without being able to suggest any > credible institutional basis for doing it. (You are perhaps too > politically clued-in and can make out that such phony > internationalisation without providing the political- institutional > basis for it is simply not possible.) > > You however do not agree for ICANN to be subject to international law, > or laws of other countries (do you agree to ICANN shifting to New > Delhi?) , and you want it to be subject to US laws. Now that is > literately 'US exceptionalism', isnt it! I cant see how the term can be > applied more accurately than in this case..... > > parminder > > > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Riaz K > Tayob > > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:06 PM > > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dominique Lacroix > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... > > (from taxes? > > > > Frankly I am not sure what kind of institutionalist Milton is. This is > > not the Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Rayomond, Richard Ely, E Pershine > > Smith, Frederich List and JK Galbraith, who all had a keen head for > > facts and history. > > > > Britain used free trade ideas as a means to maintain its dominance > > over other nations. The workshop of the world that encouraged everyone > > to liberalise, that free trade (and then classical economics) was > > best. And in the Pax (?) Americana, neoclassical economics (in > > infinite disguises) and the Washington Consensus serves the same > > function. > > > > Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these > > approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is room for > > disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry Milton, for > > some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be included in > > the "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from his > > Institutionalism - not having read all his work, is no different from > > American Exceptionalists on this list. Of course I am aware that in > > the American context(where what passes for progressive is quit > > different, this may well be the case. It simply cannot be generalised. > > > > And in the "competition" through subsidised efforts Europe builds > > capabilities - both the tech no-(harware) and -ology (its people). One > > of the key elements of benefiting from a network is that skills can be > > diffused. Consumption of technology rich goods is not the same as > > producing them. Actually in a reverse sort of way the status quoists > > (exceptionalists, Institutionalists of a special type, neoliberals, > > etc) seek to maintain the US dominance by playing to that nations > > comparative advantage - also in institutions like ICANN and the posse > > that goes with it. > > > > > > On 2012/12/05 10:25 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > > > > Le 05/12/12 20:26, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > > > > "Frankly", development of the TCP/IP protocols were supported > > by military research contracts, which had no intention of > > supporting a commercial industry. "The Internet" spread to the > > general population and succeeded because of telecommunications > > liberalization and a free market. > > > > Dear Milton, you seem a little dizzy. You skipped merrily the NSF > > action in the 1981-1995 years... > > And then, also, the CIA action, via the In-Q-Tel venture capital > > firm, launched in 1999. > > And also the military orders in the advanced IT field. > > Perhaps I forget something. I'm also a bit dizzy... > > > > The government played an important role in facilitating that > > process by privatizing control and paving the way for competition > > among ISPs. There is no doubt about that. > > > > Exact. And not enough: Google should be prosecuted for dominance > > abuse. > > > > While we are being frank, perhaps you can tell me how successful > > European efforts to subsidize search engine technology to compete > > with Google has been? > > > > I assume you already heard about the networks effect that gives an > > advantage to the first big player. > > That's exactly why China and other countries protect their > > boundaries in order to help their IT industry to find existence. > > > > Do you think that Europe also ought to close their virtual > boundaries? > > > > @+, Dom > > > > > > Please frankly, Milton, did internet begin in the US by free > > market or by the US Gov action? > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 04:35:36 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:35:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB8C1C9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB8C1C9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <50C1B868.9050607@gmail.com> I would be remiss in pointing out that while complex, large corporations are shaping things in intimate association with their (developed) country governments... Just because it is complex, does not mean that threads of "power"/interests are indiscernible... And about your metaphor on boats. Actually that is what Jack Welch said about factory production in the US...here : "Founded by the American icon Thomas Edison, GE is now headed by Jack Welch, who has said, "Ideally you'd have every plant you own on a barge" -- ready to move if any national government tried to impose restraints on the factories' operations, or if workers demanded better wages and working conditions. " With this kind of cosmopolitanism, you all are in good company even if just in jest? Perhaps IT IS valed that what is good for Ford/GE is good for America!. On 2012/12/06 05:38 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > McTim, > > all those advantages pale before the largest disadvantage: we would be > forever plagued with speeches about "steering this ship in a storm", > "rearranging the deck chairs", and... wait! it has been done! > > 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 McTim > [dogwallah at gmail.com] > *Enviado el:* jueves, 06 de diciembre de 2012 08:31 > *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Asunto:* [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new > approach to Internet governance! > > All, > > If domiciling ICANN in a nation state is problematic, perhaps ICANN > could buy this cruise ship as a HQ: > > http://cruiseship.homestead.com/Cruise-Ship.html > > It would help solve the problem of internationalisation, be a > permanent host for ICANN meetings (2450 berths....saving hotel costs > for all) and generate revenue intersessionally. It's a 3-fer, plus > it's a snip @~ 300 million USD!! > > > -- > 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 Dec 7 08:35:03 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:35:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <50C08C7B.3010100@itforchange.net> <50C0E615.9040402@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50C1F087.5060008@gmail.com> On 2012/12/07 03:09 AM, McTim wrote: > > Why does Parminder have to give a utopian vision for the future > while others are precluded from this requirement? Where is the > balance in that? > > > > I don't believe I asked for a utopian vision. I simply questioned why > " One needs to propose under what kind of arrangement will the new > internationalised ICANN get institutionalised and subsist.", and then > asked if the severing of the DoC contract with ICANN is not the next > step in the evolution of that realtionship. It may or may not be. It could enhance "private" (i.e. in US terms, Non-profit orgs as well) control without increasing accountability. > There is also disruptive evolution (see preceding comment). > However, I cannot see how the legitimacy issue can be dealt with > if even basic discussions (think Vint Cerf and Nick Gowing at the > first IGF also) cannot be had. If I/we are contrary, then with > balance I can say we are outnumbered, what are the others' excuses? > > > which legitimacy issue? That ICANN or CIR are preponderantly under US control. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Dec 7 08:47:41 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 19:17:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50C1F209.1080502@gmail.com> References: <50C1F209.1080502@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1780B3AB-0504-4023-9286-1FC4271C138F@hserus.net> :) In other words, calling McTim's statements a lie rather than calling him a liar? No, no game at all. Just tired of petty politics. --srs (iPad) On 07-Dec-2012, at 19:11, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Au contraire SRS > > He called the internationalism phony- it is even highlighted with quotes. > > Are you exacerbating matters here? Precision counts in a charge like this. What's your game? > > On 2012/12/07 09:27 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Parminder, if you persist in using terms like phony to refer to McTim and then call the list police down on Milton for allegedly being rude to you, that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "parminder" >> To: >> Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? >> Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 12:39 PM >> >> >> >> On Thursday 06 December 2012 07:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> > >> > Riaz, >> > >> > Like Parminder, you’ve overused this charge of “American >> > exceptionalism,” to the point where it reflects more on you than on >> > the target. Indeed if you, like Parminder, apply it to me it shows >> > that you are completely ignorant of my writings on the subject or that >> > you are simply hurling a blanket epithet at whoever is standing >> > around, whenever they disagree. So, no point in discussing further. >> > >> >> Milton, >> >> Dont know why you are pulling me into this out of nowhere .... but if >> you want me to come in, here i am, at your service :) >> >> (BTW, I must first say that I find your recent comments to Riaz >> extremely rude, and I hope that the concerned duty bearers are taking note.) >> >> So, you object to the use of the term 'US exceptionalism'! You are on >> record asserting repeatedly that you think ICANN should continue to be >> subject to US laws, at least in the areas of regulation of non-profits, >> competition and FoE...... presumable more...... (in any case an entity >> is either subject to a jurisdiction, or it is not; there are no choices >> available for an entity to be subject to some laws and not others). >> >> Have you not said so? Please do let us know if you havent, and even if >> you have changed your mind now. >> >> In the above regard you dont even agree with those who seek, what I call >> as, 'phoney internationalisation' (McTim's case) whereby ICANN >> internationalisation is sought without being able to suggest any >> credible institutional basis for doing it. (You are perhaps too >> politically clued-in and can make out that such phony >> internationalisation without providing the political- institutional >> basis for it is simply not possible.) >> >> You however do not agree for ICANN to be subject to international law, >> or laws of other countries (do you agree to ICANN shifting to New >> Delhi?) , and you want it to be subject to US laws. Now that is >> literately 'US exceptionalism', isnt it! I cant see how the term can be >> applied more accurately than in this case..... >> >> parminder >> >> >> > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Riaz K Tayob >> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:06 PM >> > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dominique Lacroix >> > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... >> > (from taxes? >> > >> > Frankly I am not sure what kind of institutionalist Milton is. This is >> > not the Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Rayomond, Richard Ely, E Pershine >> > Smith, Frederich List and JK Galbraith, who all had a keen head for >> > facts and history. >> > >> > Britain used free trade ideas as a means to maintain its dominance >> > over other nations. The workshop of the world that encouraged everyone >> > to liberalise, that free trade (and then classical economics) was >> > best. And in the Pax (?) Americana, neoclassical economics (in >> > infinite disguises) and the Washington Consensus serves the same >> > function. >> > >> > Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these >> > approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is room for >> > disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry Milton, for >> > some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be included in >> > the "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from his >> > Institutionalism - not having read all his work, is no different from >> > American Exceptionalists on this list. Of course I am aware that in >> > the American context(where what passes for progressive is quit >> > different, this may well be the case. It simply cannot be generalised. >> > >> > And in the "competition" through subsidised efforts Europe builds >> > capabilities - both the tech no-(harware) and -ology (its people). One >> > of the key elements of benefiting from a network is that skills can be >> > diffused. Consumption of technology rich goods is not the same as >> > producing them. Actually in a reverse sort of way the status quoists >> > (exceptionalists, Institutionalists of a special type, neoliberals, >> > etc) seek to maintain the US dominance by playing to that nations >> > comparative advantage - also in institutions like ICANN and the posse >> > that goes with it. >> > >> > >> > On 2012/12/05 10:25 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: >> > >> > Le 05/12/12 20:26, Milton L Mueller a écrit : >> > >> > "Frankly", development of the TCP/IP protocols were supported >> > by military research contracts, which had no intention of >> > supporting a commercial industry. "The Internet" spread to the >> > general population and succeeded because of telecommunications >> > liberalization and a free market. >> > >> > Dear Milton, you seem a little dizzy. You skipped merrily the NSF >> > action in the 1981-1995 years... >> > And then, also, the CIA action, via the In-Q-Tel venture capital >> > firm, launched in 1999. >> > And also the military orders in the advanced IT field. >> > Perhaps I forget something. I'm also a bit dizzy... >> > >> > The government played an important role in facilitating that >> > process by privatizing control and paving the way for competition >> > among ISPs. There is no doubt about that. >> > >> > Exact. And not enough: Google should be prosecuted for dominance >> > abuse. >> > >> > While we are being frank, perhaps you can tell me how successful >> > European efforts to subsidize search engine technology to compete >> > with Google has been? >> > >> > I assume you already heard about the networks effect that gives an >> > advantage to the first big player. >> > That's exactly why China and other countries protect their >> > boundaries in order to help their IT industry to find existence. >> > >> > Do you think that Europe also ought to close their virtual boundaries? >> > >> > @+, Dom >> > >> > >> > Please frankly, Milton, did internet begin in the US by free >> > market or by the US Gov action? >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Dec 7 08:57:23 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:57:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <1780B3AB-0504-4023-9286-1FC4271C138F@hserus.net> References: <50C1F209.1080502@gmail.com> <1780B3AB-0504-4023-9286-1FC4271C138F@hserus.net> Message-ID: <50C1F5C3.5090306@gmail.com> Puh-leez! It is perfectly fine to rubbish an idea _with reasons_. That is not a "lie", it is _argument_. Perhaps, its time to draw a line with you on these kinds of matters :))))) On 2012/12/07 03:47 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > :) In other words, calling McTim's statements a lie rather than > calling him a liar? > > No, no game at all. Just tired of petty politics. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 07-Dec-2012, at 19:11, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > >> Au contraire SRS >> >> He called the internationalism phony- it is even highlighted with >> quotes. >> >> Are you exacerbating matters here? Precision counts in a charge like >> this. What's your game? >> >> On 2012/12/07 09:27 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> Parminder, if you persist in using terms like phony to refer to >>> McTim and then call the list police down on Milton for allegedly >>> being rude to you, that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. >>> >>> --srs (htc one x) >>> >>> >>> ----- Reply message ----- >>> From: "parminder" >>> To: >>> Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from >>> taxes? >>> Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 12:39 PM >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thursday 06 December 2012 07:32 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> > >>> > Riaz, >>> > >>> > Like Parminder, you’ve overused this charge of “American >>> > exceptionalism,” to the point where it reflects more on you than on >>> > the target. Indeed if you, like Parminder, apply it to me it shows >>> > that you are completely ignorant of my writings on the subject or >>> that >>> > you are simply hurling a blanket epithet at whoever is standing >>> > around, whenever they disagree. So, no point in discussing further. >>> > >>> >>> Milton, >>> >>> Dont know why you are pulling me into this out of nowhere .... but if >>> you want me to come in, here i am, at your service :) >>> >>> (BTW, I must first say that I find your recent comments to Riaz >>> extremely rude, and I hope that the concerned duty bearers are >>> taking note.) >>> >>> So, you object to the use of the term 'US exceptionalism'! You are on >>> record asserting repeatedly that you think ICANN should continue to be >>> subject to US laws, at least in the areas of regulation of non-profits, >>> competition and FoE...... presumable more...... (in any case an entity >>> is either subject to a jurisdiction, or it is not; there are no choices >>> available for an entity to be subject to some laws and not others). >>> >>> Have you not said so? Please do let us know if you havent, and even if >>> you have changed your mind now. >>> >>> In the above regard you dont even agree with those who seek, what I >>> call >>> as, 'phoney internationalisation' (McTim's case) whereby ICANN >>> internationalisation is sought without being able to suggest any >>> credible institutional basis for doing it. (You are perhaps too >>> politically clued-in and can make out that such phony >>> internationalisation without providing the political- institutional >>> basis for it is simply not possible.) >>> >>> You however do not agree for ICANN to be