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 Dec 7 14:15:04 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 23:15:04 +0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: WCIT: What's happened in the first week In-Reply-To: References: <1811915b93740665fec761e71d4d389892c.20121207081242@mail37.us4.mcsv.net> Message-ID: <906FCFB9-62E6-4FB4-B96F-C30DB4F7BBB4@uzh.ch> Adam Definitions come earlier. It's the same fight as in 1988, basically. I think Japan is on board but some others in APT are not. Bill On Dec 7, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > 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 > > View in browser > > Forward to a friend > > Update profile > > > > Halfway through WCIT... > A rundown of the World Conference on International Telecommunications's first week > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > 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 > > > > 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 > > > > > > > WCIT > Dubai, 3-14 December > > > > Verisign loses dot-com piggybank > > US 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 statement issued 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 original and revised versions - and an analysis of what the implications of its adoption would be. > > > > > > > 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 WCIT > > 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 > . > > . > > > > > 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... > . > > > LinkedIn > > Twitter > > Facebook > > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 14:17:06 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 08:17:06 +1300 Subject: [governance] IGP proposal for ICANN reform In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Yes it is still relevant and if the International Agreement does not come any time sooner then it would be a case of a Pressure Cooker waiting to explode. At the moment the conflicts and competing forces coupled with complexity of diverse threads indicate that this may be the sensible thing to do. These are my personal views. On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 nb at bollow.ch Fri Dec 7 15:40:57 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 21:40:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Sovereignty and the Geography of Cyberspace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20121207214057.4d1c2c13@quill.bollow.ch> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > 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. Do you have links for these workshops? This is for http://idgovmap.org/map/issue/transboundary_harm Ideally I'd like to have URLs for the workshop reports, transcripts and video recordings. Alas I don't see how to usefully link to the IGF website. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 15:49:11 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 15:49:11 -0500 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: "We all have a vote. Everybody. All over the world, whoever has access to the internet." Ain't that (very) exclusionary? Regards Diego On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:36 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > 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)**** > > < > http://legionnet.inc.nl.eu.org/2012/12/stop-madness-anonymous-counterproposal.html > >,**** > > 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.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 16:01:04 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 16:01:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Sovereignty and the Geography of Cyberspace In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB91CF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB91CF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Bertrand, thank you for your clarifications. Hopefully, responsible statists will follow that lead. Good points, Alejandro. That was exactly the scope of my question. Several precedents dealt with by international courts deal with the difficulties of attributions in cases of piracy, genocide and crimes against humanity, etc. The wars in the former Yugoslavia are full of examples of groups displaying elements of government authority in their criminal/unlawful actions. It seems to me that in "cyberstuff" it might be even easier to create fog around responsibility. And what has been produced within the scope of NATO seems to reinforce traditional definitions such as the applicability of article 51 of the UN Charter for assessing legality/illegality of self-defense in case of transboundary harm caused "by one State to another State." Regards Diego On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan at unam.mx> wrote: > 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 < > 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") > > -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Fri Dec 7 16:02:01 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 22:02:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?397-0=3A_http=3A//www=2Ezdnet=2Ecom?= =?US-ASCII?Q?/u-s-now-totally-unified-in-opposition-of-u-n-internet-gover?= =?US-ASCII?Q?nance-7000008382/?= In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B170CFD@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B170CFD@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20121207220201.6cef9124@quill.bollow.ch> Lee W McKnight wrote: > 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. This comment reminds me of the resolution against software patents of the German Bundestag of a few years back. That was also unanimous (at the time I personally checked the protocol of the session to make sure that that had been reported correctly), which was doubly remarkable because that resolution went against the position that was maintained by the German government at the time at the EU level. It was a non-binding resolution and the German government continued its position that was the exact opposite of what the resolution asked for. Sometimes one wonders about the best way to inject some additional integrity into the whole governance circus. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Fri Dec 7 16:20:17 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 22:20:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Y.2770 (was Re: 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: <20121207222017.5df9a617@quill.bollow.ch> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 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 title is "Requirements for deep packet inspection in next generation networks". In view of the "next generation networks" label in the title, this document might not even be technically applicable to the Internet at it exists today. So indeed let's be careful to avoid hyping this up as if it were something that it is not. But we should challenge ITU's apparant practice of creating standards on such a topic without giving civil society any effective opportunity to question the claim that requirements for "deep packet inspection" (DPI) exist, or to oppose the legitimitization of such practices by a UN agency. So I strongly support Wolfgang's suggestion. In addition we should work towards making net neutrality violations by means of DPI internationally frowned upon and illegal in as many countries as possible. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Dec 7 19:03:43 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 05:33:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Sovereignty and the Geography of Cyberspace In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB91CF0@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: It of course depends on the country involved. Relatively smaller and poorer countries that engage non state actors for aggressive behaviour, online or in the physical world, can be punished. If the country is one of at least two or three nuclear armed superpowers, and further, loudly denies any sort of state involvement multiple times .. this becomes a lot tougher, and practically certain to lead to a world war. --srs (iPad) On 08-Dec-2012, at 2:31, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > Bertrand, thank you for your clarifications. Hopefully, responsible statists will follow that lead. > > Good points, Alejandro. > That was exactly the scope of my question. Several precedents dealt with by international courts deal with the difficulties of attributions in cases of piracy, genocide and crimes against humanity, etc. The wars in the former Yugoslavia are full of examples of groups displaying elements of government authority in their criminal/unlawful actions. It seems to me that in "cyberstuff" it might be even easier to create fog around responsibility. And what has been produced within the scope of NATO seems to reinforce traditional definitions such as the applicability of article 51 of the UN Charter for assessing legality/illegality of self-defense in case of transboundary harm caused "by one State to another State." > > Regards > Diego > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 21:12:24 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 07:12:24 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGP proposal for ICANN reform In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: A bit too late I presume or may be at the right time. But this would only be possible if: 1. You talk to Fadi Chahde and show him the grim future under his leadership 2. You talk to the ICANN Board and remind them of how important it is for them to remain ethical and impartial 3. You advocate for this with a targeted advocacy campaign and gain buy-in from supportive govts, civil society (including both Civil and Corporate Trade Associations) and finally the private sector like getting the Internet Giants on your side. 4. You may just create the rhetoric whereas the real world domainers and market gamers may challenge everything as its an attempt of building and sustaining a free market economy within the domain name and IP addressing space. 5. How do you tackle the industry that gives ICANN the buck it makes? There has always been more than what meets the eye. Normative approaches will not meet success. Best Fouad On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > * 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 -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 22:02:43 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 16:02:43 +1300 Subject: [governance] Call for Nominees for Election [IGC Coordinator Position] and Election Schedule Message-ID: Dear All, This is to advise that we would like to invite people to submit Nominations for Candidates to stand in the elections for the purposes of occupying the Co-Coordinator position which Izumi Aizu used to occupy. *Nominations* Those who are interested in standing for elections or in nominating persons to stand for the elections should submit their Nominations by *15th December, 2012 at 10pm UTC +12*. We would like to encourage people to either nominate themselves or nominate others whom you think would make great coordinators. Responsibilities of coordinators can be viewed in the IGC Charter. All Nominations are asked to submit their Nominations in the following format: *Nomination By:* [Self Nomination or -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Dec 7 22:44:25 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 08:44:25 +0500 Subject: [governance] Which popular websites are sharing your personal details? WSJ Message-ID: Which popular websites are sharing your personal details? To identify what personal information gets passed to other companies when you log in to popular websites, The Wall Street Journal tested 50 of the top sites (by U.S. traffic) that offer registration, excluding sites that required a real-world account, such as banking sites. The Journal also tested 20 selected other sites that focus on sensitive subjects such as dating, politics, health, or children’s issues, and our own site, WSJ.com. The Wall Street Journal source for information sharing purposes only: http://on.wsj.com/VoRdSF -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 8 00:00:31 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 05:00:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGP proposal for ICANN reform In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B171056@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Too late for what? WCIT? Remember that's not about Internet governance ; ) Rereading the doc, it has - unfortunately - aged well. Nothing else attempted in the meantime has really gotten traction, and the problems identified remain. The main issue is whether it is 'you' or 'we/IGC' suggesting something more or less along these lines. Since IGP already said its piece a couple years ago, but did folks listen? : ( And in terms of who to talk to when, it's a multi-layered and multi-player process, which an IGC team would have a better chance at winning than little IGP. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Fouad Bajwa [fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 9:12 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: Re: [governance] IGP proposal for ICANN reform A bit too late I presume or may be at the right time. But this would only be possible if: 1. You talk to Fadi Chahde and show him the grim future under his leadership 2. You talk to the ICANN Board and remind them of how important it is for them to remain ethical and impartial 3. You advocate for this with a targeted advocacy campaign and gain buy-in from supportive govts, civil society (including both Civil and Corporate Trade Associations) and finally the private sector like getting the Internet Giants on your side. 4. You may just create the rhetoric whereas the real world domainers and market gamers may challenge everything as its an attempt of building and sustaining a free market economy within the domain name and IP addressing space. 5. How do you tackle the industry that gives ICANN the buck it makes? There has always been more than what meets the eye. Normative approaches will not meet success. Best Fouad On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > * 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 -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Dec 8 01:24:46 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 10:24:46 +0400 Subject: [governance] IGP proposal for ICANN reform In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50C2DD2E.50508@gih.com> Dear Milton, I note that this is from 2009. Why now? The hot subject of the moment is WCIT. Why not comment on that? Kind regards, Olivier On 07/12/2012 20:17, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >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 > > -- 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 avri at acm.org Sat Dec 8 05:03:51 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 14:03:51 +0400 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: Hi, the statement is really more addressing a rumor some have heard about possible outages this weekend. we did not actually take a position on the event of the other day. other than to say 'outage bad' or at least hadn't at the time i last read it. avri On 7 Dec 2012, at 15:54, McTim wrote: > > > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 avri at acm.org Sat Dec 8 05:08:28 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 14:08:28 +0400 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <50C1B868.9050607@gmail.com> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB8C1C9@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <50C1B868.9050607@gmail.com> Message-ID: <646BF66E-C3BA-4D86-8611-CE6DE11BE207@acm.org> On 7 Dec 2012, at 13:35, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > 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. " wow, i am surprised he did not just threaten to throw the recalcitrant workers off the barge. I never knew him to be so soft on workers as to spend money heading toward shore. just saying. 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 nashton at ccianet.org Sat Dec 8 06:27:43 2012 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 12:27:43 +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: <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch). -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: http://meetme.so/nashton* Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Dec 8 11:00:21 2012 From: vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk (vincent solomon) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 16:00:21 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Cyber Stewards Program - Deadline / July 15th In-Reply-To: <5ED344AB-E73E-483F-99FF-CB61FB8AB470@privaterra.org> References: <94F716D4-D722-426D-A5AE-2512FB2842FD@privaterra.org> <5ED344AB-E73E-483F-99FF-CB61FB8AB470@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <1354982421.22864.YahooMailNeo@web172503.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>   “Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless” NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045 EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com Skype : vinsolo2 ________________________________ From: Robert Guerra To: kabani.asif at gmail.com Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Thursday, 19 July 2012, 15:04 Subject: Re: [governance] Cyber Stewards Program - Deadline / July 15th If you are interested in the Cyber Stewards program, do note that the deadline for submission for proposals closed earlier this week. Should you have any questions and/or comments about the program,  please email  cyberstewards at citizenlab.org . The team will get back to you ASAP. regards Robert -- On 2012-07-19, at 7:47 AM, Kabani wrote: > >Dear Colleagues, >> >>Are you a South-based cyber security scholar, advocate, or practitioner interested in articulating a vision of cyber security in which rights and openness are protected on the basis of shared research and empirical knowledge ?  >> >> >>If so, please do consider applying to the Cyber Stewards Program at theCanada Centre for Global Security Studies (Canada Centre) and the Citizen Labat the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto. >> >> >>The deadline is July 15th. Further details are below.. >> >> >>regards >> >> >>Robert >>-- >>Robert Guerra >>Senior Advisor, Citizen Lab >>Munk Centre for Global Affairs, University of Toronto >>Phone: +1 416-893-0377      Cell: +1 202 905 2081 >>Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom  >>Email: robert at citizenlab.org >>Web: http://citizenlab.org >> >> >> >>--- >> >> >>University of Toronto’s Canada Centre and Citizen Lab Announce the Cyber Stewards Program >> >>The Canada Centre for Global Security Studies (Canada Centre) and the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto (with the support of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC)) are pleased to announce the launch of the Cyber Stewards program.   >> >>The Cyber Stewards program is designed to address the urgent need to support South-based cyber security scholars, advocates, and practitioners to articulate a vision of cyber security in which rights and openness are protected on the basis of shared research and empirical knowledge. >> >>Cyber Stewards will be selected from across the global South. They will work locally while networking globally through the auspices of the Canada Centre and Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. >> >>Cyber Stewards will define their own scope of work and activities based on their local context and pressing concerns. The expectation will be that Cyber Stewards will map, analyze, and ultimately impact the cyber security priorities of their own countries and regions on the basis of shared knowledge and practices.   >> >>“We are excited about this opportunity, and the prospects that the Cyber Stewards network can accomplish,” says Ron Deibert, Director of the Canada Centre and Citizen Lab. “Working together, we envision the Cyber Stewards will help contribute to a growing global movement of citizens, scholars and practitioners - a community of practice - whose aim is to protect cyberspace as a secure but open commons of information in which human rights are respected.” >> >>Detailed Overview >> >>As cyberspace expands and deepens in the global South, there are growing concerns around how cyberspace will be governed and constituted.  The security of cyberspace is now an urgent concern. A cyber arms race among governments and non-state actors has begun in earnest. Facing a growing number of threats, from cyber crime to espionage and warfare, governments are developing ambitious cyber security strategies, some of which include far-reaching and potentially ominous censorship, surveillance, and information operation components. >> >>Unless proper checks and balances are instituted locally, there will continue to be strong pressures to build “surveillance-by design” into newly built infrastructure -- particularly the newly emerging mobile and social media ecosystems.  These troubling trends of information control and securitization portend the gradual disintegration of an open and secure commons of information on a global scale. >> >>It is essential that the process of cyber securitization taking place in the South includes local voices who can articulate a vision of cyber security in which rights and openness are protected on the basis of shared research and empirical knowledge.   >> >>The aim of the Cyber Stewards project is to help support and develop those local voices. >> >>Why “Steward”? Stewardship is typically defined as an  ethic of responsible behaviour in a situation  of shared resources, typically with respect to the natural environment and the commons, such  as the oceans and outer space.  Although cyberspace is more of a mixed pooled resource that cuts across public and private sector than a commons per se, the concept of stewardship still carries considerable merit: it implies behaviour that goes beyond self-interest to accomplish something in the service of a wider public good.  It emphasizes the need for balance and the appreciation of the complexity of the system.  It carries with it a connotation of custodianship and citizen-based monitoring, all of which mesh with the aims of the network we are setting out to build. >> >>Why should South-based scholars and practitioners link up with a North-based institution, like the University of Toronto? Moving forward, it is imperative that stewards of cyberspace include representation from all stakeholders in the global communications environment, and that bridges are built between communities across North, South, East and West.  Although the challenges of each locality are unique, together we live in a shared communications space that is becoming increasingly dense and interconnected. We have a shared responsibility to sustain that space in a manner that supports everyone’s rights, while keeping it secure. Networking South-based Cyber Stewards with the University of Toronto’s Canada Centre and Citizen Lab’s already existing network of collaborative partnerships will help accomplish that goal and hopefully build a broad community of global Cyber Stewards that empowers us all collectively. >> >>Who will make up the Cyber Stewards program and how will it operate? There will be a diversity in research topics and methods, as well as regional and disciplinary backgrounds, in the constitution of Cyber Stewards. We anticipate that the group will form a network of peers, in which the Cyber Stewards regularly interact with each other, engage in knowledge sharing and joint research and development, and mutual mentorship.  Cyber Stewards will interact virtually as well as through occasional joint workshops and major conferences, facilitated by the Canada Centre and Citizen Lab. >> >>Interested parties from any of the following regions should send a CV and a five page outline that details project ideas to cyberstewards at citizenlab.org(Central America, Caribbean, South America, sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and North Africa, and Asia). >> >>About the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies >>TheCanada Centre for Global Security Studiesat theMunk School of Global Affairsis a centre of interdisciplinary research, policy development, and other activities in emerging security issues that are critical to Canada's future. Established in spring 2010 with a grant from the Government of Canada, the Canada Centre's areas of interdisciplinary study include cyber security, global health, food security, and region-specific concerns, such as the future of the Arctic, post-Soviet Europe, the new Asian powers, and the changing face of the Americas. >> >>About the Citizen Lab >>The Citizen Labis an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, Canada focusing on advanced research and development at the intersection of digital media, global security, and human rights. >> >>We are a “hothouse” that combines the disciplines of political science, sociology, law, computer science, engineering, and graphic design. Our mission is to undertake advanced research and engage in development that monitors, analyses, and impacts the exercise of political power in cyberspace. We undertake this mission through collaborative partnerships with leading edge research centers, organizations, and individuals around the world, and through a unique “mixed methods” approach that combines technical analysis with intensive field research, qualitative social science, and legal and policy analysis methods undertaken by subject matter experts.   >> >>The Citizen Lab’s ongoing research network includes the OpenNet Initiative, OpenNet Eurasia, and Opennet.Asia as well as the Cyber Security Stewards network. The Citizen Lab was a founding partner of the Information Warfare Monitor(2002-2012). The Citizen Lab developed the original design of the Psiphon censorship circumvention software, which spun out of the lab into a private Canadian corporation (Psiphon Inc.) in 2008. >> >> >>Ronald Deibert >>Director, the Citizen Lab  >>and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies >>Munk School of Global Affairs >>University of Toronto >>(416) 946-8916 >>PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txthttp://deibert.citizenlab.org/ >>twitter.com/citizenlab >>r.deibert at utoronto.ca >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Sat Dec 8 11:53:21 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 11:53:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cyber Stewards Program - Deadline / July 15th In-Reply-To: <1354982421.22864.YahooMailNeo@web172503.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <94F716D4-D722-426D-A5AE-2512FB2842FD@privaterra.org> <5ED344AB-E73E-483F-99FF-CB61FB8AB470@privaterra.org> <1354982421.22864.YahooMailNeo@web172503.