subject to international law, >>> or laws of other countries (do you agree to ICANN shifting to New >>> Delhi?) , and you want it to be subject to US laws. Now that is >>> literately 'US exceptionalism', isnt it! I cant see how the term can be >>> applied more accurately than in this case..... >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Riaz >>> K Tayob >>> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:06 PM >>> > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dominique Lacroix >>> > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... >>> > (from taxes? >>> > >>> > Frankly I am not sure what kind of institutionalist Milton is. >>> This is >>> > not the Alexander Hamilton, Daniel Rayomond, Richard Ely, E Pershine >>> > Smith, Frederich List and JK Galbraith, who all had a keen head for >>> > facts and history. >>> > >>> > Britain used free trade ideas as a means to maintain its dominance >>> > over other nations. The workshop of the world that encouraged >>> everyone >>> > to liberalise, that free trade (and then classical economics) was >>> > best. And in the Pax (?) Americana, neoclassical economics (in >>> > infinite disguises) and the Washington Consensus serves the same >>> > function. >>> > >>> > Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these >>> > approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is room for >>> > disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry Milton, for >>> > some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be included in >>> > the "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from his >>> > Institutionalism - not having read all his work, is no different from >>> > American Exceptionalists on this list. Of course I am aware that in >>> > the American context(where what passes for progressive is quit >>> > different, this may well be the case. It simply cannot be generalised. >>> > >>> > And in the "competition" through subsidised efforts Europe builds >>> > capabilities - both the tech no-(harware) and -ology (its people). >>> One >>> > of the key elements of benefiting from a network is that skills >>> can be >>> > diffused. Consumption of technology rich goods is not the same as >>> > producing them. Actually in a reverse sort of way the status quoists >>> > (exceptionalists, Institutionalists of a special type, neoliberals, >>> > etc) seek to maintain the US dominance by playing to that nations >>> > comparative advantage - also in institutions like ICANN and the posse >>> > that goes with it. >>> > >>> > >>> > On 2012/12/05 10:25 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: >>> > >>> > Le 05/12/12 20:26, Milton L Mueller a écrit : >>> > >>> > "Frankly", development of the TCP/IP protocols were supported >>> > by military research contracts, which had no intention of >>> > supporting a commercial industry. "The Internet" spread to the >>> > general population and succeeded because of telecommunications >>> > liberalization and a free market. >>> > >>> > Dear Milton, you seem a little dizzy. You skipped merrily the NSF >>> > action in the 1981-1995 years... >>> > And then, also, the CIA action, via the In-Q-Tel venture capital >>> > firm, launched in 1999. >>> > And also the military orders in the advanced IT field. >>> > Perhaps I forget something. I'm also a bit dizzy... >>> > >>> > The government played an important role in facilitating that >>> > process by privatizing control and paving the way for competition >>> > among ISPs. There is no doubt about that. >>> > >>> > Exact. And not enough: Google should be prosecuted for dominance >>> > abuse. >>> > >>> > While we are being frank, perhaps you can tell me how successful >>> > European efforts to subsidize search engine technology to compete >>> > with Google has been? >>> > >>> > I assume you already heard about the networks effect that gives an >>> > advantage to the first big player. >>> > That's exactly why China and other countries protect their >>> > boundaries in order to help their IT industry to find existence. >>> > >>> > Do you think that Europe also ought to close their virtual >>> boundaries? >>> > >>> > @+, Dom >>> > >>> > >>> > Please frankly, Milton, did internet begin in the US by free >>> > market or by the US Gov action? >>> > >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Fri Dec 7 09:37:05 2012 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:37:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> Well, we have innovation! With the IGF in Bali, and ICANN on a cruise ship, we may have 'beach or floating governance'. Internet governance could be fun! I like the metaphor of the ship since it implies our common destiny. We are all passengers of ICANNia or ITUnia or...*?* Metaphors are also useful to remove our tunnel vision and make us think more creatively. In another metaphor, I hope that Internetistan will resist Absurdistan (here is the map of this fast-growing country ). But back to the current reality. Unfortunately, the ICANN cruise ship won't solve the problem of internationalisation. 'Open sea' refers only to freedom of navigation. It does not deal with the status of the ship. All relations on the ship are regulated by the national law of the ship's flag. ICANNia has to be registered somewhere. One solution could be a flag of convenience such as Liberia or Panama. What happens on the ICANNia is regulated by national law, with no major differences from any other land-based entity (company, organisation). Yes, ICANNia can sail in whatever direction it wants to sail, but the decision must be made by the captain according to the rules of the flag's state. Extrapolating from the role of the captain on the ship, the ICANNia would look like military unit. The cruise ship metaphor gets even more interesting when we consider different classes of cabins, rescue operations, etc. These thoughts have taken me back to Hugo Grotius's book /Mare Liberum/ that established the "open sea" concept four centuries ago as opposed to the idea of a /Mare Nostrum/. **His relevance for our time is sobering. If we replace 'sea' with 'Internet' we could have the next book on the Internet. Grotius was a very interesting personality.** Besides being one of the first international lawyers, he was one of the founders of the 'natural law' school of thought. In addition, he wrote a lot about social contract (before Rousseau, Locke, and others). As a matter of fact, his social contract theory could be applicable to the Internet. When it comes to the concept of open sea, Grotius had an interesting interplay with the political masters of his era. He believed in open sea, but Dutch and British authorities quickly realised the usefulness of his doctrine. They had the biggest fleets and had ambitions to develop trade and colonial empires. Grotius provided them with the necessary doctrine or 'political software'. However, Grotius always argued that 'open sea' needs rules and principles in order to be 'open'. Although it was counter-intuitive to the leaders of two growing maritime powers, he managed to convince them that it was in their best interest to 'tame' their comparative powers and ensure the sustainability of their empires beyond the 17th century. Everything else has written the history, which proved Grotius right. We can draw many parallels, with the necessary caution that historical analogies should be handled with care. While we are waiting for a new Grotius (or Godot), we should review how we debate Internet governance issues. Grotius was a great scholar who mastered the existing rules before he started changing them. We, on the other hand, use well-defined and developed concepts in a relaxed way. A few examples... As we saw, the frequently used metaphor of the open sea does not translate to an open Internet. In many respects, it can lead in the opposite direction (Internet Nostrum). Another example is the role of states' responsibility in the Internet era. This is a well-defined concept in international law. If we want states to be responsible for whatever is originating in their territories (e.g. cyber-attacks, botnets), we have to give them the tools to ensure their responsibility (mainly state control, regulation, and surveillance). Most writings on state responsibility start from the opposite assumption, i.e. the limited role of the state. With all the creativity and imagination in the world, we still cannot have it both ways. The most topical example of the need for evidence-based policy is the case of the Red Cross name/emblem at ICANN. There are very clear rules for the protection of the Red Cross name/emblem that were adopted some 100 years ago and have been followed, without reservation, on national and international levels. ICANN was right in protecting the Red Cross name but made the mistake of putting it together with organisations that do not enjoy the same status (the International Olympic Committee). Even if we want to change the rules in order to adjust to the specificities of the Internet era (if any), we have first to master them. I see here an important role for academic and civil society communities. If we had advised ICANN to evaluate the Red Cross and IOC submissions separately, we could have avoided a lot of policy confusion and wasted time. The GIGANET might consider the evidence-based policy research as the key theme for the next meeting? Regards, Jovan On 12/6/12 3:31 PM, McTim wrote: > All, > > If domiciling ICANN in a nation state is problematic, perhaps ICANN > could buy this cruise ship as a HQ: > > http://cruiseship.homestead.com/Cruise-Ship.html > > It would help solve the problem of internationalisation, be a > permanent host for ICANN meetings (2450 berths....saving hotel costs > for all) and generate revenue intersessionally. It's a 3-fer, plus > it's a snip @~ 300 million USD!! > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -- *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:*today – this week – this month *l* Conference on Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) *l *new online courses -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 10:14:49 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 07:14:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [Itu2012chapters] Fwd: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society's Statement Addressing Reported Attacks Against the ITU Website In-Reply-To: <4965A4EB-B822-48B3-9001-0460DEB0D68A@isoc.org> References: <4965A4EB-B822-48B3-9001-0460DEB0D68A@isoc.org> Message-ID: <042901cdd48d$9a6e75a0$cf4b60e0$@gmail.com> It is extremely difficult to stop a lynch mob. M From: itu2012chapters-bounces at elists.isoc.org [mailto:itu2012chapters-bounces at elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Sally Wentworth Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 6:37 AM To: itu2012chapters at elists.isoc.org Subject: [Itu2012chapters] Fwd: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society's Statement Addressing Reported Attacks Against the ITU Website Hi all, Please take note of the below statement from ISOC with regards to reported attacks against the ITU Website during the WCIT. Sally Sally Wentworth Internet Society +1 703 439 2146 wentworth at isoc.org www.isoc.org Begin forwarded message: From: Christine Saegesser Subject: [Chapter-delegates] Internet Society's Statement Addressing Reported Attacks Against the ITU Website Date: December 7, 2012 4:32:19 PM GMT+04:00 To: Chapter Delegates Reply-To: ISOC Chapter Support Dear Colleagues, Please find below a message from Lynn St.Amour, President/CEO of the Internet Society: Dear Chapters, Earlier today (Dubai time) in response to several reports that the ITU website would be attacked this weekend, we released a statement saying, amongst other things, that "such actions would be wholly counterproductive, making it more difficult to have the kind of collaboration and thoughtful discussions that are needed at this critical point." We obviously do not support these attacks and being a principled organization, we could not sit here in Dubai and not comment. It has been welcomed by many here, including the ITU leadership. The statement has been posted on our website at http://www.internetsociety.org/ituweb, pushed through social media channels, etc. The statement is below and is on our home page as well. Regards, Lynn ================================================================ Internet Society's Statement Addressing Reported Attacks Against the ITU Website ================================================================ The Internet Society releases the following statement from President and CEO Lynn St. Amour: "The Internet Society is a strong proponent of openness, transparency, and collaboration. Actions that disrupt these principles and impact dialogue or collaboration are counterproductive to an open and globally accessible Internet. The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) is an important event that the Internet Society hopes will contribute to greater connectivity and growth in international telecommunications. We have openly expressed our significant reservations about some of the proposals at WCIT, and this does not shake our foundational belief that an open dialogue between a broad spectrum of stakeholders around the world is the best way to ensure the continuation of the Internet's growth and evolution. Currently, numerous media reports suggest that attacks are being planned against the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) website to disrupt the WCIT proceedings in Dubai. Such actions would be wholly counterproductive, making it more difficult to have the kind of collaboration and thoughtful discussions that are needed at this critical point. We urge everyone to take positive action to have their voices heard, not to restrict the very medium that amplifies that voice. Show your support, and help our collective cause by contributing constructively to a global conversation. Share this message across your social media channels, so that everyone's voice is heard: The Internet is open and should include #Everyone." For more information about the Internet Society and our positions on WCIT, visit http://www.internetsociety.org. _______________________________________________ As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.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 apisan at unam.mx Fri Dec 7 10:22:43 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 15:22:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> References: ,<50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Jovan, thanks for doing a pretty innovative thing here: discussing ideas. Further, bringing a fresh approach and actual expertise. My long-standing concern for analogies between Internet governance and the laws of the sea is that the Internet is much more a built environment than the sea (not that the sea is all natural and in fixed form forever, immune to our contamination and our imagintion.) So Internet governance refers not only to rules etc. to live on the existing Internet, but also has to be useful as guidance in its expansion and development. To abuse your analogy, it's not only about shipping, fishing, and mining, but also about how to actually make the oceans of tomorrow. That brings you to points like: you can use Ostromian theory to understand the tragedy of the commons in fisheries; but can you extend it to Internet governance? What are the limitations? Can you address concerns from liberals to socialists in a new framework without actually changing the salinity or wanting to reverse the flow of the Humboldt current? Any thoughts? 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 Jovan Kurbalija [jovank at diplomacy.edu] Enviado el: viernes, 07 de diciembre de 2012 08:37 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim Asunto: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Well, we have innovation! With the IGF in Bali, and ICANN on a cruise ship, we may have 'beach or floating governance'. Internet governance could be fun! I like the metaphor of the ship since it implies our common destiny. We are all passengers of ICANNia or ITUnia or...? Metaphors are also useful to remove our tunnel vision and make us think more creatively. In another metaphor, I hope that Internetistan will resist Absurdistan (here is the map of this fast-growing country). But back to the current reality. Unfortunately, the ICANN cruise ship won't solve the problem of internationalisation. 