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <94325ED7-9F38-4302-8361-9B72BF472CE7@privaterra.org> Seems like the list was sent an email from way back in July. Likely due to an email and/or malware issue with Vincent I'll take advantage of the message through to let everyone know that the deadline was closed several months ago. We'll be posting an update with list of successful candidates in early 2012. regards robert -- Robert Guerra Senior Advisor, Citizen Lab Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto Phone: +1 416-893-0377 Cell: +1 202 905 2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: robert at citizenlab.org Web: http://citizenlab.org On 2012-12-08, at 11:00 AM, vincent solomon wrote: > > > > > “Limitations live only in our minds. But if we use our imaginations, our possibilities become limitless” > > NAME: VINCENT SOLOMON ALIAMA > CONTACT: +256 773307045 / +256 713307045 / +256 753307045 > EMAIL:aliama.vincent at cit.mak.ac.ug / vinsolo15 at yahoo.co.uk /vinsoloster at gmail.com > Skype : vinsolo2 > > > > > > From: Robert Guerra > To: kabani.asif at gmail.com > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Sent: Thursday, 19 July 2012, 15:04 > Subject: Re: [governance] Cyber Stewards Program - Deadline / July 15th > > If you are interested in the Cyber Stewards program, do note that the deadline for submission for proposals closed earlier this week. > > Should you have any questions and/or comments about the program, please email cyberstewards at citizenlab.org . The team will get back to you ASAP. > > regards > > Robert > -- > > > > > On 2012-07-19, at 7:47 AM, Kabani wrote: > >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> Are you a South-based cyber security scholar, advocate, or practitioner interested in articulating a vision of cyber security in which rights and openness are protected on the basis of shared research and empirical knowledge ? >> >> If so, please do consider applying to the Cyber Stewards Program at the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies (Canada Centre) and the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto. >> >> The deadline is July 15th. Further details are below.. >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> -- >> Robert Guerra >> Senior Advisor, Citizen Lab >> Munk Centre for Global Affairs, University of Toronto >> Phone: +1 416-893-0377 Cell: +1 202 905 2081 >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: robert at citizenlab.org >> Web: http://citizenlab.org >> >> >> --- >> >> University of Toronto’s Canada Centre and Citizen Lab Announce the Cyber Stewards Program >> >> The Canada Centre for Global Security Studies (Canada Centre) and the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto (with the support of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC)) are pleased to announce the launch of the Cyber Stewards program. >> >> The Cyber Stewards program is designed to address the urgent need to support South-based cyber security scholars, advocates, and practitioners to articulate a vision of cyber security in which rights and openness are protected on the basis of shared research and empirical knowledge. >> >> Cyber Stewards will be selected from across the global South. They will work locally while networking globally through the auspices of the Canada Centre and Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. >> >> Cyber Stewards will define their own scope of work and activities based on their local context and pressing concerns. The expectation will be that Cyber Stewards will map, analyze, and ultimately impact the cyber security priorities of their own countries and regions on the basis of shared knowledge and practices. >> >> “We are excited about this opportunity, and the prospects that the Cyber Stewards network can accomplish,” says Ron Deibert, Director of the Canada Centre and Citizen Lab. “Working together, we envision the Cyber Stewards will help contribute to a growing global movement of citizens, scholars and practitioners - a community of practice - whose aim is to protect cyberspace as a secure but open commons of information in which human rights are respected.” >> >> Detailed Overview >> >> As cyberspace expands and deepens in the global South, there are growing concerns around how cyberspace will be governed and constituted. The security of cyberspace is now an urgent concern. A cyber arms race among governments and non-state actors has begun in earnest. Facing a growing number of threats, from cyber crime to espionage and warfare, governments are developing ambitious cyber security strategies, some of which include far-reaching and potentially ominous censorship, surveillance, and information operation components. >> >> Unless proper checks and balances are instituted locally, there will continue to be strong pressures to build “surveillance-by design” into newly built infrastructure -- particularly the newly emerging mobile and social media ecosystems. These troubling trends of information control and securitization portend the gradual disintegration of an open and secure commons of information on a global scale. >> >> It is essential that the process of cyber securitization taking place in the South includes local voices who can articulate a vision of cyber security in which rights and openness are protected on the basis of shared research and empirical knowledge. >> >> The aim of the Cyber Stewards project is to help support and develop those local voices. >> >> Why “Steward”? Stewardship is typically defined as an ethic of responsible behaviour in a situation of shared resources, typically with respect to the natural environment and the commons, such as the oceans and outer space. Although cyberspace is more of a mixed pooled resource that cuts across public and private sector than a commons per se, the concept of stewardship still carries considerable merit: it implies >> behaviour that goes beyond self-interest to accomplish something in the service of a wider public good. It emphasizes the need for balance and the appreciation of the complexity of the system. It carries with it a connotation of custodianship and citizen-based monitoring, all of which mesh with the aims of the network we are setting out to build. >> >> Why should South-based scholars and practitioners link up with a North-based institution, like the University of Toronto? Moving forward, it is imperative that stewards of cyberspace include representation from all stakeholders in the global communications environment, and that bridges are built between communities across North, South, East and West. Although the challenges of each locality are unique, together we live in a shared >> communications space that is becoming increasingly dense and interconnected. We have a shared responsibility to sustain that space in a manner that supports everyone’s rights, while keeping it secure. Networking South-based Cyber Stewards with the University of Toronto’s Canada Centre and Citizen Lab’s already existing network of collaborative partnerships will help accomplish that goal and hopefully build a broad community of global Cyber Stewards that empowers us all collectively. >> >> Who will make up the Cyber Stewards program and how will it operate? There will be a diversity in research topics and methods, as well as regional and disciplinary backgrounds, in the constitution of Cyber Stewards. We anticipate that the group will form a network of peers, in which the Cyber Stewards regularly interact with each other, engage in knowledge sharing and joint research and development, and mutual mentorship. Cyber Stewards will >> interact virtually as well as through occasional joint workshops and major conferences, facilitated by the Canada Centre and Citizen Lab. >> >> Interested parties from any of the following regions should send a CV and a five page outline that details project ideas to cyberstewards at citizenlab.org (Central America, Caribbean, South America, sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and North Africa, and Asia). >> >> About the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies >> The Canada Centre for Global Security Studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs is a centre of interdisciplinary research, policy development, and other activities in emerging security issues that are critical to Canada's future. Established in spring 2010 with a grant from the Government of Canada, the Canada Centre's areas of interdisciplinary study include cyber security, global >> health, food security, and region-specific concerns, such as the future of the Arctic, post-Soviet Europe, the new Asian powers, and the changing face of the Americas. >> >> About the Citizen Lab >> The Citizen Lab is an interdisciplinary laboratory based at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, Canada focusing on advanced research and development at the intersection of digital media, global security, and human rights. >> >> We are a “hothouse” that combines the disciplines of political science, sociology, law, computer science, engineering, and graphic design. Our mission is to undertake advanced research and engage in development that monitors, analyses, and impacts the exercise of political power in cyberspace. We undertake this mission through collaborative partnerships with leading edge research centers, organizations, and individuals around the world, and through a unique “mixed methods” approach that combines technical analysis with intensive field research, qualitative social science, and legal and policy analysis >> methods undertaken by subject matter experts. >> >> The Citizen Lab’s ongoing research network includes the OpenNet Initiative, OpenNet Eurasia, and Opennet.Asia as well as the Cyber >> Security Stewards network. The Citizen Lab was a founding partner of the Information Warfare Monitor (2002-2012). The Citizen Lab developed the original design of the Psiphon censorship circumvention software, which spun out of the lab into a private Canadian corporation (Psiphon Inc.) in 2008. >> >> Ronald Deibert >> Director, the Citizen Lab >> and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies >> Munk School of Global Affairs >> University of Toronto >> (416) 946-8916 >> PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txt >> http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ >> twitter.com/citizenlab >> r.deibert at utoronto.ca >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 15:27:26 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2012 22:27:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Russia=92s_insistence_on_U=2EN=2E_c?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ontrol_over_the_Internet_could_see_collapse_of_global_me?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?et?= Message-ID: <50C3A2AE.8070904@gmail.com> Return to frontpage News » National Published: December 9, 2012 00:46 IST | Updated: December 9, 2012 00:46 IST Russia’s insistence on U.N. control over the Internet could see collapse of global meet Shalini Singh It’s Russia, China, and Arab states versus E.U., U.S. and Japan; India is silent The December 3-14 World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai, could collapse if Russia does not back off from its proposal to bring the Internet under the control of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), thereby subjecting the web to inter-governmental regulation. At the conference’s plenary session, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kazakhstan backed the Russian proposal, while the U.S., European nations, Japan and Australia vehemently opposed it. Internet’s inclusion in the ITU will be back on the table when the meet resumes on Monday. So far, India has remained silent on this crucial matter. A similar divergence is beginning to emerge on language on cyber security within the purview of the ITU, an U.N. body. A lot now depends on whether a compromise can be reached on four crucial issues — inclusion and language on the Internet and Information, Communications, Technology (ICT), roaming charges, and cyber security. Fears come true The Russian move comes shortly after Moscow’s new domestic legislation that will allow it to block content deemed “extremist” and a year after President Vladimir Putin told ITU secretary-general Hamadoun Touré, “Russia was keen on pursuing the idea of establishing international control over the Internet, using monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the ITU.” Civil society’s worst fears Russia’s insistence on pushing the Internet’s inclusion under the ITU has confirmed civil society’s worst fears — the WCIT could see the Internet sliding under inter-governmental control, thus adversely impacting free speech while increasing online surveillance and blocking. Earlier, during the inaugural session, Mr. Touré, quoting the ITU’s Constitution and Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in an attempt to assure delegates, said: “Fears have also been expressed that new provisions in the International Telecom Regulations (ITRs) might help legitimatise government censorship. And I fully agree that this should not happen. This conference will not stand in the way of need to protect the right of freedom of expression, the right to communicate and the right to privacy.” Russia has said that it wants Internet traffic, access and basic infrastructure to be included within the definitions of ITRs — a binding treaty. It proposed a “National Internet Segment,” thereby dissecting a global web, based on national territories. China was among the first to publicly support the move, suggesting that the Internet was global infrastructure and, therefore, should be included in the ITRs. Dubai nervous Department of Telecommunications Secretary R. Chandrashekhar, who leads the Indian delegation, told /The Hindu/: “In general, India has not supported the inclusion of the Internet and content in ITRs. We have only favoured the inclusion of Internet Communication Technologies (ICT) to the extent they have a bearing and impact on the availability and security of telecom services.” The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), which represents 700 million mobile subscribers, nearly 384 million of whom are connected online, is a part of the Indian delegation. Its director general, Rajan Mathews, urged the government to oppose the inclusion of the ICTs and the Internet under the ambit of the ITU, and requested the government to “take a clear stance” at the conference. As expected, sharp divides have come to the fore, as multiple concurrent drafting groups are frantically at work on ‘compromise language.’ Arab States’ stance Meanwhile, Dubai as the Conference Chair and UAE as the host, are increasingly getting nervous because of the Arab States’ stance, which is perceived to favour the Russian and Chinese positions. Another reason for their nervousness is that a failed conference could further hurt the UAE’s reputation on the issue of online freedom and free speech. Online campaigns had a pivotal role in galvanising civil movements against authoritarian governments during the Arab Spring. Keywords: World Conference on International Telecommunications , International Telecommunications Union , cyber security More In: National | News | International Comments Recommended Post a comment Printable version | Dec 9, 2012 1:56:22 AM | http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/russias-insistence-on-un-control-over-the-internet-could-see-collapse-of-global-meet/article4179064.ece © The Hindu *The Hindu:* Home | News | Opinion | Sport | Business | Arts | Life & Style | S & T | Education | Health | Homes & Gardens | Jobs | Classifieds | Topics | *The Site:* | About Us | Contacts | Archives | Subscriptions | RSS Feeds | Site Map *Group Sites: * The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Disclaimer: /The Hindu/ is not responsible for the content of external internet sites. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of /The Hindu./ Comments to: web.thehindu at thehindu.co.in Copyright© 2012, The Hindu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14000 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 16:08:42 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 23:08:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Russia=92s_insistence_on_U=2EN?