'Open sea' refers only to freedom of navigation. It does not deal with the status of the ship. All relations on the ship are regulated by the national law of the ship's flag. ICANNia has to be registered somewhere. One solution could be a flag of convenience such as Liberia or Panama. What happens on the ICANNia is regulated by national law, with no major differences from any other land-based entity (company, organisation). Yes, ICANNia can sail in whatever direction it wants to sail, but the decision must be made by the captain according to the rules of the flag's state. Extrapolating from the role of the captain on the ship, the ICANNia would look like military unit. The cruise ship metaphor gets even more interesting when we consider different classes of cabins, rescue operations, etc. These thoughts have taken me back to Hugo Grotius's book Mare Liberum that established the "open sea" concept four centuries ago as opposed to the idea of a Mare Nostrum. His relevance for our time is sobering. If we replace 'sea' with 'Internet' we could have the next book on the Internet. Grotius was a very interesting personality. Besides being one of the first international lawyers, he was one of the founders of the 'natural law' school of thought. In addition, he wrote a lot about social contract (before Rousseau, Locke, and others). As a matter of fact, his social contract theory could be applicable to the Internet. When it comes to the concept of open sea, Grotius had an interesting interplay with the political masters of his era. He believed in open sea, but Dutch and British authorities quickly realised the usefulness of his doctrine. They had the biggest fleets and had ambitions to develop trade and colonial empires. Grotius provided them with the necessary doctrine or 'political software'. However, Grotius always argued that 'open sea' needs rules and principles in order to be 'open'. Although it was counter-intuitive to the leaders of two growing maritime powers, he managed to convince them that it was in their best interest to 'tame' their comparative powers and ensure the sustainability of their empires beyond the 17th century. Everything else has written the history, which proved Grotius right. We can draw many parallels, with the necessary caution that historical analogies should be handled with care. While we are waiting for a new Grotius (or Godot), we should review how we debate Internet governance issues. Grotius was a great scholar who mastered the existing rules before he started changing them. We, on the other hand, use well-defined and developed concepts in a relaxed way. A few examples... As we saw, the frequently used metaphor of the open sea does not translate to an open Internet. In many respects, it can lead in the opposite direction (Internet Nostrum). Another example is the role of states' responsibility in the Internet era. This is a well-defined concept in international law. If we want states to be responsible for whatever is originating in their territories (e.g. cyber-attacks, botnets), we have to give them the tools to ensure their responsibility (mainly state control, regulation, and surveillance). Most writings on state responsibility start from the opposite assumption, i.e. the limited role of the state. With all the creativity and imagination in the world, we still cannot have it both ways. The most topical example of the need for evidence-based policy is the case of the Red Cross name/emblem at ICANN. There are very clear rules for the protection of the Red Cross name/emblem that were adopted some 100 years ago and have been followed, without reservation, on national and international levels. ICANN was right in protecting the Red Cross name but made the mistake of putting it together with organisations that do not enjoy the same status (the International Olympic Committee). Even if we want to change the rules in order to adjust to the specificities of the Internet era (if any), we have first to master them. I see here an important role for academic and civil society communities. If we had advised ICANN to evaluate the Red Cross and IOC submissions separately, we could have avoided a lot of policy confusion and wasted time. The GIGANET might consider the evidence-based policy research as the key theme for the next meeting? Regards, Jovan On 12/6/12 3:31 PM, McTim wrote: All, If domiciling ICANN in a nation state is problematic, perhaps ICANN could buy this cruise ship as a HQ: http://cruiseship.homestead.com/Cruise-Ship.html It would help solve the problem of internationalisation, be a permanent host for ICANN meetings (2450 berths....saving hotel costs for all) and generate revenue intersessionally. It's a 3-fer, plus it's a snip @~ 300 million USD!! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -- 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: today – this week – this month l Conference on Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) l new online courses -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 10:23:29 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 15:23:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?397-0=3A_http=3A//www=2Ezdnet=2Ecom/u-s?= =?US-ASCII?Q?-now-totally-unified-in-opposition-of-u-n-internet-governanc?= =?US-ASCII?Q?e-7000008382/?= Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B170CFD@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Noteworthy in that - it's awfully rare for anything to pass unanimously. http://www.zdnet.com/u-s-now-totally-unified-in-opposition-of-u-n-internet-governance-7000008382/ So congrats to ITU/strawman of UN taking over net regulation, it's got Tea Party and Obamacrats all on same side. If only skating by the Fiscal Cliff were that easy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 10:37:39 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:37:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Sovereignty and the Geography of Cyberspace Message-ID: Dear all, Jovan has launched in the post below a very interesting topic that moved a bit out of McTim's initial call for buying a boat. Hence the separate thread (also shared on the IRP list). I have just posted a piece on CircleID on the topic of "Sovereignty and the Geography of Cyberspace" that touches upon some of Jovan's comments. It follows a workshop that the Internet & Jurisdiction Project organized at the Baku IGF. I hope you'll find it interesting. Comments welcome. One point I would like to highlight is that the Council of Europe in a recommendation of its Council of Ministers in September 2011, established the principle of responsibility of States for transboundary harm: *1.1. No harm* *1.1.1. States have the responsibility to ensure, in compliance with the standards recognised in international human rights law and with the principles of international law, that their actions do not have an adverse transboundary impact on access to and use of the Internet.* *1.1.2. This should include, in particular, the responsibility to ensure that their actions within their jurisdictions do not illegitimately interfere with access to content outside their territorial boundaries or negatively impact the transboundary flow of Internet traffic.* During very interesting workshops in Baku, including one from the Council of europe, this principle was explored further. Jovan rightly posits that if it means a responsibility to prevent any action on their territory that would create transboundary harm, it could be misused to justify surveillance and censorship. This is why the drafting group (Wolfgang, Rolf Weber, Michael Yakushev, Christian Singer and myself) carefully restricted this principle to the action of states themselves. Responsibility for transboundary harm should be a natural corollary of the exercise of sovereignty. Unrestrained exercise of sovereignty can lead to extraterritorial impact, as the rojadirecta case has shown. And this would favor the governments having major operators on their soil. Sovereignty can kill sovereignty. This is abroad discussion, but this notion - that emerged from a discussion four years ago at the first EuroDIG in Strasbourg - may be one of the new principles needed for the cross-border infrastructure that the Internet is. Best Bertrand On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Well, we have innovation! With the IGF in Bali, and ICANN on a cruise > ship, we may have 'beach or floating governance'. Internet governance could > be fun! > > I like the metaphor of the ship since it implies our common destiny. We > are all passengers of ICANNia or ITUnia or...*?* Metaphors are also > useful to remove our tunnel vision and make us think more creatively. In > another metaphor, I hope that Internetistan will resist Absurdistan (here > is the map of this fast-growing country). > > > But back to the current reality. Unfortunately, the ICANN cruise ship > won't solve the problem of internationalisation. 'Open sea' refers only to > freedom of navigation. It does not deal with the status of the ship. All > relations on the ship are regulated by the national law of the ship's flag. > ICANNia has to be registered somewhere. One solution could be a flag of > convenience such as Liberia or Panama. What happens on the ICANNia is > regulated by national law, with no major differences from any other > land-based entity (company, organisation). Yes, ICANNia can sail in > whatever direction it wants to sail, but the decision must be made by the > captain according to the rules of the flag's state. Extrapolating from the > role of the captain on the ship, the ICANNia would look like military unit. > The cruise ship metaphor gets even more interesting when we consider > different classes of cabins, rescue operations, etc. > > These thoughts have taken me back to Hugo Grotius's book *Mare Liberum*that established the "open sea" concept four centuries ago as opposed to > the idea of a *Mare Nostrum*. * *His relevance for our time is sobering. > If we replace 'sea' with 'Internet' we could have the next book on the > Internet. Grotius was a very interesting personality.* * Besides being > one of the first international lawyers, he was one of the founders of the > 'natural law' school of thought. In addition, he wrote a lot about social > contract (before Rousseau, Locke, and others). As a matter of fact, his > social contract theory could be applicable to the Internet. > > When it comes to the concept of open sea, Grotius had an interesting > interplay with the political masters of his era. He believed in open sea, > but Dutch and British authorities quickly realised the usefulness of his > doctrine. They had the biggest fleets and had ambitions to develop trade > and colonial empires. Grotius provided them with the necessary doctrine or > 'political software'. However, Grotius always argued that 'open sea' needs > rules and principles in order to be 'open'. Although it was > counter-intuitive to the leaders of two growing maritime powers, he managed > to convince them that it was in their best interest to 'tame' their > comparative powers and ensure the sustainability of their empires beyond > the 17th century. Everything else has written the history, which proved > Grotius right. We can draw many parallels, with the necessary caution that > historical analogies should be handled with care. > > While we are waiting for a new Grotius (or Godot), we should review how we > debate Internet governance issues. Grotius was a great scholar who mastered > the existing rules before he started changing them. We, on the other hand, > use well-defined and developed concepts in a relaxed way. A few examples... > > As we saw, the frequently used metaphor of the open sea does not translate > to an open Internet. In many respects, it can lead in the opposite > direction (Internet Nostrum). > > Another example is the role of states' responsibility in the Internet era. > This is a well-defined concept in international law. If we want states to > be responsible for whatever is originating in their territories (e.g. > cyber-attacks, botnets), we have to give them the tools to ensure their > responsibility (mainly state control, regulation, and surveillance). Most > writings on state responsibility start from the opposite assumption, i.e. > the limited role of the state. With all the creativity and imagination in > the world, we still cannot have it both ways. > > The most topical example of the need for evidence-based policy is the case > of the Red Cross name/emblem at ICANN. There are very clear rules for the > protection of the Red Cross name/emblem that were adopted some 100 years > ago and have been followed, without reservation, on national and > international levels. ICANN was right in protecting the Red Cross name but > made the mistake of putting it together with organisations that do not > enjoy the same status (the International Olympic Committee). > > Even if we want to change the rules in order to adjust to > the specificities of the Internet era (if any), we have first to master > them. I see here an important role for academic and civil society > communities. If we had advised ICANN to evaluate the Red Cross and IOC > submissions separately, we could have avoided a lot of policy confusion and > wasted time. > > The GIGANET might consider the evidence-based policy research as the key > theme for the next meeting? > > Regards, Jovan > > > On 12/6/12 3:31 PM, McTim wrote: > > All, > > If domiciling ICANN in a nation state is problematic, perhaps ICANN > could buy this cruise ship as a HQ: > > http://cruiseship.homestead.com/Cruise-Ship.html > > It would help solve the problem of internationalisation, be a permanent > host for ICANN meetings (2450 berths....saving hotel costs for all) and > generate revenue intersessionally. It's a 3-fer, plus it's a snip @~ 300 > million USD!! > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > -- > > ** ** > > *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:* today – this week – this month > *l* Conference on Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) > *l *new online courses **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy ( www.internetjurisdiction.net) Member, ICANN Board of Directors Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 10:51:53 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:51:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Sovereignty and the Geography of Cyberspace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Your text, Bertrand, which I accessed because of Everton Lucero's post on facebook (thanks, Everton!) is awesome. Your e-mail reinforced a doubt I had after reading your post: *"This is why the drafting group carefully restricted this principle to the action of states themselves."* I'm pretty sure that you all considered the Draft Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001. That's exactly my concern: how do we deal with attribution in cases in which it is almost impossible to determine, inter alias, the existence of elements of governmental authority; the direction and control by a State. How to draw the line between State and non state action? Regards Diego Canabarro On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > Jovan has launched in the post below a very interesting topic that moved a > bit out of McTim's initial call for buying a boat. Hence the separate > thread (also shared on the IRP list). > > I have just posted a piece on CircleID on the topic of "Sovereignty and > the Geography of Cyberspace" > that touches upon some of Jovan's comments. It follows a workshop that the Internet > & Jurisdiction Project organized > at the Baku IGF. I hope you'll find it interesting. Comments welcome. > > One point I would like to highlight is that the Council of Europe in a recommendation > of its Council of Ministers in September 2011, established the principle of responsibility of States > for transboundary harm: > > *1.1. No harm* > > *1.1.1. States have the responsibility to ensure, in compliance with the > standards recognised in international human rights law and with the > principles of international law, that their actions do not have an adverse > transboundary impact on access to and use of the Internet.* > > *1.1.2. This should include, in particular, the responsibility to ensure > that their actions within their jurisdictions do not illegitimately > interfere with access to content outside their territorial boundaries or > negatively impact the transboundary flow of Internet traffic.* > > During very interesting workshops in Baku, including one from the Council > of europe, this principle was explored further. Jovan rightly posits that > if it means a responsibility to prevent any action on their territory that > would create transboundary harm, it could be misused to justify > surveillance and censorship. > > This is why the drafting group (Wolfgang, Rolf Weber, Michael Yakushev, > Christian Singer and myself) carefully restricted this principle to the > action of states themselves. Responsibility for transboundary harm should > be a natural corollary of the exercise of sovereignty. > > Unrestrained exercise of sovereignty can lead to extraterritorial impact, > as the rojadirecta case has shown. And this would favor the governments > having major operators on their soil. Sovereignty can kill sovereignty. > > This is abroad discussion, but this notion - that emerged from a > discussion four years ago at the first EuroDIG in Strasbourg - may be one > of the new principles needed for the cross-border infrastructure that the > Internet is. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > >> Well, we have innovation! With the IGF in Bali, and ICANN on a cruise >> ship, we may have 'beach or floating governance'. Internet governance could >> be fun! >> >> I like the metaphor of the ship since it implies our common destiny. We >> are all passengers of ICANNia or ITUnia or...*?* Metaphors are >> also useful to remove our tunnel vision and make us think more creatively. >> In another metaphor, I hope that Internetistan will resist Absurdistan (here >> is the map of this fast-growing country). >> >> >> But back to the current reality. Unfortunately, the ICANN cruise ship >> won't solve the problem of internationalisation. 'Open sea' refers only to >> freedom of navigation. It does not deal with the status of the ship. All >> relations on the ship are regulated by the national law of the ship's flag. >> ICANNia has to be registered somewhere. One solution could be a flag of >> convenience such as Liberia or Panama. What happens on the ICANNia is >> regulated by national law, with no major differences from any other >> land-based entity (company, organisation). Yes, ICANNia can sail in >> whatever direction it wants to sail, but the decision must be made by the >> captain according to the rules of the flag's state. Extrapolating from the >> role of the captain on the ship, the ICANNia would look like military unit. >> The cruise ship metaphor gets even more interesting when we consider >> different classes of cabins, rescue operations, etc. >> >> These thoughts have taken me back to Hugo Grotius's book *Mare Liberum*that established the "open sea" concept four centuries ago as opposed to >> the idea of a *Mare Nostrum*. * *His relevance for our time is sobering. >> If we replace 'sea' with 'Internet' we could have the next book on the >> Internet. Grotius was a very interesting personality.