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=2E_control_over_the_Internet_could_see_collapse_of_glob?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?al_meet?= In-Reply-To: <50C3A2AE.8070904@gmail.com> References: <50C3A2AE.8070904@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > [image: Return to frontpage] > News » National Published: December 9, 2012 00:46 IST | Updated: December 9, 2012 00:46 IST > Russia’s insistence on U.N. control over the Internet could see collapse > of global meet Shalini Singh > > It’s Russia, China, and Arab states versus E.U., U.S. and Japan; India is > silent > It's been widely disseminated that the "Arab States" are taking the position of China and Russia. While Arab States are 22 in total, it is only Saudi Arabia (major player), Tunisia, and Egypt (both to some extent) who are pushing for moving Internet control to the ITU. The rest of the 19 Arab States are just following the discussions with not much clear position (more like 'cheerleaders'). (snip)Arab States’ stance > > Meanwhile, Dubai as the Conference Chair and UAE as the host, are > increasingly getting nervous because of the Arab States’ stance, which is > perceived to favour the Russian and Chinese positions. > > Another reason for their nervousness is that a failed conference could > further hurt the UAE’s reputation on the issue of online freedom and free > speech. > This statement - IMHO - is far from reality. Since when did local hosts face the fear of failing and tarnishing their reputation when it comes to online freedom and free speech? Is the writer trying to say that Dubai was selected as the venue of WCIT-12 as means to ensure Arab States are on the same side as the USA, EU, and Japan? And besides, we all know that it is China and Russia who are the heavyweights, and to some extent Saudi Arabia. Poor article... Or maybe poorly circulated information. Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14000 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 kichango at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 16:28:24 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 16:28:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Russia=92s_insistence_on_U=2EN?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=2E_control_over_the_Internet_could_see_collapse_of_glob?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?al_meet?= In-Reply-To: References: <50C3A2AE.8070904@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> [image: Return to frontpage] >> News » National Published: December 9, 2012 00:46 IST | Updated: December 9, 2012 00:46 IST >> Russia’s insistence on U.N. control over the Internet could see collapse >> of global meet Shalini Singh >> >> It’s Russia, China, and Arab states versus E.U., U.S. and Japan; India is >> silent >> > It's been widely disseminated that the "Arab States" are taking the > position of China and Russia. While Arab States are 22 in total, it is only > Saudi Arabia (major player), Tunisia, and Egypt (both to some extent) who > are pushing for moving Internet control to the ITU. The rest of the 19 Arab > States are just following the discussions with not much clear position > (more like 'cheerleaders'). > > (snip) >> Arab States’ stance >> >> Meanwhile, Dubai as the Conference Chair and UAE as the host, are >> increasingly getting nervous because of the Arab States’ stance, which is >> perceived to favour the Russian and Chinese positions. >> >> Another reason for their nervousness is that a failed conference could >> further hurt the UAE’s reputation on the issue of online freedom and free >> speech. >> > This statement - IMHO - is far from reality. Since when did local hosts > face the fear of failing and tarnishing their reputation when it comes to > online freedom and free speech? Is the writer trying to say that Dubai was > selected as the venue of WCIT-12 as means to ensure Arab States are on the > same side as the USA, EU, and Japan? And besides, we all know that it is > China and Russia who are the heavyweights, and to some extent Saudi Arabia. > Hi, > > Poor article... Or maybe poorly circulated information. > +1 mc > > Fahd > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14000 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 mueller at syr.edu Sat Dec 8 17:12:31 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 22:12:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGP proposal for ICANN reform In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228D6FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > 1. You talk to Fadi Chahde and show him the grim future under his > leadership [Milton L Mueller] In general, ambitious CEOs such as Twomey and Chehadi are unlikely to want to make ICANN more accountable. It reduces their own freedom of maneuver. Also, their legal staff will advise them against it. Pressure will have to come from outside. > 2. You talk to the ICANN Board and remind them of how important it is > for them to remain ethical and impartial [Milton L Mueller] I've been doing that. So have many others > 3. You advocate for this with a targeted advocacy campaign and gain buy- > in from supportive govts, civil society (including both Civil and > Corporate Trade Associations) and finally the private sector like > getting the Internet Giants on your side. [Milton L Mueller] good suggestion > 4. You may just create the rhetoric whereas the real world domainers and > market gamers may challenge everything as its an attempt of building and > sustaining a free market economy within the domain name and IP > addressing space. [Milton L Mueller] Actually the smaller players in the domain name industry are reasonably progressive on these kinds of issues. E.g., a day after IGP published its "little atrocities" article unfavorably comparing ICANN's top-down and messy lack of process with ITU, a leader in the domain name industry (former GNSO Chair Stephane van Gelder) posted a guest blog on .nxt saying essentially the same thing. Domainers typically want a more stable, accountable and predictable - and often freer - policy environment. > 5. How do you tackle the industry that gives ICANN the buck it makes? [Milton L Mueller] As noted, the industry is not the main problem. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 22:59:41 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 08:59:41 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGP proposal for ICANN reform In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228D6FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228D6FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: You may have wanted to attempt joining the ATRT2 Review Team as announced by icann and the dates have now ended at this stage because that would have been the immediate space to challenge this: http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability ATRT 2 - ICANN now invites interested individuals to apply for a position of Volunteer Review Team Member, representing a Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee, or for position of Independent Expert on the second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2). Please read the Call for Applicants to find details on the application procedure, mission, timeline, mandate, desired skillset etc. Should you wish to participate in this key process, please email your application to rtcandidatures at icann.org by Wednesday, 5 December – 23:59 UTC. http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability But I don't know how the Testimony system works in the US but I you may want to attempt to build a lobby in the US that can testify in front of some kind of a congressional team that manages the communications and Internet issues in the US. That would be your strongest touch down at this stage if it can be attempted but again, I don't know how the testimony system works, how do you request to appear before or call upon a congressional committee. This may be the first step to make ICANN become attentive. The second way is a law-suit, I don't know if anti-trust applies to this? As you say there were stakeholders that were supporting this then you have something to challenge with. On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:12 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Actually the smaller players in the domain name industry are reasonably progressive on these kinds of issues. E.g., a day after IGP published its "little atrocities" article unfavorably comparing ICANN's top-down and messy lack of process with ITU, a leader in the domain name industry (former GNSO Chair Stephane van Gelder) posted a guest blog on .nxt saying essentially the same thing. Domainers typically want a more stable, accountable and predictable - and often freer - policy environment. -- Regards. -------------------------- FoOOOOO -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 23:14:30 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 23:14:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] it's not a "bogeyman" if it's a real threat! Message-ID: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/leaked-document-confirms-fears http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/authoritarian-regimes-push-for-larger-itu-role-in-dns-system -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 23:31:58 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 09:31:58 +0500 Subject: [governance] it's not a "bogeyman" if it's a real threat! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My question in this whole chaos is that the world was quiet while DPI and Trunk terminating exchange point surveillance was being implemented. When many of the authoritarian regimes had completed such projects, then they started sharing it with each other in scientific and technology research sharing activities. Now after a couple years when they are at WCIT/ITRs there is an outcry. I agree the cry is valid for a piece of the DNS system pie but when you look at Iran and whats it doing with the Internet there then this becomes a secondary thought. I can visualize countries as point-of-presence across the Internetwork map and each pop can have a different network infrastructure if they wanted but what keeps them in the loop is the natural common resource sharing capacity but at the same time they are threatened by the pluralism, a form of innovation that happens at the ends of the network, from reaching their citizenry by the citizenry and disrupting public order etc.... I wonder if someone has seen a Pakistani delegation at the WCIT in Dubai and just share in on what they've been up to as so far we only know here that they didn't bother to go in the first place, why would they, the internet and mobile networks can be switched off anytime as a need to maintain law and order, the ITR's seemingly don't impact them. I sometimes enjoy the fact of the disconnect and distance on Internet Governance issues between the developing south and the developed north. Would anyone bother about the DNS at this point in the developing south where there are mostly authoritarian regimes already blocking, censoring and filtering so much content and URLs while punishing the citizenry in parallel? I also guess the developing south should now start grouping up separately as well during WSIS followups, IGFs, ITU meetings etc because somehow this disconnect and divide on issues is becoming painfully disturbing. -- FoO-Da-Bytes! On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 9:14 AM, McTim wrote: > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/leaked-document-confirms-fears > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/authoritarian-regimes-push-for-larger-itu-role-in-dns-system > > > -- > 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 drc at virtualized.org Sat Dec 8 23:39:27 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2012 18:39:27 -1000 Subject: [governance] IGP proposal for ICANN reform In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228D6FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <68350BD1-0157-4E75-90B3-8B293A5136CD@virtualized.org> On Dec 8, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > You may have wanted to attempt joining the ATRT2 Review Team as > announced by icann and the dates have now ended at this stage because > that would have been the immediate space to challenge this: ... > Should you wish to participate in this key process, please email > your application to rtcandidatures at icann.org by Wednesday, 5 December > – 23:59 UTC. http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability The deadline for membership for ATRT2 has been extended to Jan 14, see http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-03dec12-en.htm I would encourage anyone with interest in improving ICANN's accountability and transparency to apply. (Full disclosure: I'm representing SSAC on the ATRT2 (assuming my application is accepted)) 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 23:47:27 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 09:47:27 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGP proposal for ICANN reform In-Reply-To: <68350BD1-0157-4E75-90B3-8B293A5136CD@virtualized.org> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228D6FA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <68350BD1-0157-4E75-90B3-8B293A5136CD@virtualized.org> Message-ID: Thanks for the update David. I would encourage people from the developing world to definitely apply during this ATRT2 extended period. Best Fouad On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 9:39 AM, David Conrad wrote: > On Dec 8, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: >> You may have wanted to attempt joining the ATRT2 Review Team as >> announced by icann and the dates have now ended at this stage because >> that would have been the immediate space to challenge this: > ... >> Should you wish to participate in this key process, please email >> your application to rtcandidatures at icann.org by Wednesday, 5 December >> – 23:59 UTC. http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability > > The deadline for membership for ATRT2 has been extended to Jan 14, see http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-03dec12-en.htm > > I would encourage anyone with interest in improving ICANN's accountability and transparency to apply. > > (Full disclosure: I'm representing SSAC on the ATRT2 (assuming my application is accepted)) > > Regards, > -drc > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fooooo -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Dec 8 23:59:51 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 09:59:51 +0500 Subject: [governance] Google is sticking to its own vision of freedom of expression - The NEWS Pakistan Message-ID: According to Pakistan's largest English Daily, the News International: Permanent Link to the Story: http://jang.com.pk/thenews/Dec2012-weekly/nos-09-12-2012/dia.htm#1 Only valid for today's e-print: http://e.thenews.com.pk/12-9-2012/nos_page9.asp Virtually blocked With no breakthrough on YouTube registration in Pakistan in sight, the authorities affirm the ban will stay By Shahzada Irfan Ahmed After a prolonged spell of suppressed activity, social media websites in Pakistan suddenly became alive on Dec 3, with endless posts and tweets about the reopening of YouTube in the country. To many, this was nothing unexpected as the development had coincided with the tentative deadline given by Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) Chairman for the removal of the ban. He had told a private TV channel on November 15 that the Youtube ban may be lifted within 15 to 20 days. Article: Virtually blocked - With no breakthrough on YouTube registration in Pakistan in sight, the authorities affirm the ban will stay By Shahzada Irfan Ahmed refresh - TNS The News on Sunday December 09, 2012 Source: http://jang.com.pk/thenews/Dec2012-weekly/nos-09-12-2012/dia.htm#1 After a prolonged spell of suppressed activity, social media websites in Pakistan suddenly became alive on Dec 3, with endless posts and tweets about the reopening of YouTube in the country. To many, this was nothing unexpected as the development had coincided with the tentative deadline given by Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) Chairman for the removal of the ban. He had told a private TV channel on November 15 that the Youtube ban may be lifted within 15 to 20 days. Popular news channels also broke the news, mostly via tickers, but the furore was short-lived. Soon afterwards, the PTA sources denied issuing any such orders and held some service providers responsible for this discrepancy. Like always, they had no clue of when the ban was going to be lifted. The situation to date is that there has not been any development since the imposition of a blanket ban on YouTube in Pakistan which came into effect on September 17. The PTA chairman once expressed the hope the website will be registered in Pakistan, but sources privy to its communication with Google — the owner of YouTube — say the internet giant has not given an encouraging response. Having a local presence in around 40 countries, with some small ones having an internet user base of only 3 million or so, apparently Google is not desirous of entertaining Pakistan’s request which has a base of 22 million internet users. The question haunting many is whether the authorities have succeeded or not in getting the desired results with the help of this ban, and what will be the future course of action if Google does not register itself here. Muhammad Nawaz, an IT geek, technologist and academic, says the government of Pakistan should have signed a contract with Google years ago as this was not the first time the website had been blocked in Pakistan. Had it been registered inside Pakistan, it would have been bound to abide by the local laws issued by the local authorities. The ban, he says, is of no use as people have found ways to circumvent it. “Those who want to access YouTube are doing that with the help of certain softwares, proxy websites and Internet Protocol (IP) blockers”. Nawaz says the objectionable trailer of the blasphemous movie that triggered the ban was blocked in India, Turkey etc. just because they had country versions of YouTube. “In Turkey, anyone who types YouTube.com is diverted to YouTube.com.tr but this is not the case here. There the website has had to comply with the orders of Turkish courts and has often blocked content such as that related to Kemal Ataturk.” On the other hand, a well-discussed Multi-Lateral Assistance Treaty (MLAT) between Google and Pakistan is pending for well above two years, mainly due to the lack of interest shown by the PTA and other related authorities. “What can we expect from the authority which cannot even block the websites like https://www.facebook.com/3Gcorruption targetting its own sitting and outgoing bosses.” Nawaz points out that a large number of people have been deprived of the opportunity to do educational research online, access entertainment-related content, benefit from religious content and health tips. To elaborate his point, he says, there are between 70,000 to 80,000 students enrolled with the Virtual University (VU) who access their lectures via YouTube. “Though there’s a compulsion on cable operators to air VU channels on their networks but hardly anyone does that. So YouTube is the only option left for them.” There is another angle to the story which is apparently haunting the PTA. Fouad Bajwa, an internet rights activist and policy advocate based in Lahore, observes that in Pakistan the internet policy has always been based on public demand and defined by norms of public morality. “The PTA fears that its policy decision to open YouTube may affect public order as has happened in the form of protests leading to loss of property and lives in Pakistan”. Based on his interactions with different stakeholders, Bajwa feels the government has been under pressure to open the website. “But the challenge on the other hand is that the Google is not listening to the government demands to remove or block the objectionable content. I’ve also heard that Badar Khushnood, the Google representative in Pakistan, has also failed to convince the Google to do something acceptable to the Pakistani authorities”. So right now, the PTA is facing a challenge and has to decide whether it should open the website or not and, if yes, on what conditions. It is strongly believed among the internet community that the Google is sticking to its own vision of freedom of expression, something its representative expressed at the Internet Governance Forum in Baku recently. Google representative Badar Khushnood was not willing to comment due to the sensitivity of the issue. It was also learnt he is avoiding media interaction since the day the Interior Minister Rahman Malik publicly warned of action against him if the Google refused to cooperate with Pakistan on terrorism-related issues. Sources say the Google has expressed fears that local registration of YouTube will compromise the interests of the Pakistani public at the hands of the state. They add the PTA has offered to follow all the requirements for local registration, but Google is giving one excuse or the other every time. The internet giant believes the restoration of judiciary in Pakistan, the Arab Spring in the Middle East and the uprising in Iran became successful only because the site was not subservient to local laws. So, the option the PTA is working on is to set up a highly advanced content filtering system which will block the unwanted material and may also detect use of proxy servers, the sources say, adding “when will it be possible is a mystery.” This will be a tough task as an estimated 72 hours of video content is uploaded on Facebook every minute. TNS forwarded a questionnaire to the PTA spokesperson Malahat Rab more than a week ago, but she has still not responded. All we have received is a statement forwarded on behalf of Sajjad Latif Awan, Director Enforcement, PTA Headquarters, Islamabad. It says the PTA has not ordered anybody to open the access of YouTube in Pakistan and there are reports that some service providers and operators have facilitated that. “The PTA has initiated inquiry to check which Service Providers and Operators have opened the access to YouTube and afterwards stern actions will be taken against those responsible,” it adds. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 9 01:32:35 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 12:02:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? 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: <50C43083.6010703@itforchange.net> On Friday 07 December 2012 09:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > 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./* > Milton, An informed honest discussion indeed is possible, and required, on this important matter, just if you could rein in your haughty impatience ('last attempt' 'no point discussing this further' kind of stuff) and not refer to your interlocutors as 'people with no real ideas' and as someone who cannot be expected to know the difference between one branch of economics and other.... Just try it. You will sound much more persuasive in your arguments that way.... parminder > *//* > > *//* > > */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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 9 01:36:00 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2012 12:06:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? 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: <50C43150.9010404@itforchange.net> On Friday 07 December 2012 09:39 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > 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. /* > Right! Lets inspect your arguments below which you cite in defence of what you claim is your consistent view on de/inter-nationalising ICANN. Going through the two arguments you present, one can quickly see that they lead to no proposal for any action or change. They run in a circle around themselves and end where they start from - keeping the essentials of the status quo intact, with ICANN staying as it is - subject to US oversight and jurisdiction. Correct me if I am wrong and if you indeed have a roadmap to take ICANN out of US oversight and jurisdiction (but, pleeaassee, dont tell me to "go, read my book"!) > *//* > > *//* > > */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./* > We all know of organisations that have immunities from the hosting country jurisdiction, dont we! Dont know why you ignore that fact. Asking me and others to make the case for ICANN being subject to other country jurisdiction instead of that of the US, you know well, is entering into an argument that will lead nowhere. And so the ICANN stays where it is! I dont think ICANN should be subject to any one country's jurisdiction - however good it may be, and whether I have a voting right in that jurisdiction space or not.... That would be undemocratic... I have also not the least doubt that if ICANN was indeed located, say in Delhi, subject to Indian jurisdiction, neither you nor other Americans would have accepted it. I repeat, I have no doubt whatsoever you would have been vocally protesting against it. Can you honestly say you would have accepted it! (I have asked you this before.) Here, I am merely asking you to be consistent, and not promote US exceptionalism, and then present defensive arguments that you know are patently facile. As for whether indeed US jurisdiction is the best among all countries for HQ-ing ICANN - it can in fact be shown that it is among the worst... You of course know that the US has one of the worst records of adherence to international law. In addition, there are other issues that can make the jurisdiction of many other countries much better for ICANN - like better public domain / IP regimes, software not being granted patents (which can check outrages like Verisign patenting essential DNS related technologies) .... one can give so many examples. But would any number of them really convince you or other Americans to take ICANN to the jurisdiction of another country. You know it wont; then why are you posing a false argument. (BTW, almost all non USians by instinct seem to agree that Geneva would be better jurisdiction than any place in US for ICANN. But does the strength of and support for such an argument make any difference!) > *//* > > */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:/* > This one is rather more serious argument to take forward... > *//* > > */a./**/International orgs can be _less_ accountable than a private > organization./* > Accountable to whom?? This is the key question. To US, US citizens, US courts??..... No, we want accountability to the people of the world. > */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./* > Well, if an international treaty is such an impractical idea, why have you been advocating it - right from when we worked together on the 'framework convention for the Internet' idea to your cited 2009 paper which again calls for an international treaty. What happened between 2009 and now that has made you so completely reverse your position. It is you who owe others an explanation rather than pooh poohing those who just have been consistent about the treaty proposal.... > */Give me one real-world example of when that has worked, and you > might get some traction in this debate./* > You give me one example of where actual multistakeholderism has worked in substantial global policy area (no, ICANN does not do substantial policy of the kind I am speaking of here). However, this does not stop us anyone asking what they think is right. You yourselves have written often that Internet indeed presents an entirely new context - so, why base your defensive argument on asking me for instances 'where it has working before'. Whereas, the fact is also that international treaties have really worked in countless areas - they have regulated global trade, IP regimes, maritime system, nuclear disarmament..... many more. BTW, would you tell me an instance of where trans-nationalism - which is what you advocate now, of which many elements I support - has worked before? Does it stop you from advocating it. One of the weakest and worst possible argument in defence of the status quo in a new space like IG - oft used on this list - is 'show me where it has worked before'. And whatever you try to show can be demolished with facts about the new context being quite different - which of course it is.. and so it goes on. > *//* > > */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. /* > The states always had the same proclivities. Do did you suddenly discover this fact post 2009, when you last asked for an international treaty? If anything, there are more democratic states in the world today than in 2009 - Tunisia, Egypt... > */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./* > OK I will. Meanwhile, if you tell me how you thought till 2009 that a treaty could be achieved bypassing these problems, maybe I can use some of the same arguments :) More seriously, this is the same issue as I discussed before. I have to somehow before-hand prove something that I have no devices to do. Any kind of governance system comes with some possibilities of negative impact. We just can try to do our best, and not agree to the wrong kind of things. And the struggle will be perpetual. But using this argument to stop any movement forward is just self serving for status quoists, as it always has been. I will give you two illustrations. In 1940s, during India's independence struggle, the British could well pose the question - what is the guarantee that a democratic India, with more than 80 percent hindus, and such communal divisiveness, would not immediately sink into extreme communialism,and change its laws to traditional hindu practices etc etc..... There of course was real danger of all this.... But one could only respond by insisting that we will keep struggling for progressive constitutional principles and their actual implementation and so on.... A similar issue faced India when in the 1980's India went for what is perhaps the world's most comprehensive village self governance system... There were fears of chaos, further increase in corruption.... and partly these things did happen.... we keep struggling to correct these distortions, but no one thinks we should not have gone for the decentralisation exercise. I hope you have got your answer... The only way is to keep the struggle up and try and ensure that any global treaty doesnt get problematic things into it. BTW, wasnt it you Milton who has been saying for so long now that nothing threatening is going to happen at WCIT, because inter alia, many progressive countries wont agree to bad proposals. Same for the treaty that could internationalise ICANN, which will in fact protect and legitimise its basic model of technical coordination and technical policy making system. > *//* > > */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./* > Very well. IT for Change supported IGP's comments at that time (except for the part which sought a US initiated treaty, but about that later). Indeed that submission proved that you were not 'apologists for the status quo'. But the problem is that you have since retracted from that position (havent you) and that makes this label stick I suppose :) > */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. /* > Perfect instance of wanting to have the cake and eat it too! You want to be judged non US apologists for making a treaty proposal, but you also want the treaty proposal not to go ahead.... Global politics is complex. Things move forward because people know they have to give something to get something. If real internationalisation of ICANN was offered we can get so much from all the countries on the table.... In fact, North's and civil society's positions at ITU would also have looked much more justified if on the parallel a real way forward on internationalising ICANN was being offered. Sorry, Milton, you seem just to have decided some things privately, between 2009 and now, and now getting impatient with people who ask for justification. It is you who much give the justification for such a radical change of position. > */Note the fate of Brazil’s IG principles which despite widespread > civil society support cannot make it through the govt./* > The below is from the article that was quoted in the initial postings on IGC list on what was happening to Marco Civil in Brazil " Brazil’s main telecommunication companieslobbied hard against it, arguing it was contrary to the principles of the free market " So free market argument (to prevent net neutrality) was the main one used against Marco Civil. So, Milton, you have perhaps picked a wrong example to make your case :) . Indeed there will be discussions around what principles are the ones that would frame the relevant treaty, and we need to allow that process and discussion to take place, not anticipate it and kill it as you are proposing. > */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./* > How would any such support be built and demonstrated? Things happen when we face the moment of truth - and treaty drafting will be one such.... We all know US would not easily agree to net neutrality (they blocked it from OECD Internet policy principles) . Similarly, China and due process in content regulation.... but these issues need to put on the table first. Anyway, and this is important, I think a treaty for internationalisation of ICANN should stick to the bare minimums and need not necessarily go in depth into all such contentious issues. In fact, such a basic framework for internationalising ICANN could be a low hanging fruit (I know some people will jump at this suggestion) which is something I think civil society should initiate. This is because the moral justification of internationalising ICANN is rather apparent and inherently incontestable. Why dont we start a civil society process to develop a politico-legal framework for internationalsing ICANN? > *//* > > */Happy to engage in any reasonable discussion of these points. /* > Hope you do. look forward. > > */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. > /* > Just being yourself Milton. I am providing real ideas, and have real positions. They just dont seem to suit you. parminder > *//* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 05:32:37 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 12:32:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] it's not a "bogeyman" if it's a real threat! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7373858B-A443-47DE-BCA4-A833973F7259@gmail.com> I could not agree more. There are universal values that we can stand by. But the views on this list show the fissures in the polity... Why should anyone expect anything real from the state players when the context is such that power allowed single rooters to dupe the multi rooters and the solution from the terrains that this was raised in is now an msg non-binding forum, or that it is politically correct to lambast developing countries while bush gave retrospective immunity to tele coms operators for breaking the law, in allowing privacy violations... It is this hypocrisy that forestalls in part some universalising process... And perhaps the south could work to deepen some of the issues on terms it defines itself... The cowboys are in charge moving into the Wild West, best not to take a knife to a pistol fight.. Perhaps a meeting of like minded people parallel to an event may be in order... To define some of the contours, as there are limits to discourse... ...,... On 09 Dec 2012, at 6:31 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > My question in this whole chaos is that the world was quiet while DPI > and Trunk terminating exchange point surveillance was being > implemented. When many of the authoritarian regimes had completed such > projects, then they started sharing it with each other in scientific > and technology research sharing activities. Now after a couple years > when they are at WCIT/ITRs there is an outcry. > > I agree the cry is valid for a piece of the DNS system pie but when > you look at Iran and whats it doing with the Internet there then this > becomes a secondary thought. > > I can visualize countries as point-of-presence across the Internetwork > map and each pop can have a different network infrastructure if they > wanted but what keeps them in the loop is the natural common resource > sharing capacity but at the same time they are threatened by the > pluralism, a form of innovation that happens at the ends of the > network, from reaching their citizenry by the citizenry and disrupting > public order etc.... > > I wonder if someone has seen a Pakistani delegation at the WCIT in > Dubai and just share in on what they've been up to as so far we only > know here that they didn't bother to go in the first place, why would > they, the internet and mobile networks can be switched off anytime as > a need to maintain law and order, the ITR's seemingly don't impact > them. > > I sometimes enjoy the fact of the disconnect and distance on Internet > Governance issues between the developing south and the developed > north. Would anyone bother about the DNS at this point in the > developing south where there are mostly authoritarian regimes already > blocking, censoring and filtering so much content and URLs while > punishing the citizenry in parallel? I also guess the developing south > should now start grouping up separately as well during WSIS followups, > IGFs, ITU meetings etc because somehow this disconnect and divide on > issues is becoming painfully disturbing. > > -- FoO-Da-Bytes! > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 9:14 AM, McTim wrote: >> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/leaked-document-confirms-fears >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/authoritarian-regimes-push-for-larger-itu-role-in-dns-system >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 vanda at uol.com.br Sun Dec 9 07:02:27 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 10:02:27 -0200 Subject: [governance] Sovereignty and the Geography of Cyberspace In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bertrand Great point. But with the growing state control in Latin America, for instance, the comprehension of responsibility as base of sovereignty looks very far from a possible reality. It shall become the main issue to be debated in all forums nations will seat next year. Glad to hear how we will promote it around the world. Best, Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad On 07/12/2012, at 13:51, 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) > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 09:58:23 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 16:58:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fairwinds Study: 74% Of Internet Users Are Entirely Unaware of New gTLD Program: 44% Says It Will Cause Confusion Message-ID: Fairwinds Partners just published a white paper on the new gTLD’s entitled “2013: The Year of the Address Bar” including results from a survey of 2,008 Internet users between the ages of 13 and 64 about their awareness of and attitudes toward new gTLDs. http://www.thedomains.com/2012/12/06/fairwinds-study-74-of-internet-users-are-entirely-unaware-of-new-gtld-program-44-says-it-will-cause-confusion/?goback=.gde_1840166_member_193397318 Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 10:32:30 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 17:32:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?As_the_GAC=92s_World_Turns?= Message-ID: certain new gTLD applicants received another notice, not from the GAC, but from Linda Corugedo Steneberg, Director at the European Commission’s Communications Networks, Content and Technology Directorate. This letter named 28 applied-for gTLD strings (some with multiple applications) that may “raise issues of compatibility with the existing legislation and/or with policy positions and objectives of the European Union.” Some of these strings had also received Early Warnings, but there were also some new faces that popped up on the list. The letter pointed out that an application’s inclusion on the list should in no way be considered a form or representation of GAC Early Warnings, but rather a signal to applicants that they should engage in further discussions with the European Commission. http://www.gtldstrategy.com/policy-updates/as-the-gac%E2%80%99s-world-turns?goback=.gde_1840166_member_192150026 http://www.fairwindspartners.com/PageFiles/31/EC%20Letter.pdf Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jovank at diplomacy.edu Sun Dec 9 12:07:29 2012 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 18:07:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Dear Nick, I agree that metaphors could help us to move beyond fixed 'cognitive molds'. Here are a few comments on the open sea analogy ….. Although open sea is not owned by anyone, there are very elaborate rules regulating open sea codified in the UNCLOS (UN Convention on the Law of the Sea). If the Internet's open data flow is regulated like the open sea, there will be a need for UNCLOI (UN Convention on the Law of the Internet) or something similar (an Internet framework convention?). Apart from inevitable controversies about formalities (e.g. adoption of the convention), the main challenge is the analogy itself: an analogy to *what*on the open sea? The closest is the analogy to *containers* that - like data packages - travel between two points using the optimal technical and economical route – a mix of ships, trains, train-tracks with ports serving as routers in this metaphor. In this analogy, one has to be aware of high securitisation of the container traffic after 9/11 (e.g. risk of smuggling nuclear and chemical weapons in containers). Here, we have also an analogy with DPI on the Internet. If we stretch our imagination further, we may use an analogy with *fish*. As Kusturica artistically said in his movie *Arizona Dream*: 'The fish doesn't understand anything ......he's just floating through it.' Sounds like Internet packages! Fish do not care about borders, although they tend to make quite predictable moves. With sharks and minnows, though, 'net neutrality' wouldn't be observed. If we dive deep enough, we reach *the seabed*, and another possible analogy with the Internet. Here we encounter the concept of the common heritage of mankind regulating the exploitation of the seabed for the benefit of mankind as a whole. The common heritage status of the seabed was one of the most controversial parts of the Law of the Sea negotiations, negotiations which took more than 10 years to conclude. Common heritage introduced redistribution of the wealth of the seabed to the whole of mankind. Countries with seabed mining technology opposed the common heritage concept. It was one of the reasons why the United States has not ratified the UNCLOS to this day. As you said, Nick, it is very likely that it will be ratified soon by Congress due to developments in the Arctic. Russia, Norway, and Denmark (via