* * Besides being >> one of the first international lawyers, he was one of the founders of the >> 'natural law' school of thought. In addition, he wrote a lot about social >> contract (before Rousseau, Locke, and others). As a matter of fact, his >> social contract theory could be applicable to the Internet. >> >> When it comes to the concept of open sea, Grotius had an interesting >> interplay with the political masters of his era. He believed in open sea, >> but Dutch and British authorities quickly realised the usefulness of his >> doctrine. They had the biggest fleets and had ambitions to develop trade >> and colonial empires. Grotius provided them with the necessary doctrine or >> 'political software'. However, Grotius always argued that 'open sea' needs >> rules and principles in order to be 'open'. Although it was >> counter-intuitive to the leaders of two growing maritime powers, he managed >> to convince them that it was in their best interest to 'tame' their >> comparative powers and ensure the sustainability of their empires beyond >> the 17th century. Everything else has written the history, which proved >> Grotius right. We can draw many parallels, with the necessary caution that >> historical analogies should be handled with care. >> >> While we are waiting for a new Grotius (or Godot), we should review how >> we debate Internet governance issues. Grotius was a great scholar who >> mastered the existing rules before he started changing them. We, on the >> other hand, use well-defined and developed concepts in a relaxed way. A few >> examples... >> >> As we saw, the frequently used metaphor of the open sea does not >> translate to an open Internet. In many respects, it can lead in the >> opposite direction (Internet Nostrum). >> >> Another example is the role of states' responsibility in the Internet >> era. This is a well-defined concept in international law. If we want states >> to be responsible for whatever is originating in their territories (e.g. >> cyber-attacks, botnets), we have to give them the tools to ensure their >> responsibility (mainly state control, regulation, and surveillance). Most >> writings on state responsibility start from the opposite assumption, i.e. >> the limited role of the state. With all the creativity and imagination in >> the world, we still cannot have it both ways. >> >> The most topical example of the need for evidence-based policy is the >> case of the Red Cross name/emblem at ICANN. There are very clear rules for >> the protection of the Red Cross name/emblem that were adopted some 100 >> years ago and have been followed, without reservation, on national and >> international levels. ICANN was right in protecting the Red Cross name but >> made the mistake of putting it together with organisations that do not >> enjoy the same status (the International Olympic Committee). >> >> Even if we want to change the rules in order to adjust to >> the specificities of the Internet era (if any), we have first to master >> them. I see here an important role for academic and civil society >> communities. If we had advised ICANN to evaluate the Red Cross and IOC >> submissions separately, we could have avoided a lot of policy confusion and >> wasted time. >> >> The GIGANET might consider the evidence-based policy research as the key >> theme for the next meeting? >> >> Regards, Jovan >> >> >> On 12/6/12 3:31 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> All, >> >> If domiciling ICANN in a nation state is problematic, perhaps ICANN >> could buy this cruise ship as a HQ: >> >> http://cruiseship.homestead.com/Cruise-Ship.html >> >> It would help solve the problem of internationalisation, be a permanent >> host for ICANN meetings (2450 berths....saving hotel costs for all) and >> generate revenue intersessionally. It's a 3-fer, plus it's a snip @~ 300 >> million USD!! >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route >> indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> -- >> >> ** ** >> >> *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:* today – this week – this month >> *l* Conference on Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) >> *l *new online courses **** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy > (www.internetjurisdiction.net) > Member, ICANN Board of Directors > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 11:00:40 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 11:00:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Internet Society's Statement Addressing Reported Attacks Against the ITU Website In-Reply-To: <042901cdd48d$9a6e75a0$cf4b60e0$@gmail.com> References: <4965A4EB-B822-48B3-9001-0460DEB0D68A@isoc.org> <042901cdd48d$9a6e75a0$cf4b60e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5AF87AA3-E775-4207-A6BB-24F4F92629D5@istaff.org> On Dec 7, 2012, at 10:14 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> (Regarding Sally Wentworth's "Please take note of the below statement from ISOC with regards to reported attacks against the ITU Website during the WCIT.") > > It is extremely difficult to stop a lynch mob. It is important keep in mind that the number of machines in a DDoS attack does not equal the number of actual actors; i.e. 100 thousand people protesting by gathering in a city square is a definitely a demonstration of civil empowerment, whereas 100 thousand machines performing a denial of service attack against a web site could be just three upset people with the right set of tools at their disposal. As some of the statements explaining the need for such attacks would imply that it is being done to protect the existing system (including ICANN, ISOC, & RIRs) , it is perfectly reasonable for ISOC to issue a statement indicating that closing down communications as a protest is both counterproductive and contrary to the very idea of open MS participation for all. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Websites which contain these views are not responsible for their content and should not be attacked solely on that basis. Coming up with other pretenses for vigilate action against such websites is left as an exercise for the reader. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 11:09:37 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:09:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50C1963A.2060506@itforchange.net> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228C393@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50C1963A.2060506@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> So, you object to the use of the term 'US exceptionalism'! You are on record asserting repeatedly that you think ICANN should continue to be subject to US laws, at least in the areas of regulation of non-profits, competition and FoE...... presumable more...... (in any case an entity is either subject to a jurisdiction, or it is not; there are no choices available for an entity to be subject to some laws and not others). [Milton L Mueller] One last attempt to salvage an informed, honest discussion of this issue. I am on record, and have been for years, for favoring the DE-nationalization of ICANN. Which means that I view the US govt the same way I view any other govt, I want them out. This is not “US exceptionalism” but its opposite. On the issue of ICANN’s corporate home, the position is a bit more complex, but if one is interested in real discussion rather than posturing, it is not that hard to figure out and to debate the merits: a. If ICANN is incorporated as a private entity, it will have to be in one jurisdiction. As jurisdictions go, there is nothing intrinsically worse about the State of California than other jurisdictions. It may be better than many others. Yes, this means that US jurisdiction has more influence in some types of disputes than others. But special status for the home jurisdiction would be true regardless of where it is incorporated. So if Parminder or others would like to make a case for another state or nation-state jurisdiction, let them do so. So far, no one has. b. If ICANN is not incorporated as a private nonprofit, but as an international org under international law, there are real concerns that ought to give any internet freedom advocate pause: a. International orgs can be _less_ accountable than a private organization. Parminder dismisses this concern by waving his hand and saying that he wants the international treaty to make sure it is accountable. My response: good luck with that. Give me one real-world example of when that has worked, and you might get some traction in this debate. b. The current political situation in the world suggests that the negotiation of such a treaty would become an opportunity for states to assert more control of the internet. This is clear both from the behavior of ICANN’s GAC and from the behavior of many states in the WCIT. Supporters of international law such as Parminder need to explain how they get a treaty and international law that bypasses these problems. So far, they haven’t. c. IGP has filed formal comments suggesting the outlines of international treaty principles that would limit ICANN’s powers and help to secure internet freedom, while retaining its status as a California corp. In other words, Parminder’s charge that we are apologists for the status quo is simply wrong. However, in light of the points made in b) above, we don’t hold out a lot of hope in the current situation for such a treaty to be ratified. Note the fate of Brazil’s IG principles which despite widespread civil society support cannot make it through the govt. Until there is strong support for the type of principles we put forth in our proposal it would be foolish to push ICANN into an international treaty negotiation. Happy to engage in any reasonable discussion of these points. Not interested in any tub-thumping about the US and warn others not to be misled by caricatures and oversimplifications peddled by people with no real ideas. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 11:17:22 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:17:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGP proposal for ICANN reform Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> >From http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/IGP-June09NTIAcomment.pdf (June 2009) Still relevant: ICANN's status as a public, global governance agency needs to be accepted and recognized. There should be lawful constraints on its mission and adequate checks on the potential for abuse of its authority. These should come from a formal international agreement initiated by the United States. This instrument should be seen not only as a way of checking or limiting abuses by ICANN itself, but also as a way of limiting interference in ICANN by governments (both foreign and the U.S.). Governments should be involved not as "oversight" authorities or "public policy makers" but as backers of a shared legal framework that maintains accountability and gives non-state actors a legal basis for settling important disputes. An international agreement along these lines should have the following elements: * The nongovernmental status of ICANN should be affirmed and formalized, as a protection against takeover by governments * The sovereignty of national governments over ccTLDs should be formally recognized, and authority over their delegation ceded from ICANN to national governments using a formal, secure and verifiable process. The e-IANA concept, which allows recognized ccTLD managers to update their root zone entries directly, should be implemented. * There should be a prohibition on using ICANN for content regulation; the instrument should also create a right of private parties to initiate legal challenges to ICANN actions on these grounds. * The agreement should ensure the consistency of economic regulation of DNS and IP addressing with antitrust and nondiscriminatory trade principles (consistent with its current mandate to increase competition); here again, there should be a right of private parties to initiate legal challenges on these grounds. * Selection of an appropriate body of national law under which ICANN should operate. If California Nonprofit Public Benefit is deemed the best option, then its membership provisions need to be rethought and re-applied to ICANN in a way that does not permit it to evade accountability and substitute open-ended "participation" for binding rights and obligations vis-à-vis its members. * GAC should be dissolved and the Supporting Organizations opened to participation by individuals from governments. * As a final step, providing a legal foundation for ICANN as described above would allow for the dissolution of the existing IANA contract when appropriate. But until the process was completed the U.S. would, de facto, be able to retain that authority. We believe that formal action by the U.S. in agreement with other cooperative states is the only way to finalize the transition. Without such a legal framework, ICANN's accountability and process problems will not be solved, and may worsen. Without a transition away from the JPA, on the other hand, ICANN's legitimacy will continue to suffer, domestic U.S. interests will continue to exploit U.S. oversight to achieve shortterm policy advantages, and the threat of an Internet fragmented by the adverse reactions of other states will continue to loom. Milton L. Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies Internet Governance Project http://blog.internetgovernance.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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 11:44:53 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:44:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Sovereignty and the Geography of Cyberspace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Diego, You wrote: *how do we deal with attribution in cases in which it is almost impossible to determine, inter alias, the existence of elements of governmental authority; the direction and control by a State. How to draw the line between State and non state action?* You are right, this is a difficult issue. But some situations can probably be handled more easily than others and we could focus on these. The first instance of application of this principle would, I believe, be in the course of the *development of new national legislations*. For the moment, nothing requires to take into account potential impact outside of the frontiers. One could envisage the obligation of an impact study, a call for public comments, etc... As a matter of fact, during the workshop we organized in Baku on the Geography of Cyberspace, Marietje Schaake, from the European Parliament, remarked that this is what happens in her work: she receives comments from people outside of europe on draft legislation in the EP. She said that parliamentarians now have global constituents. Likewise, she and other european parliamentarians wrote to the US congress regarding the SOPA/PIPA debate. And the international campaign against these draft legislations was an illustration of a grassroots input in a national process because of its potential transboundary impact. Actually, the recommendation of the Council of Europe explicitly says : *1.2. Co-operation* *States should co-operate in good faith with each other and with relevant stakeholders at all stages of development and implementation of Internet-related public policies to avoid any adverse transboundary impact on access to and use of the Internet. (emphasis added)* A second aspect is related to *individual decisions*. The rojadirecta case is an illustration. In such situations, there are two possible avenues: one is the application of the notion of "comity" advocated by Thomas Schultz, that would require courts in one country to take into account to a certain extent the laws of the other jurisdiction involved; another one would be the creation of specific processes to detect/document such situations and instances for dealing with them. This is a long shot, but maybe not unrealistic. In particular, specific regimes could be developed covering states actions towards respectively: the DNS layer operators (registries, registrars, RIRs, etc...) and the major platforms related to the applications (and content) layer. This can be part of due process requirements. Finally, the IGF workshop also introduced a *distinction between voluntary and involuntary transborder impact*. There are cases where the intention is clearly to extend the sovereign powers on other territories. But there are also cases of unintended consequences, such as when the filtering of content in India applied downstream to Omanis because of the peering arrangements between operators. Such cases may be easier to handle, provided there are cooperation mechanisms in place. Best Bertrand On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > Your text, Bertrand, which I accessed because of Everton Lucero's post on > facebook (thanks, Everton!) is awesome. Your e-mail reinforced a doubt I > had after reading your post: *"This is why the drafting group carefully > restricted this principle to the action of states themselves."* > > I'm pretty sure that you all considered the Draft Articles on State > Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the > International Law Commission in 2001. That's exactly my concern: how do we > deal with attribution in cases in which it is almost impossible to > determine, inter alias, the existence of elements of governmental > authority; the direction and control by a State. How to draw the line > between State and non state action? > > Regards > Diego Canabarro > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < > bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Jovan has launched in the post below a very interesting topic that moved >> a bit out of McTim's initial call for buying a boat. Hence the separate >> thread (also shared on the IRP list). >> >> I have just posted a piece on CircleID on the topic of "Sovereignty and >> the Geography of Cyberspace" >> that touches upon some of Jovan's comments. It follows a workshop that the Internet >> & Jurisdiction Project organized >> at the Baku IGF. I hope you'll find it interesting. Comments welcome. >> >> One point I would like to highlight is that the Council of Europe in a recommendation >> of its Council of Ministers in September 2011, established the principle of responsibility of States >> for transboundary harm: >> >> *1.1. No harm* >> >> *1.1.1. States have the responsibility to ensure, in compliance with the >> standards recognised in international human rights law and with the >> principles of international law, that their actions do not have an adverse >> transboundary impact on access to and use of the Internet.* >> >> *1.1.2. This should include, in particular, the responsibility to ensure >> that their actions within their jurisdictions do not illegitimately >> interfere with access to content outside their territorial boundaries or >> negatively impact the transboundary flow of Internet traffic.* >> >> During very interesting workshops in Baku, including one from the Council >> of europe, this principle was explored further. Jovan rightly posits that >> if it means a responsibility to prevent any action on their territory that >> would create transboundary harm, it could be misused to justify >> surveillance and censorship. >> >> This is why the drafting group (Wolfgang, Rolf Weber, Michael Yakushev, >> Christian Singer and myself) carefully restricted this principle to the >> action of states themselves. Responsibility for transboundary harm should >> be a natural corollary of the exercise of sovereignty. >> >> Unrestrained exercise of sovereignty can lead to extraterritorial impact, >> as the rojadirecta case has shown. And this would favor the governments >> having major operators on their soil. Sovereignty can kill sovereignty. >> >> This is abroad discussion, but this notion - that emerged from a >> discussion four years ago at the first EuroDIG in Strasbourg - may be one >> of the new principles needed for the cross-border infrastructure that the >> Internet is. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: >> >>> Well, we have innovation! With the IGF in Bali, and ICANN on a cruise >>> ship, we may have 'beach or floating governance'. Internet governance could >>> be fun! >>> >>> I like the metaphor of the ship since it implies our common destiny. We >>> are all passengers of ICANNia or ITUnia or...*?* Metaphors are >>> also useful to remove our tunnel vision and make us think more creatively. >>> In another metaphor, I hope that Internetistan will resist Absurdistan (here >>> is the map of this fast-growing country). >>> >>> >>> But back to the current reality. Unfortunately, the ICANN cruise ship >>> won't solve the problem of internationalisation. 'Open sea' refers only to >>> freedom of navigation. It does not deal with the status of the ship. All >>> relations on the ship are regulated by the national law of the ship's flag. >>> ICANNia has to be registered somewhere. One solution could be a flag of >>> convenience such as Liberia or Panama. What happens on the ICANNia is >>> regulated by national law, with no major differences from any other >>> land-based entity (company, organisation). Yes, ICANNia can sail in >>> whatever direction it wants to sail, but the decision must be made by the >>> captain according to the rules of the flag's state. Extrapolating from the >>> role of the captain on the ship, the ICANNia would look like military unit. >>> The cruise ship metaphor gets even more interesting when we consider >>> different classes of cabins, rescue operations, etc. >>> >>> These thoughts have taken me back to Hugo Grotius's book *Mare Liberum*that established the "open sea" concept four centuries ago as opposed to >>> the idea of a *Mare Nostrum*. * *His relevance for our time is >>> sobering. If we replace 'sea' with 'Internet' we could have the next book >>> on the Internet. Grotius was a very interesting personality.* * Besides >>> being one of the first international lawyers, he was one of the founders of >>> the 'natural law' school of thought. In addition, he wrote a lot about >>> social contract (before Rousseau, Locke, and others). As a matter of fact, >>> his social contract theory could be applicable to the Internet. >>> >>> When it comes to the concept of open sea, Grotius had an interesting >>> interplay with the political masters of his era. He believed in open sea, >>> but Dutch and British authorities quickly realised the usefulness of his >>> doctrine. They had the biggest fleets and had ambitions to develop trade >>> and colonial empires. Grotius provided them with the necessary doctrine or >>> 'political software'. However, Grotius always argued that 'open sea' needs >>> rules and principles in order to be 'open'. Although it was >>> counter-intuitive to the leaders of two growing maritime powers, he managed >>> to convince them that it was in their best interest to 'tame' their >>> comparative powers and ensure the sustainability of their empires beyond >>> the 17th century. Everything else has written the history, which proved >>> Grotius right. We can draw many parallels, with the necessary caution that >>> historical analogies should be handled with care. >>> >>> While we are waiting for a new Grotius (or Godot), we should review how >>> we debate Internet governance issues. Grotius was a great scholar who >>> mastered the existing rules before he started changing them. We, on the >>> other hand, use well-defined and developed concepts in a relaxed way. A few >>> examples... >>> >>> As we saw, the frequently used metaphor of the open sea does not >>> translate to an open Internet. In many respects, it can lead in the >>> opposite direction (Internet Nostrum). >>> >>> Another example is the role of states' responsibility in the Internet >>> era. This is a well-defined concept in international law. If we want states >>> to be responsible for whatever is originating in their territories (e.g. >>> cyber-attacks, botnets), we have to give them the tools to ensure their >>> responsibility (mainly state control, regulation, and surveillance). Most >>> writings on state responsibility start from the opposite assumption, i.e. >>> the limited role of the state. With all the creativity and imagination in >>> the world, we still cannot have it both ways. >>> >>> The most topical example of the need for evidence-based policy is the >>> case of the Red Cross name/emblem at ICANN. There are very clear rules for >>> the protection of the Red Cross name/emblem that were adopted some 100 >>> years ago and have been followed, without reservation, on national and >>> international levels. ICANN was right in protecting the Red Cross name but >>> made the mistake of putting it together with organisations that do not >>> enjoy the same status (the International Olympic Committee). >>> >>> Even if we want to change the rules in order to adjust to >>> the specificities of the Internet era (if any), we have first to master >>> them. I see here an important role for academic and civil society >>> communities. If we had advised ICANN to evaluate the Red Cross and IOC >>> submissions separately, we could have avoided a lot of policy confusion and >>> wasted time. >>> >>> The GIGANET might consider the evidence-based policy research as the key >>> theme for the next meeting? >>> >>> Regards, Jovan >>> >>> >>> On 12/6/12 3:31 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> If domiciling ICANN in a nation state is problematic, perhaps ICANN >>> could buy this cruise ship as a HQ: >>> >>> http://cruiseship.homestead.com/Cruise-Ship.html >>> >>> It would help solve the problem of internationalisation, be a >>> permanent host for ICANN meetings (2450 berths....saving hotel costs for >>> all) and generate revenue intersessionally. It's a 3-fer, plus it's a snip >>> @~ 300 million USD!! >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *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:* today – this week – this month >>> *l* Conference on Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) >>> *l *new online courses **** >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic >> Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net) >> Member, ICANN Board of Directors >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy ( www.internetjurisdiction.net) Member, ICANN Board of Directors Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 11:42:17 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 11:42:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50C1944E.508@itforchange.net> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <50C08C7B.3010100@itforchange.net> <50C1944E.508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:01 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 06 December 2012 07:08 PM, McTim wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:15 AM, parminder wrote: > > > > >> One needs to do more than say I/we are for "internationalising ICANN". >> That would be merely rhetoric unless one is ready to present (and engage >> with) a credible plan and roadmap, which all those, whom Riaz may call as >> "US exceptionalists" and I often call as "US apologists", have never done >> here. Have they ever? IF they have, please point me to it. >> >> > Please see Drake's reply to you the last time we talked about this. I > don't have a link however. > > > McTim, it is you who is advocating a particular kind on ICANN > internationalism, and therefore you must tell us the road map, at least the > outlines of it.... you cant vaguely refer to 'some email of Bill Drake' and > not remember what was it about. That is as a strange a reply as I have ever > got... > Perhaps you don't read all the mails, but conveniently, MM has just delivered a similar missive so that I don't have to go searching for that particular mail. So I refer you to Milton's mail that he just sent: De-nationalisation..."*is not “US exceptionalism” but its opposite."* > > > > > > >> No, it isnt enough to say that the US should just terminate the ICANN >> contract (including the IANA part) . One needs to propose under what kind >> of arrangement will the new internationalised ICANN get institutionalised >> and subsist. >> > > > Why? Isn't a "free-floating" ICANN the next major step in the ongoing > evolution? > > > Because nothing free floats without some kind of anchorage in a > polity...... But if you want to, you may describe your vision of a free > floating ICANN giving some details and we can discuss it. > Isn't the ICANN community "polity" enough? As for it being HQ'ed in a certain place, well if we reject the Boat idea (or find an island that can be made free of a nation-state and buy that) then as MM says : *a. ****If ICANN is incorporated as a private entity, it will have to be in one jurisdiction. As jurisdictions go, there is nothing intrinsically worse about the State of California than other jurisdictions. It may be better than many others. Yes, this means that US jurisdiction has more influence in some types of disputes than others. But special status for the home jurisdiction would be true regardless of where it is incorporated. So if Parminder or others would like to make a case for another state or nation-state jurisdiction, let them do so. So far, no one has.* > > > >> One needs at least framework level indications/ details. Would it still >> be headquarter-ed in the US. If so what kind of immunities would it have >> from US jurisdiction, and how will they be ensured? >> > > Evolution means a series of minor changes, this would be several steps > down the road, and unless ICANN HQ is moved to the moon (or perhaps a > private island [we could call it "Internetistan"] purchased with new gTLD > monies) there will always be a jurisdictional issue. Of course, if ICANN > became an IGO of the UN system then your requirements might be met, but > none of us ( I think) want an "intergovernmental only" ICANN. > > > So, you are saying that your version of 'internationalised ICANN' will > remain subject to US jurisdiction. Well, as you might suspect, that is not > internationalisation in my view. I cant see on what basis you call it > internationalisation... I would call it 'phoney internationalisation'. As I > have said often, one adverse decision by a US court on an ICANN policy or > action, and this whole phoney thing will come unravelled. Why wait for it > when we know it is around the corner..... > Milton's point b) is germaine here. If you want a treaty, be careful what you ask for, you will most certainly get it (and more). A treaty is by far the worst option IMHO. If you want it "internationalised" to the point of no nation-state laws applying, then you have to put it in either Antarctica, the moon, an island that can be declared independent, or on a ship. What you seem to want is to move it to Geneva and make it an IGO, governed by a treaty, hence my preference for a gradual evolution from the status-quo. -- 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 pouzin at well.com Fri Dec 7 11:57:57 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:57:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <50C08C7B.3010100@itforchange.net> <50C1944E.508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I was wondering why no one suggested Geneva. No need to be an IGO. The Red Cross is private, as many other institutions. Louis - - - On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 5:42 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:01 AM, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Thursday 06 December 2012 07:08 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 7:15 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> One needs to do more than say I/we are for "internationalising ICANN". >>> That would be merely rhetoric unless one is ready to present (and engage >>> with) a credible plan and roadmap, which all those, whom Riaz may call as >>> "US exceptionalists" and I often call as "US apologists", have never done >>> here. Have they ever? IF they have, please point me to it. >>> >>> >> Please see Drake's reply to you the last time we talked about this. I >> don't have a link however. >> >> >> McTim, it is you who is advocating a particular kind on ICANN >> internationalism, and therefore you must tell us the road map, at least the >> outlines of it.... you cant vaguely refer to 'some email of Bill Drake' and >> not remember what was it about. That is as a strange a reply as I have ever >> got... >> > > > Perhaps you don't read all the mails, but conveniently, MM has just > delivered a similar missive so that I don't have to go searching for that > particular mail. So I refer you to Milton's mail that he just sent: > De-nationalisation..."*is not “US exceptionalism” but its opposite."* > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> No, it isnt enough to say that the US should just terminate the ICANN >>> contract (including the IANA part) . One needs to propose under what kind >>> of arrangement will the new internationalised ICANN get institutionalised >>> and subsist. >>> >> >> >> Why? Isn't a "free-floating" ICANN the next major step in the ongoing >> evolution? >> >> >> Because nothing free floats without some kind of anchorage in a >> polity...... But if you want to, you may describe your vision of a free >> floating ICANN giving some details and we can discuss it. >> > > > Isn't the ICANN community "polity" enough? > > As for it being HQ'ed in a certain place, well if we reject the Boat idea > (or find an island that can be made free of a nation-state and buy that) > then as MM says : > > *a. ****If ICANN is incorporated as a private entity, it will have to be > in one jurisdiction. As jurisdictions go, there is nothing intrinsically > worse about the State of California than other jurisdictions. It may be > better than many others. Yes, this means that US jurisdiction has more > influence in some types of disputes than others. But special status for the > home jurisdiction would be true regardless of where it is incorporated. So > if Parminder or others would like to make a case for another state or > nation-state jurisdiction, let them do so. So far, no one has.* > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> One needs at least framework level indications/ details. Would it still >>> be headquarter-ed in the US. If so what kind of immunities would it have >>> from US jurisdiction, and how will they be ensured? >>> >> >> Evolution means a series of minor changes, this would be several steps >> down the road, and unless ICANN HQ is moved to the moon (or perhaps a >> private island [we could call it "Internetistan"] purchased with new gTLD >> monies) there will always be a jurisdictional issue. Of course, if ICANN >> became an IGO of the UN system then your requirements might be met, but >> none of us ( I think) want an "intergovernmental only" ICANN. >> >> >> So, you are saying that your version of 'internationalised ICANN' will >> remain subject to US jurisdiction. Well, as you might suspect, that is not >> internationalisation in my view. I cant see on what basis you call it >> internationalisation... I would call it 'phoney internationalisation'. As I >> have said often, one adverse decision by a US court on an ICANN policy or >> action, and this whole phoney thing will come unravelled. Why wait for it >> when we know it is around the corner..... >> > > > Milton's point b) is germaine here. > > If you want a treaty, be careful what you ask for, you will most certainly > get it (and more). > > A treaty is by far the worst option IMHO. > > If you want it "internationalised" to the point of no nation-state laws > applying, then you have to put it in either Antarctica, the moon, an island > that can be declared independent, or on a ship. > > What you seem to want is to move it to Geneva and make it an IGO, governed > by a treaty, hence my preference for a gradual evolution from the > status-quo. > > -- > 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 nhklein at gmx.net Fri Dec 7 12:08:29 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 00:08:29 +0700 Subject: [governance] No Internet Cafe is allowed to operate within an area closer than 500 meters from any school In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228C393@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50C1963A.2060506@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50C2228D.3020104@gmx.net> According to /The Cambodia Daily/ of Friday, 7 December 2012, the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications has recently issued a decree that says, among other points:** *No Internet Cafe is allowed to operate within an area closer than 500 meters from any school. * Given the fact that Phnom Penh, the capital city of Cambodia, has many schools, it has to be assumed that not many regions remain outside of these 500-m-circles around all schools; it also has to be assumed that the majority of already existing Internet Cafes, located in areas of social activities including schools, will have to close down. This order is issued to supposedly protect young people from bad influences: Violating “traditions”, exposing them to pornography, preventing them from playing prohibited games – but none of these issues has any clear definition. And there is no clarity about the legal authority to interpret and enforce these measures. The regulation is also to protect users from using drugs, doing money laundering, kidnapping, and human trafficking – all these activities are anyway illegal – their prohibiting is covered by different laws – why include these in the new order on to Internet Cafes? As for some context: according to a recent survey, there are more than 600,000 Facebook users in Cambodia. Many of them do not have computers, but access the Internet from Internet Cafes. = Of course I know that the Dubai conference is dealing with many important issues on a different level. But I find it really surprising that these regulations come forward while – I assume – also Cambodian government representatives are attending the ITU conference in Dubai. I wanted to share this information – shocking in its general scope, and at the same time extremely vague. I would of course appreciate to receive comments, which I then might share locally. Norbert Klein Phnom Penh Cambodia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 12:14:23 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 18:14:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Alejandro, Ostromian Theory applies well to the management of Internet resources as common pool resources. When the first ATRT Review began, I reached out to E. Ostrom (still alive at the time) to try to involve her to explore this topic (consulting stint). She could not do it but she confirmed to me in an email at the time that *"Yes, the internet domain name system could be productively thought of as a CPR"*. I have always believed this is a valid conceptual framework for a lot of ICANN-related discussions. Including her eight design principles for stable CPR management. (possible correlations with DNS and ICANN in blue) >From Wikipedia: Ostrom identified eight "design principles" of stable local common pool resource management: 1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties); (names and addresses) 2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local conditions; (policies by ASO, ccNSO and gNSO) 3. Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process; (PDP and other decision-making processes involving registries, registrars, RIRs, registrants, ISPs, ....) 4. Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators; (monitoring and compliance functions) 5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules; (accreditation of registrars, breach of registry agreement, as examples) 6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access; (UDRP, next URS) 7. Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities; (more delicate, but Affirmation of Commitments vis-à-vis the US and participation of governments in GAC) 8. In the case of larger common-pool resources,organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level. (the hierarchical and distributed system, both for addresses and domain names, with subsidiarity responsibility at the different levels) Certainly, there is more in her work that could help making this even better working. Best B. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Jovan, > > thanks for doing a pretty innovative thing here: discussing ideas. > Further, bringing a fresh approach and actual expertise. > > My long-standing concern for analogies between Internet governance and > the laws of the sea is that the Internet is much more a built environment > than the sea (not that the sea is all natural and in fixed form forever, > immune to our contamination and our imagintion.) > > So Internet governance refers not only to rules etc. to live on the > existing Internet, but also has to be useful as guidance in its expansion > and development. To abuse your analogy, it's not only about shipping, > fishing, and mining, but also about how to actually make the oceans of > tomorrow. > > That brings you to points like: you can use Ostromian theory to > understand the tragedy of the commons in fisheries; but can you extend it > to Internet governance? What are the limitations? Can you address concerns > from liberals to socialists in a new framework without actually changing > the salinity or wanting to reverse the flow of the Humboldt current? > > Any thoughts? > > 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 Jovan Kurbalija [ > jovank at diplomacy.edu] > *Enviado el:* viernes, 07 de diciembre de 2012 08:37 > *Hasta:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim > *Asunto:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new > approach to Internet governance! > > Well, we have innovation! With the IGF in Bali, and ICANN on a cruise > ship, we may have 'beach or floating governance'. Internet governance could > be fun! > > I like the metaphor of the ship since it implies our common destiny. We > are all passengers of ICANNia or ITUnia or...*?* Metaphors are also > useful to remove our tunnel vision and make us think more creatively. In > another metaphor, I hope that Internetistan will resist Absurdistan (here > is the map of this fast-growing country). > > > But back to the current reality. Unfortunately, the ICANN cruise ship > won't solve the problem of internationalisation. 'Open sea' refers only to > freedom of navigation. It does not deal with the status of the ship. All > relations on the ship are regulated by the national law of the ship's flag. > ICANNia has to be registered somewhere. One solution could be a flag of > convenience such as Liberia or Panama. What happens on the ICANNia is > regulated by national law, with no major differences from any other > land-based entity (company, organisation). Yes, ICANNia can sail in > whatever direction it wants to sail, but the decision must be made by the > captain according to the rules of the flag's state. Extrapolating from the > role of the captain on the ship, the ICANNia would look like military unit. > The cruise ship metaphor gets even more interesting when we consider > different classes of cabins, rescue operations, etc. > > These thoughts have taken me back to Hugo Grotius's book *Mare Liberum*that established the "open sea" concept four centuries ago as opposed to > the idea of a *Mare Nostrum*. * *His relevance for our time is sobering. > If we replace 'sea' with 'Internet' we could have the next book on the > Internet. Grotius was a very interesting personality.* * Besides being > one of the first international lawyers, he was one of the founders of the > 'natural law' school of thought. In addition, he wrote a lot about social > contract (before Rousseau, Locke, and others). As a matter of fact, his > social contract theory could be applicable to the Internet. > > When it comes to the concept of open sea, Grotius had an interesting > interplay with the political masters of his era. He believed in open sea, > but Dutch and British authorities quickly realised the usefulness of his > doctrine. They had the biggest fleets and had ambitions to develop trade > and colonial empires. Grotius provided them with the necessary doctrine or > 'political software'. However, Grotius always argued that 'open sea' needs > rules and principles in order to be 'open'. Although it was > counter-intuitive to the leaders of two growing maritime powers, he managed > to convince them that it was in their best interest to 'tame' their > comparative powers and ensure the sustainability of their empires beyond > the 17th century. Everything else has written the history, which proved > Grotius right. We can draw many parallels, with the necessary caution that > historical analogies should be handled with care. > > While we are waiting for a new Grotius (or Godot), we should review how we > debate Internet governance issues. Grotius was a great scholar who mastered > the existing rules before he started changing them. We, on the other hand, > use well-defined and developed concepts in a relaxed way. A few examples... > > As we saw, the frequently used metaphor of the open sea does not translate > to an open Internet. In many respects, it can lead in the opposite > direction (Internet Nostrum). > > Another example is the role of states' responsibility in the Internet era. > This is a well-defined concept in international law. If we want states to > be responsible for whatever is originating in their territories (e.g. > cyber-attacks, botnets), we have to give them the tools to ensure their > responsibility (mainly state control, regulation, and surveillance). Most > writings on state responsibility start from the opposite assumption, i.e. > the limited role of the state. With all the creativity and imagination in > the world, we still cannot have it both ways. > > The most topical example of the need for evidence-based policy is the case > of the Red Cross name/emblem at ICANN. There are very clear rules for the > protection of the Red Cross name/emblem that were adopted some 100 years > ago and have been followed, without reservation, on national and > international levels. ICANN was right in protecting the Red Cross name but > made the mistake of putting it together with organisations that do not > enjoy the same status (the International Olympic Committee). > > Even if we want to change the rules in order to adjust to > the specificities of the Internet era (if any), we have first to master > them. I see here an important role for academic and civil society > communities. If we had advised ICANN to evaluate the Red Cross and IOC > submissions separately, we could have avoided a lot of policy confusion and > wasted time. > > The GIGANET might consider the evidence-based policy research as the key > theme for the next meeting? > > Regards, Jovan > > > On 12/6/12 3:31 PM, McTim wrote: > > All, > > If domiciling ICANN in a nation state is problematic, perhaps ICANN > could buy this cruise ship as a HQ: > > http://cruiseship.homestead.com/Cruise-Ship.html > > It would help solve the problem of internationalisation, be a permanent > host for ICANN meetings (2450 berths....saving hotel costs for all) and > generate revenue intersessionally. It's a 3-fer, plus it's a snip @~ 300 > million USD!! > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > -- > > > > *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:* today – this week – this month > *l* Conference on Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) > * l *new online courses > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy ( www.internetjurisdiction.net) Member, ICANN Board of Directors Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 12:19:15 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:19:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Sovereignty and the Geography of Cyberspace In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB91CF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Bertrand, would national law be enough to prevent country A's government from looking the other way when people under its jurisdiction attacks assets in country B? What if they mask them by obfuscation or spoof them to appear as being based in country(ies) C, D, etc.? Plenty of literature already on all this. What in your view is the way this will evolve? 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 Bertrand de La Chapelle [bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 07 de diciembre de 2012 10:44 Hasta: Diego Rafael Canabarro CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jovan Kurbalija; irp; McTim Asunto: Re: [governance] Sovereignty and the Geography of Cyberspace Dear Diego, You wrote: how do we deal with attribution in cases in which it is almost impossible to determine, inter alias, the existence of elements of governmental authority; the direction and control by a State. How to draw the line between State and non state action? You are right, this is a difficult issue. But some situations can probably be handled more easily than others and we could focus on these. The first instance of application of this principle would, I believe, be in the course of the development of new national legislations. For the moment, nothing requires to take into account potential impact outside of the frontiers. One could envisage the obligation of an impact study, a call for public comments, etc... As a matter of fact, during the workshop we organized in Baku on the Geography of Cyberspace, Marietje Schaake, from the European Parliament, remarked that this is what happens in her work: she receives comments from people outside of europe on draft legislation in the EP. She said that parliamentarians now have global constituents. Likewise, she and other european parliamentarians wrote to the US congress regarding the SOPA/PIPA debate. And the international campaign against these draft legislations was an illustration of a grassroots input in a national process because of its potential transboundary impact. Actually, the recommendation of the Council of Europe explicitly says : 1.2. Co-operation States should co-operate in good faith with each other and with relevant stakeholders at all stages of development and implementation of Internet-related public policies to avoid any adverse transboundary impact on access to and use of the Internet. (emphasis added) A second aspect is related to individual decisions. The rojadirecta case is an illustration. In such situations, there are two possible avenues: one is the application of the notion of "comity" advocated by Thomas Schultz, that would require courts in one country to take into account to a certain extent the laws of the other jurisdiction involved; another one would be the creation of specific processes to detect/document such situations and instances for dealing with them. This is a long shot, but maybe not unrealistic. In particular, specific regimes could be developed covering states actions towards respectively: the DNS layer operators (registries, registrars, RIRs, etc...) and the major platforms related to the applications (and content) layer. This can be part of due process requirements. Finally, the IGF workshop also introduced a distinction between voluntary and involuntary transborder impact. There are cases where the intention is clearly to extend the sovereign powers on other territories. But there are also cases of unintended consequences, such as when the filtering of content in India applied downstream to Omanis because of the peering arrangements between operators. Such cases may be easier to handle, provided there are cooperation mechanisms in place. Best Bertrand On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: Your text, Bertrand, which I accessed because of Everton Lucero's post on facebook (thanks, Everton!) is awesome. Your e-mail reinforced a doubt I had after reading your post: "This is why the drafting group carefully restricted this principle to the action of states themselves." I'm pretty sure that you all considered the Draft Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001. That's exactly my concern: how do we deal with attribution in cases in which it is almost impossible to determine, inter alias, the existence of elements of governmental authority; the direction and control by a State. How to draw the line between State and non state action? Regards Diego Canabarro On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: Dear all, Jovan has launched in the post below a very interesting topic that moved a bit out of McTim's initial call for buying a boat. Hence the separate thread (also shared on the IRP list). I have just posted a piece on CircleID on the topic of "Sovereignty and the Geography of Cyberspace" that touches upon some of Jovan's comments. It follows a workshop that the Internet & Jurisdiction Project organized at the Baku IGF. I hope you'll find it interesting. Comments welcome. One point I would like to highlight is that the Council of Europe in a recommendation of its Council of Ministers in September 2011, established the principle of responsibility of States for transboundary harm: 1.1. No harm 1.1.1. States have the responsibility to ensure, in compliance with the standards recognised in international human rights law and with the principles of international law, that their actions do not have an adverse transboundary impact on access to and use of the Internet. 1.1.2. This should include, in particular, the responsibility to ensure that their actions within their jurisdictions do not illegitimately interfere with access to content outside their territorial boundaries or negatively impact the transboundary flow of Internet traffic. During very interesting workshops in Baku, including one from the Council of europe, this principle was explored further. Jovan rightly posits that if it means a responsibility to prevent any action on their territory that would create transboundary harm, it could be misused to justify surveillance and censorship. This is why the drafting group (Wolfgang, Rolf Weber, Michael Yakushev, Christian Singer and myself) carefully restricted this principle to the action of states themselves. Responsibility for transboundary harm should be a natural corollary of the exercise of sovereignty. Unrestrained exercise of sovereignty can lead to extraterritorial impact, as the rojadirecta case has shown. And this would favor the governments having major operators on their soil. Sovereignty can kill sovereignty. This is abroad discussion, but this notion - that emerged from a discussion four years ago at the first EuroDIG in Strasbourg - may be one of the new principles needed for the cross-border infrastructure that the Internet is. Best Bertrand On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Jovan Kurbalija > wrote: Well, we have innovation! With the IGF in Bali, and ICANN on a cruise ship, we may have 'beach or floating governance'. Internet governance could be fun! I like the metaphor of the ship since it implies our common destiny. We are all passengers of ICANNia or ITUnia or...? Metaphors are also useful to remove our tunnel vision and make us think more creatively. In another metaphor, I hope that Internetistan will resist Absurdistan (here is the map of this fast-growing country). But back to the current reality. Unfortunately, the ICANN cruise ship won't solve the problem of internationalisation. 'Open sea' refers only to freedom of navigation. It does not deal with the status of the ship. All relations on the ship are regulated by the national law of the ship's flag. ICANNia has to be registered somewhere. One solution could be a flag of convenience such as Liberia or Panama. What happens on the ICANNia is regulated by national law, with no major differences from any other land-based entity (company, organisation). Yes, ICANNia can sail in whatever direction it wants to sail, but the decision must be made by the captain according to the rules of the flag's state. Extrapolating from the role of the captain on the ship, the ICANNia would look like military unit. The cruise ship metaphor gets even more interesting when we consider different classes of cabins, rescue operations, etc. These thoughts have taken me back to Hugo Grotius's book Mare Liberum that established the "open sea" concept four centuries ago as opposed to the idea of a Mare Nostrum. His relevance for our time is sobering. If we replace 'sea' with 'Internet' we could have the next book on the Internet. Grotius was a very interesting personality. Besides being one of the first international lawyers, he was one of the founders of the 'natural law' school of thought. In addition, he wrote a lot about social contract (before Rousseau, Locke, and others). As a matter of fact, his social contract theory could be applicable to the Internet. When it comes to the concept of open sea, Grotius had an interesting interplay with the political masters of his era. He believed in open sea, but Dutch and British authorities quickly realised the usefulness of his doctrine. They had the biggest fleets and had ambitions to develop trade and colonial empires. Grotius provided them with the necessary doctrine or 'political software'. However, Grotius always argued that 'open sea' needs rules and principles in order to be 'open'. Although it was counter-intuitive to the leaders of two growing maritime powers, he managed to convince them that it was in their best interest to 'tame' their comparative powers and ensure the sustainability of their empires beyond the 17th century. Everything else has written the history, which proved Grotius right. We can draw many parallels, with the necessary caution that historical analogies should be handled with care. While we are waiting for a new Grotius (or Godot), we should review how we debate Internet governance issues. Grotius was a great scholar who mastered the existing rules before he started changing them. We, on the other hand, use well-defined and developed concepts in a relaxed way. A few examples... As we saw, the frequently used metaphor of the open sea does not translate to an open Internet. In many respects, it can lead in the opposite direction (Internet Nostrum). Another example is the role of states' responsibility in the Internet era. This is a well-defined concept in international law. If we want states to be responsible for whatever is originating in their territories (e.g. cyber-attacks, botnets), we have to give them the tools to ensure their responsibility (mainly state control, regulation, and surveillance). Most writings on state responsibility start from the opposite assumption, i.e. the limited role of the state. With all the creativity and imagination in the world, we still cannot have it both ways. The most topical example of the need for evidence-based policy is the case of the Red Cross name/emblem at ICANN. There are very clear rules for the protection of the Red Cross name/emblem that were adopted some 100 years ago and have been followed, without reservation, on national and international levels. ICANN was right in protecting the Red Cross name but made the mistake of putting it together with organisations that do not enjoy the same status (the International Olympic Committee). Even if we want to change the rules in order to adjust to the specificities of the Internet era (if any), we have first to master them. I see here an important role for academic and civil society communities. If we had advised ICANN to evaluate the Red Cross and IOC submissions separately, we could have avoided a lot of policy confusion and wasted time. The GIGANET might consider the evidence-based policy research as the key theme for the next meeting? Regards, Jovan On 12/6/12 3:31 PM, McTim wrote: All, If domiciling ICANN in a nation state is problematic, perhaps ICANN could buy this cruise ship as a HQ: http://cruiseship.homestead.com/Cruise-Ship.html It would help solve the problem of internationalisation, be a permanent host for ICANN meetings (2450 berths....saving hotel costs for all) and generate revenue intersessionally. It's a 3-fer, plus it's a snip @~ 300 million USD!! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -- 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: today – this week – this month l Conference on Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) l new online courses ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net) Member, ICANN Board of Directors Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net) Member, ICANN Board of Directors Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 12:23:16 2012 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 22:53:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] No Internet Cafe is allowed to operate within an area closer than 500 meters from any school In-Reply-To: <50C2228D.3020104@gmx.net> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228C393@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50C1963A.2060506@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50C2228D.3020104@gmx.net> Message-ID: Will they be banning mobile phones, laptops and other possible 'bad influence' sources in the 500m radius? Or do they specifically mean that internet cafes are a source of evil? -C On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 10:38 PM, Norbert Klein wrote: > According to *The Cambodia Daily* of Friday, 7 December 2012, the > Ministry of Post and Telecommunications has recently issued a decree that > says, among other points:* * > > *No Internet Cafe is allowed to operate within an area closer than 500 > meters from any school. * > > Given the fact that Phnom Penh, the capital city of Cambodia, has many > schools, it has to be assumed that not many regions remain outside of these > 500-m-circles around all schools; it also has to be assumed that the > majority of already existing Internet Cafes, located in areas of social > activities including schools, will have to close down. > > This order is issued to supposedly protect young people from bad > influences: Violating “traditions”, exposing them to pornography, > preventing them from playing prohibited games – but none of these issues > has any clear definition. And there is no clarity about the legal authority > to interpret and enforce these measures. > > The regulation is also to protect users from using drugs, doing money > laundering, kidnapping, and human trafficking – all these activities are > anyway illegal – their prohibiting is covered by different laws – why > include these in the new order on to Internet Cafes? > > As for some context: according to a recent survey, there are more than > 600,000 Facebook users in Cambodia. Many of them do not have computers, but > access the Internet from Internet Cafes. > > = > > Of course I know that the Dubai conference is dealing with many important > issues on a different level. But I find it really surprising that these > regulations come forward while – I assume – also Cambodian government > representatives are attending the ITU conference in Dubai. > > I wanted to share this information – shocking in its general scope, and at > the same time extremely vague. I would of course appreciate to receive > comments, which I then might share locally. > > Norbert Klein > Phnom Penh > Cambodia > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Dec 7 12:30:10 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 23:00:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] No Internet Cafe is allowed to operate within an area closer than 500 meters from any school Message-ID: On the flip side, kids playing hooky from school to game and facebook all day and all night at Internet cafes is a airly known problem in Asia, with more than one kid having died of exhaustion and heart failure after more than 48 hours glued to a keyboard --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Norbert Klein" To: Subject: [governance] No Internet Cafe is allowed to operate within an area closer than 500 meters from any school Date: Fri, Dec 7, 2012 10:38 PM According to /The Cambodia Daily/ of Friday, 7 December 2012, the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications has recently issued a decree that says, among other points:** *No Internet Cafe is allowed to operate within an area closer than 500 meters from any school. * Given the fact that Phnom Penh, the capital city of Cambodia, has many schools, it has to be assumed that not many regions remain outside of these 500-m-circles around all schools; it also has to be assumed that the majority of already existing Internet Cafes, located in areas of social activities including schools, will have to close down. This order is issued to supposedly protect young people from bad influences: Violating “traditions”, exposing them to pornography, preventing them from playing prohibited games – but none of these issues has any clear definition. And there is no clarity about the legal authority to interpret and enforce these measures. The regulation is also to protect users from using drugs, doing money laundering, kidnapping, and human trafficking – all these activities are anyway illegal – their prohibiting is covered by different laws – why include these in the new order on to Internet Cafes? As for some context: according to a recent survey, there are more than 600,000 Facebook users in Cambodia. Many of them do not have computers, but access the Internet from Internet Cafes. = Of course I know that the Dubai conference is dealing with many important issues on a different level. But I find it really surprising that these regulations come forward while – I assume – also Cambodian government representatives are attending the ITU conference in Dubai. I wanted to share this information – shocking in its general scope, and at the same time extremely vague. I would of course appreciate to receive comments, which I then might share locally. Norbert Klein Phnom Penh Cambodia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 12:36:03 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:36:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB91F57@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Bertrand, while not an expert, I find a piece of Ostrom's work particularly illuminating for Internet Governance. It is in her book "Understanding Institutional Diversity". This analysis divides a large set of possible commons situations in quadrants, according to whether self-governance or heteronomous governance are weak or strong (not her words.) She finds that the "worst" (hardest to govern) quadrant is the one in which neither external rule nor self-rule are strong. The situation there is pretty much the law of the jungle. There are serious limitations in applying the theory to the whole of Internet Governance and I praise your list as a starting point for a more nuanced and clear discussion, while underlining that you have applied it only to ICANN's bailywick and once we move out of that (three of 40 in the WGIG set)it will get far more complicated. Good work to be done. Also, ideally all eight elements of the framework should apply to the same "commons", not one per area. 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: Bertrand de La Chapelle [bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 07 de diciembre de 2012 11:14 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch CC: Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Asunto: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Alejandro, Ostromian Theory applies well to the management of Internet resources as common pool resources. When the first ATRT Review began, I reached out to E. Ostrom (still alive at the time) to try to involve her to explore this topic (consulting stint). She could not do it but she confirmed to me in an email at the time that "Yes, the internet domain name system could be productively thought of as a CPR". I have always believed this is a valid conceptual framework for a lot of ICANN-related discussions. Including her eight design principles for stable CPR management. (possible correlations with DNS and ICANN in blue) >From Wikipedia: Ostrom identified eight "design principles" of stable local common pool resource management: 1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties); (names and addresses) 2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local conditions; (policies by ASO, ccNSO and gNSO) 3. Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process; (PDP and other decision-making processes involving registries, registrars, RIRs, registrants, ISPs, ....) 4. Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators; (monitoring and compliance functions) 5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules; (accreditation of registrars, breach of registry agreement, as examples) 6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access; (UDRP, next URS) 7. Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities; (more delicate, but Affirmation of Commitments vis-à-vis the US and participation of governments in GAC) 8. In the case of larger common-pool resources,organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level. (the hierarchical and distributed system, both for addresses and domain names, with subsidiarity responsibility at the different levels) Certainly, there is more in her work that could help making this even better working. Best B. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > wrote: Jovan, thanks for doing a pretty innovative thing here: discussing ideas. Further, bringing a fresh approach and actual expertise. My long-standing concern for analogies between Internet governance and the laws of the sea is that the Internet is much more a built environment than the sea (not that the sea is all natural and in fixed form forever, immune to our contamination and our imagintion.) So Internet governance refers not only to rules etc. to live on the existing Internet, but also has to be useful as guidance in its expansion and development. To abuse your analogy, it's not only about shipping, fishing, and mining, but also about how to actually make the oceans of tomorrow. That brings you to points like: you can use Ostromian theory to understand the tragedy of the commons in fisheries; but can you extend it to Internet governance? What are the limitations? Can you address concerns from liberals to socialists in a new framework without actually changing the salinity or wanting to reverse the flow of the Humboldt current? Any thoughts? 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 Jovan Kurbalija [jovank at diplomacy.edu] Enviado el: viernes, 07 de diciembre de 2012 08:37 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim Asunto: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Well, we have innovation! With the IGF in Bali, and ICANN on a cruise ship, we may have 'beach or floating governance'. Internet governance could be fun! I like the metaphor of the ship since it implies our common destiny. We are all passengers of ICANNia or ITUnia or...? Metaphors are also useful to remove our tunnel vision and make us think more creatively. In another metaphor, I hope that Internetistan will resist Absurdistan (here is the map of this fast-growing country). But back to the current reality. Unfortunately, the ICANN cruise ship won't solve the problem of internationalisation. 'Open sea' refers only to freedom of navigation. It does not deal with the status of the ship. All relations on the ship are regulated by the national law of the ship's flag. ICANNia has to be registered somewhere. One solution could be a flag of convenience such as Liberia or Panama. What happens on the ICANNia is regulated by national law, with no major differences from any other land-based entity (company, organisation). Yes, ICANNia can sail in whatever direction it wants to sail, but the decision must be made by the captain according to the rules of the flag's state. Extrapolating from the role of the captain on the ship, the ICANNia would look like military unit. The cruise ship metaphor gets even more interesting when we consider different classes of cabins, rescue operations, etc. These thoughts have taken me back to Hugo Grotius's book Mare Liberum that established the "open sea" concept four centuries ago as opposed to the idea of a Mare Nostrum. His relevance for our time is sobering. If we replace 'sea' with 'Internet' we could have the next book on the Internet. Grotius was a very interesting personality. Besides being one of the first international lawyers, he was one of the founders of the 'natural law' school of thought. In addition, he wrote a lot about social contract (before Rousseau, Locke, and others). As a matter of fact, his social contract theory could be applicable to the Internet. When it comes to the concept of open sea, Grotius had an interesting interplay with the political masters of his era. He believed in open sea, but Dutch and British authorities quickly realised the usefulness of his doctrine. They had the biggest fleets and had ambitions to develop trade and colonial empires. Grotius provided them with the necessary doctrine or 'political software'. However, Grotius always argued that 'open sea' needs rules and principles in order to be 'open'. Although it was counter-intuitive to the leaders of two growing maritime powers, he managed to convince them that it was in their best interest to 'tame' their comparative powers and ensure the sustainability of their empires beyond the 17th century. Everything else has written the history, which proved Grotius right. We can draw many parallels, with the necessary caution that historical analogies should be handled with care. While we are waiting for a new Grotius (or Godot), we should review how we debate Internet governance issues. Grotius was a great scholar who mastered the existing rules before he started changing them. We, on the other hand, use well-defined and developed concepts in a relaxed way. A few examples... As we saw, the frequently used metaphor of the open sea does not translate to an open Internet. In many respects, it can lead in the opposite direction (Internet Nostrum). Another example is the role of states' responsibility in the Internet era. This is a well-defined concept in international law. If we want states to be responsible for whatever is originating in their territories (e.g. cyber-attacks, botnets), we have to give them the tools to ensure their responsibility (mainly state control, regulation, and surveillance). Most writings on state responsibility start from the opposite assumption, i.e. the limited role of the state. With all the creativity and imagination in the world, we still cannot have it both ways. The most topical example of the need for evidence-based policy is the case of the Red Cross name/emblem at ICANN. There are very clear rules for the protection of the Red Cross name/emblem that were adopted some 100 years ago and have been followed, without reservation, on national and international levels. ICANN was right in protecting the Red Cross name but made the mistake of putting it together with organisations that do not enjoy the same status (the International Olympic Committee). Even if we want to change the rules in order to adjust to the specificities of the Internet era (if any), we have first to master them. I see here an important role for academic and civil society communities. If we had advised ICANN to evaluate the Red Cross and IOC submissions separately, we could have avoided a lot of policy confusion and wasted time. The GIGANET might consider the evidence-based policy research as the key theme for the next meeting? Regards, Jovan On 12/6/12 3:31 PM, McTim wrote: All, If domiciling ICANN in a nation state is problematic, perhaps ICANN could buy this cruise ship as a HQ: http://cruiseship.homestead.com/Cruise-Ship.html It would help solve the problem of internationalisation, be a permanent host for ICANN meetings (2450 berths....saving hotel costs for all) and generate revenue intersessionally. It's a 3-fer, plus it's a snip @~ 300 million USD!! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -- 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: today – this week – this month l Conference on Innovation in Diplomacy (Malta, 19-20 November 2012) l new online courses ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net) Member, ICANN Board of Directors Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 12:36:30 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 09:36:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: Internet Society's Statement Addressing Reported Attacks Against the ITU Website In-Reply-To: <5AF87AA3-E775-4207-A6BB-24F4F92629D5@istaff.org> References: <4965A4EB-B822-48B3-9001-0460DEB0D68A@isoc.org> <042901cdd48d$9a6e75a0$cf4b60e0$@gmail.com> <5AF87AA3-E775-4207-A6BB-24F4F92629D5@istaff.org> Message-ID: <04fe01cdd4a1$655ba360$3012ea20$@gmail.com> Thanks John, for pointing to the "Anonymous" screed and indicating that the "Attacks Against the ITU Website" should probably be seen rather more in the context of "Direct Action " than of an externally instigated "lynch mob ". Also, BTB, the "Anonymous" screed that you point to is very interesting in itself (and dare I say rather more useful than almost all of the various anti-ITU interventions including that from ISOC in that it actually ties its comments back into a framework other than vituperative anti-ITU (and by implication anti-UN) rhetorical flourishes and into a larger analysis of the necessarily evolving broader context of global governance). Their analysis and prescriptions aren't one's I necessarily agree with, but they are contributions to that larger discussion that unfortunately the overblown rhetoric of the last several months has served only to obscure--in this way serving should I say, and perhaps not incidentally, the interests of certain national and corporate entities. M From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 8:01 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: Internet Society's Statement Addressing Reported Attacks Against the ITU Website On Dec 7, 2012, at 10:14 AM, michael gurstein wrote: (Regarding Sally Wentworth's "Please take note of the below statement from ISOC with regards to reported attacks against the ITU Website during the WCIT.") It is extremely difficult to stop a lynch mob. It is important keep in mind that the number of machines in a DDoS attack does not equal the number of actual actors; i.e. 100 thousand people protesting by gathering in a city square is a definitely a demonstration of civil empowerment, whereas 100 thousand machines performing a denial of service attack against a web site could be just three upset people with the right set of tools at their disposal. As some of the statements explaining the need for such attacks would imply that it is being done to protect the existing system (including ICANN, ISOC, & RIRs) , it is perfectly reasonable for ISOC to issue a statement indicating that closing down communications as a protest is both counterproductive and contrary to the very idea of open MS participation for all. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Websites which contain these views are not responsible for their content and should not be attacked solely on that basis. Coming up with other pretenses for vigilate action against such websites is left as an exercise for the reader. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Dec 7 12:41:14 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 18:41:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] "Who should govern the internet?" - a set of interesting panels In-Reply-To: <46A2B241-3BBB-4376-996F-C31DE4A295EF@hserus.net> References: <46A2B241-3BBB-4376-996F-C31DE4A295EF@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Hi Louis, as you seemed struck with Andrew McLaughlin's comments, could > you please share your opinions? A discussion on the various topics raised > in this panel would be interesting. > > thanks > --srs (iPad) > > Hi Suresh, Andrew McLaughlin's talk reminds Paul Wolfowitz's arguments for dismantling the Iraki regime, with the brilliant success we know. 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 apisan at unam.mx Fri Dec 7 12:43:21 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 17:43:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: Internet Society's Statement Addressing Reported Attacks Against the ITU Website In-Reply-To: <04fe01cdd4a1$655ba360$3012ea20$@gmail.com> References: <4965A4EB-B822-48B3-9001-0460DEB0D68A@isoc.org> <042901cdd48d$9a6e75a0$cf4b60e0$@gmail.com> <5AF87AA3-E775-4207-A6BB-24F4F92629D5@istaff.org>,<04fe01cdd4a1$655ba360$3012ea20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB92028@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Mike, conspiranoia, aspersion-casting and theory apart, you'd do well to read the lists of targets. They far exceed the ITU and include all sorts of organizations, like legislatures and commerce chambers worldwide. Internet Governance actually happens in a world of practical application as well. 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, 07 de diciembre de 2012 11:36 Hasta: 'John Curran' CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] RE: Internet Society's Statement Addressing Reported Attacks Against the ITU Website Thanks John, for pointing to the "Anonymous" screed and indicating that the "Attacks Against the ITU Website" should probably be seen rather more in the context of "Direct Action" than of an externally instigated "lynch mob". Also, BTB, the "Anonymous" screed that you point to is very interesting in itself (and dare I say rather more useful than almost all of the various anti-ITU interventions including that from ISOC in that it actually ties its comments back into a framework other than vituperative anti-ITU (and by implication anti-UN) rhetorical flourishes and into a larger analysis of the necessarily evolving broader context of global governance). Their analysis and prescriptions aren't one's I necessarily agree with, but they are contributions to that larger discussion that unfortunately the overblown rhetoric of the last several months has served only to obscure--in this way serving should I say, and perhaps not incidentally, the interests of certain national and corporate entities. M From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 8:01 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: Internet Society's Statement Addressing Reported Attacks Against the ITU Website On Dec 7, 2012, at 10:14 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: (Regarding Sally Wentworth's "Please take note of the below statement from ISOC with regards to reported attacks against the ITU Website during the WCIT.") It is extremely difficult to stop a lynch mob. It is important keep in mind that the number of machines in a DDoS attack does not equal the number of actual actors; i.e. 100 thousand people protesting by gathering in a city square is a definitely a demonstration of civil empowerment, whereas 100 thousand machines performing a denial of service attack against a web site could be just three upset people with the right set of tools at their disposal. As some of the statements explaining the need for such attacks would imply that it is being done to protect the existing system (including ICANN, ISOC, & RIRs) , it is perfectly reasonable for ISOC to issue a statement indicating that closing down communications as a protest is both counterproductive and contrary to the very idea of open MS participation for all. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Websites which contain these views are not responsible for their content and should not be attacked solely on that basis. Coming up with other pretenses for vigilate action against such websites is left as an exercise for the reader. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Dec 7 12:59:46 2012 From: katycarvt at gmail.com (Katy P) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 09:59:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] No Internet Cafe is allowed to operate within an area closer than 500 meters from any school In-Reply-To: <50C2228D.3020104@gmx.net> References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228C393@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50C1963A.2060506@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50C2228D.3020104@gmx.net> Message-ID: Interesting, similar things are going on in Azerbaijan. I blogged about this yesterday. http://www.katypearce.net/cv/today-in-the-clusterfk-that-is-azerbaijani-internet-policy/ On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: > According to *The Cambodia Daily* of Friday, 7 December 2012, the > Ministry of Post and Telecommunications has recently issued a decree that > says, among other points:* * > > *No Internet Cafe is allowed to operate within an area closer than 500 > meters from any school. * > > Given the fact that Phnom Penh, the capital city of Cambodia, has many > schools, it has to be assumed that not many regions remain outside of these > 500-m-circles around all schools; it also has to be assumed that the > majority of already existing Internet Cafes, located in areas of social > activities including schools, will have to close down. > > This order is issued to supposedly protect young people from bad > influences: Violating “traditions”, exposing them to pornography, > preventing them from playing prohibited games – but none of these issues > has any clear definition. And there is no clarity about the legal authority > to interpret and enforce these measures. > > The regulation is also to protect users from using drugs, doing money > laundering, kidnapping, and human trafficking – all these activities are > anyway illegal – their prohibiting is covered by different laws – why > include these in the new order on to Internet Cafes? > > As for some context: according to a recent survey, there are more than > 600,000 Facebook users in Cambodia. Many of them do not have computers, but > access the Internet from Internet Cafes. > > = > > Of course I know that the Dubai conference is dealing with many important > issues on a different level. But I find it really surprising that these > regulations come forward while – I assume – also Cambodian government > representatives are attending the ITU conference in Dubai. > > I wanted to share this information – shocking in its general scope, and at > the same time extremely vague. I would of course appreciate to receive > comments, which I then might share locally. > > Norbert Klein > Phnom Penh > Cambodia > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Fri Dec 7 13:13:19 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 18:13:19 +0000 Subject: [governance] No Internet Cafe is allowed to operate within an area closer than 500 meters from any school In-Reply-To: References: <50BCA6EB.2050907@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2289FDB@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <025801cdd172$bdf09530$39d1bf90$@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228A519@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BCF32C.3030500@panamo.eu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228BC8B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50BFADC6.1070606@panamo.eu> <50BFB726.3080909@gmail.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228C393@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50C1963A.2060506@itforchange.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE03@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50C2228D.3020104@gmx.net>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB922BC@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Hi, in Mexico (and I guess many other countries) there is a ruling that no bar (serving alcohol beverages) can be within a certain distance of a school. The rulings in Cambodia and Azerbaijan tell you that Internet cafés are seen as one more source of evil. I guess evidence of what activities take place in them, by age segments and times of day, and risk-cost-benefit analysis are not exactly objective and not available. Not exactly evidence-based policy-making I fear. I do remember being struck by the level of activity and enthusiasm in cybercafes in Ghana ten years ago... then connecting the dots to the kids asking you for email addresses in tourist spots and the number "419" forming iteself in my mind's eye. But, talk about throwing away the baby with the bath water. 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 Katy P [katycarvt at gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 07 de diciembre de 2012 11:59 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Klein Asunto: Re: [governance] No Internet Cafe is allowed to operate within an area closer than 500 meters from any school Interesting, similar things are going on in Azerbaijan. I blogged about this yesterday. http://www.katypearce.net/cv/today-in-the-clusterfk-that-is-azerbaijani-internet-policy/ On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Norbert Klein > wrote: According to The Cambodia Daily of Friday, 7 December 2012, the Ministry of Post and Telecommunications has recently issued a decree that says, among other points: No Internet Cafe is allowed to operate within an area closer than 500 meters from any school. Given the fact that Phnom Penh, the capital city of Cambodia, has many schools, it has to be assumed that not many regions remain outside of these 500-m-circles around all schools; it also has to be assumed that the majority of already existing Internet Cafes, located in areas of social activities including schools, will have to close down. This order is issued to supposedly protect young people from bad influences: Violating “traditions”, exposing them to pornography, preventing them from playing prohibited games – but none of these issues has any clear definition. And there is no clarity about the legal authority to interpret and enforce these measures. The regulation is also to protect users from using drugs, doing money laundering, kidnapping, and human trafficking – all these activities are anyway illegal – their prohibiting is covered by different laws – why include these in the new order on to Internet Cafes? As for some context: according to a recent survey, there are more than 600,000 Facebook users in Cambodia. Many of them do not have computers, but access the Internet from Internet Cafes. = Of course I know that the Dubai conference is dealing with many important issues on a different level. But I find it really surprising that these regulations come forward while – I assume – also Cambodian government representatives are attending the ITU conference in Dubai. I wanted to share this information – shocking in its general scope, and at the same time extremely vague. I would of course appreciate to receive comments, which I then might share locally. Norbert Klein Phnom Penh Cambodia ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 Fri Dec 7 13:29:56 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 07:29:56 +1300 Subject: [governance] Report of the Pacific Youth Tech Camp [ICT/Internet Governance and Mobile Apps] Message-ID: Dear All, I thought I would share this here after reading Norbert's news about the regulatory approach in Cambodia. I was shocked and somewhat disappointed. Technology can be harnessed to teach students to be more responsible and to learn about their world. Even how we facilitate traditional curriculum has to be revamped. http://www.brightpathfoundation.org/perspectives/education-2-0-technology-enabled-learning-for-the-digital-age/is an article written by Bevil Wooding, the Executive Director of BrightPath Foundation. *About the Youth TechCamp* We recently hosted a 7 day Youth Tech Camp see: http://youthtechcamp.brightpathfoundation.org/ where the first Module was on Introduction to ICT and Internet Governance and we had excellent facilitation from the likes of APNIC and a guest speaker from ICANN. Benjamin Mathews and I took the youth through critical building blocks and we organised learning from a Pacific perspective. These youth which included high school students, tertiary students and professionals under 35, I must admit the oldest one was 55 (it showed that people could not be kept away as they were equally eager to learn) developed key policy considerations on various challenges for 7 countries. 100 participants came from around 8 countries from around the Pacific. The material they developed will be sent to the various countries. This is part of a long term development strategy to build capacity so they can be active contributors in their countries, the Pacific region and global forums as well. Module 2 was a Mobile App Development Training where youth were encouraged to harness local content and whilst the youth made lots of pitches, they settled for 5 and the youth worked on creating them and we had an awesome and fantastic time. The Apps were all civic apps (that was how the youth wanted it) :):) We had 80 participants in this Module. The camp was also covered by the national and regional news, see: http://www.pasifikanexus.nu/media/press/ Warm Regards, Sala On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 6:08 AM, Norbert Klein wrote: > According to *The Cambodia Daily* of Friday, 7 December 2012, the > Ministry of Post and Telecommunications has recently issued a decree that > says, among other points:* * > > *No Internet Cafe is allowed to operate within an area closer than 500 > meters from any school. * > > Given the fact that Phnom Penh, the capital city of Cambodia, has many > schools, it has to be assumed that not many regions remain outside of these > 500-m-circles around all schools; it also has to be assumed that the > majority of already existing Internet Cafes, located in areas of social > activities including schools, will have to close down. > > This order is issued to supposedly protect young people from bad > influences: Violating “traditions”, exposing them to pornography, > preventing them from playing prohibited games – but none of these issues > has any clear definition. And there is no clarity about the legal authority > to interpret and enforce these measures. > > The regulation is also to protect users from using drugs, doing money > laundering, kidnapping, and human trafficking – all these activities are > anyway illegal – their prohibiting is covered by different laws – why > include these in the new order on to Internet Cafes? > > As for some context: according to a recent survey, there are more than > 600,000 Facebook users in Cambodia. Many of them do not have computers, but > access the Internet from Internet Cafes. > > = > > Of course I know that the Dubai conference is dealing with many important > issues on a different level. But I find it really surprising that these > regulations come forward while – I assume – also Cambodian government > representatives are attending the ITU conference in Dubai. > > I wanted to share this information – shocking in its general scope, and at > the same time extremely vague. I would of course appreciate to receive > comments, which I then might share locally. > > Norbert Klein > Phnom Penh > Cambodia > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MEDIA RELEASE 2012-12-05 Youth TechCamp a Success Final.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 409420 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Fri D