Greenland) have the strongest claim to the Lomonosov Ridge (the richest part of the Arctic). Paradoxically, as it often happens in politics, the UNCLOS seabed regulation can provide the USA and non-Artic countries with access to the wealth under the Arctic (if interested, click here for more on Arctic seabed politics). The seabed regime is very well developed with regulations and an administrative body (the International Seabed Authority based in Jamaica). The analogy of the seabed/Internet could extend the concept of common heritage to open data and Internet content and could trigger a lot of controversy, just as UNCLOS did 30 years ago. While we are at it, we should also mention the concept of *archipelago seas*which are an interesting middle way between open sea and territorial sea. It would be a most appropriate topic for discussion at the IGF-Bali. It was a long swim for Sunday …. Regards, Jovan On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an > interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. > > It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in > maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, > the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open > sea and by definition not owned by anyone. > > If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that > might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, > after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood > principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. > > We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when > transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, > was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the > state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. > > (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku > I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). > > FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has > yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very > much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative > branch). > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Geneva Representative > Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) > Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 > > *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: > http://meetme.so/nashton* > > Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic > mangling. > > On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sun Dec 9 12:11:53 2012 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 18:11:53 +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, as always, it is great to engage in creative discussion with you. The diversity of experiences on this list (professional, cultural, personal) may produce something useful. I share your concern about a very simplified analogy between the Internet and LOS (Law of the Sea). The question of the 'fixedness' of the sea is more complex. While the sea (even with all of its natural changes) remains more or less the same, our way of using the sea changes. In my previous message to Nick, I mentioned the example of the Arctic. Last week, the first liquid gas tanker passed through the Arctic. The opening of the Arctic northern navigation route will have numerous economic and geo-political consequences. Only a few decades ago, the Arctic was an endless icy space of interest only to scientists. Another example is the importance of the oceans as an absorber of C02 in mitigating climate changes (absorbs more than 30% of C02). The ocean is also central for geo-engineering projects. We will discover different 'oceans' while the ocean remains the same. As a mental exercise, we might think of the analogy between the TCP/IP and the ocean. Like the ocean TCP/IP has not changes substantially, but its use has gone beyond even the wildest possible imagination of its inventors. To paraphrase Heraclitus, we cannot step into the same water twice, not because of the water, but because of us. We change. This type of 'useless' exchanges may create useful insights. Thanks for triggering it. As ever, Jovan 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 13:50:29 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:50:29 +1300 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? Message-ID: Dear IGC, If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. Kind Regards, Sala ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marianne Franklin Date: Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 4:10 AM Subject: [IRPCoalition] WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? To: irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Dear all Some of you on the ground in Dubai at the WCIT, and others following closely via other lists and such like will be aware of the following open letter to the ITU https://docs.google.com/**document/pub?id=**1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2Aign** eGrgJ93YTbqLSM As the IRP Coalition is a signatory to the statement issued from the Best Bits meeting at Baku, this letter is also relevant. It outlines clearly where the issues lie in terms of calling the ITU to account in terms of participation and access for all parties at these proceedings. If you think the coalition should add their voice to this call, please let us know. Petitions and Open Letters like these are, needless to say, the tip of a much larger iceberg of things to be done but this one is coherent and pertinent for the coalition to consider. thanks MF -- Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Goldsmiths, University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-**communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-**global-media-transnational-**communications/ ______________________________**_________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.**internetrightsandprinciples.**org http://lists.**internetrightsandprinciples.**org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/** irp -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 16:30:48 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 13:30:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 Message-ID: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> FWIW http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet-some-r eflections-on-wcit-2012/ MG -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sun Dec 9 18:35:28 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:35:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about the provisions proposed by CS. This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. Louis - - - On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear IGC, > > If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to the > ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. > > See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 18:39:56 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:39:56 +1300 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Excellent point Louis. Any other comments. On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Hi, > > This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman > Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about > the provisions proposed by CS. > > This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and > Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU > members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim > to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. > > Louis > - - - > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear IGC, >> >> If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to the >> ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. >> >> See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> > -- 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 apisan at unam.mx Sun Dec 9 18:55:09 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 23:55:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB97080@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Sala, yes, another comment: no, it is not an excellent point. It feeds the idea that the ITU, ITU-T, and ITU-D are hands-off in these processes. They are not. 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 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Enviado el: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 17:39 Hasta: Louis Pouzin (well) CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? Excellent point Louis. Any other comments. On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > wrote: Hi, This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about the provisions proposed by CS. This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. Louis - - - On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: Dear IGC, If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. Kind Regards, Sala -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 18:56:56 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:56:56 +1300 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB97080@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB97080@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Thanks Alejandro. I will reserve a response later - for now it would be great to gather feedback. Kind Regards, Sala On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan at unam.mx> wrote: > Sala, > > yes, another comment: no, it is not an excellent point. It feeds the > idea that the ITU, ITU-T, and ITU-D are hands-off in these processes. They > are not. > > 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 Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > *Enviado el:* domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 17:39 > *Hasta:* Louis Pouzin (well) > *CC:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Asunto:* Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP > Coalition as signatory? > > Excellent point Louis. > > Any other comments. > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman >> Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about >> the provisions proposed by CS. >> >> This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and >> Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU >> members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim >> to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. >> >> Louis >> - - - >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear IGC, >>> >>> If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to >>> the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. >>> >>> See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >> > > > -- > 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 apisan at unam.mx Sun Dec 9 19:02:12 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:02:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB970BD@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Mike, as the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli is often quoted to have said, "it isn't even wrong." Your article mostly creates a hybrid of red herring, strawman and bogeyman and misses the group, often identified in this list, which does not say "hands off the Internet", is not acting by reflex, is not being driven by the corporate interests you profer to dislike, and therefore makes nuanced, rational analysis and action difficult. There are serious concerns about what is going on in the ITU's WCIT, serious people trying to address them in a serious way. That they some may find their allies uncomfortable does not fit in your text. Your text becomes little more than a distraction. >From such a flawed premise, little of use can be concluded. As I said, it isn't even wrong. 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: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 15:30 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 FWIW http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet-some-r eflections-on-wcit-2012/ MG -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Dec 9 19:46:01 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:46:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB97080@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Dr Toure's said he would relay CS comments to member states, and the Chair is the Chair, there's no problem. Endorse and send. Adam On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Thanks Alejandro. > > I will reserve a response later - for now it would be great to gather > feedback. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > wrote: >> >> Sala, >> >> yes, another comment: no, it is not an excellent point. It feeds the idea >> that the ITU, ITU-T, and ITU-D are hands-off in these processes. They are >> not. >> >> 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 Salanieta T. >> Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] >> Enviado el: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 17:39 >> Hasta: Louis Pouzin (well) >> CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Asunto: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP >> Coalition as signatory? >> >> Excellent point Louis. >> >> Any other comments. >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman >>> Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about >>> the provisions proposed by CS. >>> >>> This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and >>> Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU >>> members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim >>> to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. >>> >>> Louis >>> - - - >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear IGC, >>>> >>>> If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to >>>> the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. >>>> >>>> See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sun Dec 9 20:39:59 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 01:39:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB97080@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17145F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> +1 Lee ________________________________________ From: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] on behalf of Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 7:46 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? Dr Toure's said he would relay CS comments to member states, and the Chair is the Chair, there's no problem. Endorse and send. Adam On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Thanks Alejandro. > > I will reserve a response later - for now it would be great to gather > feedback. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > wrote: >> >> Sala, >> >> yes, another comment: no, it is not an excellent point. It feeds the idea >> that the ITU, ITU-T, and ITU-D are hands-off in these processes. They are >> not. >> >> 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 Salanieta T. >> Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] >> Enviado el: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 17:39 >> Hasta: Louis Pouzin (well) >> CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Asunto: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP >> Coalition as signatory? >> >> Excellent point Louis. >> >> Any other comments. >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman >>> Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about >>> the provisions proposed by CS. >>> >>> This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and >>> Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU >>> members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim >>> to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. >>> >>> Louis >>> - - - >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear IGC, >>>> >>>> If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to >>>> the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. >>>> >>>> See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 21:03:02 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:03:02 -0200 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17145F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB97080@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17145F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: +1 Marília On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > +1 > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] on behalf of Adam Peake [ > ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 7:46 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP > Coalition as signatory? > > Dr Toure's said he would relay CS comments to member states, and the > Chair is the Chair, there's no problem. Endorse and send. > > Adam > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Thanks Alejandro. > > > > I will reserve a response later - for now it would be great to gather > > feedback. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Sala > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > > wrote: > >> > >> Sala, > >> > >> yes, another comment: no, it is not an excellent point. It feeds the > idea > >> that the ITU, ITU-T, and ITU-D are hands-off in these processes. They > are > >> not. > >> > >> 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 Salanieta T. > >> Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > >> Enviado el: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 17:39 > >> Hasta: Louis Pouzin (well) > >> CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Asunto: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP > >> Coalition as signatory? > >> > >> Excellent point Louis. > >> > >> Any other comments. > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman > >>> Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide > about > >>> the provisions proposed by CS. > >>> > >>> This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and > >>> Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 > ITU > >>> members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and > Al-Ghanim > >>> to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. > >>> > >>> Louis > >>> - - - > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear IGC, > >>>> > >>>> If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to > >>>> the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. > >>>> > >>>> See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. > >>>> > >>>> Kind Regards, > >>>> Sala > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.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 > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 9 21:04:04 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 21:04:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17145F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB97080@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17145F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > +1 ok by me! -- 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 Sun Dec 9 21:27:40 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:57:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB97080@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17145F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <78D2576C-7ED0-40A9-BD48-8B4721696F4F@hserus.net> One addition is - send this through civil society in key countries, especially those that are on the "borderline", directly to the governments concerned. Please use this only when the CS organization making such a submission has access to the minister or other officials on the country's delegation to Dubai. --srs (iPad) On 10-Dec-2012, at 7:34, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> +1 > > ok by me! > > > -- > 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Dec 9 21:48:25 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 03:48:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Dubai References: <50B1009C.7090009@uninet.bg> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD658@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD73C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi for people who read German: Here is my half-time report from Dubai wolfgang http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/38/38163/1.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 nhklein at gmx.net Sun Dec 9 21:57:59 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:57:59 +0700 Subject: [governance] Dubai In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD73C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <50B1009C.7090009@uninet.bg> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD658@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD73C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <50C54FB7.7070501@gmx.net> On 12/10/2012 9:48 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi > > for people who read German: Here is my half-time report from Dubai > > wolfgang > > http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/38/38163/1.html Danke schön! Though I read also English :-) Norbert Klein -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Dec 9 22:06:51 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:06:51 +0400 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi While Louis is of course right that it's member states who vote, Toure is expected to put forward a "compromise text" that may become the focal point of discussion, and Al-Ghanim runs the discussion and plays the usual role of cajoling members to alter or withdraw proposals in the spirit of compromise so the process may move forward etc. Moreover, both may bring it to the attention of the delegations. So I don't think the letter is misdirected at all. Best, Bill On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:35 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > Hi, > > This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about the provisions proposed by CS. > > This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. > > Louis > - - - > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear IGC, > > If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. > > See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 vharris at ntia.doc.gov Sun Dec 9 22:58:18 2012 From: vharris at ntia.doc.gov (Vernita D. Harris) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 22:58:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? Message-ID: <16B9F4D5FBF14F41A9710E755BEDAB2513D1E56F59@NTIAMBX01.ntiadc.ntia.doc.gov> _____________________________________ Vernita D. Harris Deputy Associate Administrator | Contracting Officer Representative Office of International Affairs | NTIA | U.S. Department of Commerce 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 | (202) 482-4686| vharris at ntia.doc.gov This message was sent from NTIA Blackberry ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org To: Louis Pouzin (well) Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Sun Dec 09 18:39:56 2012 Subject: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? Excellent point Louis. Any other comments. On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > wrote: Hi, This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about the provisions proposed by CS. This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. Louis - - - On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: Dear IGC, If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. Kind Regards, Sala -- 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 aizu at anr.org Sun Dec 9 23:14:02 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:14:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Dubai In-Reply-To: <50C54FB7.7070501@gmx.net> References: <50B1009C.7090009@uninet.bg> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD658@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD73C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <50C54FB7.7070501@gmx.net> Message-ID: Thanks Wolfgang, I could figure out using Google translation into English. Please keep the good reporting on! izumi 2012/12/10 Norbert Klein : > On 12/10/2012 9:48 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > Hi > > for people who read German: Here is my half-time report from Dubai > > wolfgang > > http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/38/38163/1.html > > Danke schön! > > Though I read also English :-) > > > Norbert Klein > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 9 23:17:14 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:47:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB97080@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17145F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50C5624A.3060102@itforchange.net> yes parminder On Monday 10 December 2012 07:33 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > +1 > Marília > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Lee W McKnight > wrote: > > +1 > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com > ] on behalf of Adam Peake > [ajp at glocom.ac.jp ] > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 7:46 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: > IRP Coalition as signatory? > > Dr Toure's said he would relay CS comments to member states, and the > Chair is the Chair, there's no problem. Endorse and send. > > Adam > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > Thanks Alejandro. > > > > I will reserve a response later - for now it would be great to > gather > > feedback. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Sala > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > > > wrote: > >> > >> Sala, > >> > >> yes, another comment: no, it is not an excellent point. It > feeds the idea > >> that the ITU, ITU-T, and ITU-D are hands-off in these > processes. They are > >> not. > >> > >> 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 > Salanieta T. > >> Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > ] > >> Enviado el: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 17:39 > >> Hasta: Louis Pouzin (well) > >> CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > >> Asunto: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to > ITU: IRP > >> Coalition as signatory? > >> > >> Excellent point Louis. > >> > >> Any other comments. > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > > > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 > Chairman > >>> Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to > decide about > >>> the provisions proposed by CS. > >>> > >>> This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. > Touré and > >>> Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power > belongs to 193 ITU > >>> members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré > and Al-Ghanim > >>> to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. > >>> > >>> Louis > >>> - - - > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear IGC, > >>>> > >>>> If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open > letter to > >>>> the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. > >>>> > >>>> See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. > >>>> > >>>> Kind Regards, > >>>> Sala > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.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 > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From iza at anr.org Sun Dec 9 23:20:44 2012 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:20:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: <50C5624A.3060102@itforchange.net> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB97080@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17145F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50C5624A.3060102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I also support this. The addressee is, to me, not a substantive issue, it is directed to the all WCIT members and these two names are just channels. izumi 2012/12/10 parminder : > > yes > > parminder > On Monday 10 December 2012 07:33 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > +1 > Marília > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] on behalf of Adam Peake >> [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 7:46 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP >> Coalition as signatory? >> >> Dr Toure's said he would relay CS comments to member states, and the >> Chair is the Chair, there's no problem. Endorse and send. >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> > Thanks Alejandro. >> > >> > I will reserve a response later - for now it would be great to gather >> > feedback. >> > >> > Kind Regards, >> > >> > Sala >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Sala, >> >> >> >> yes, another comment: no, it is not an excellent point. It feeds the >> >> idea >> >> that the ITU, ITU-T, and ITU-D are hands-off in these processes. They >> >> are >> >> not. >> >> >> >> 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 Salanieta T. >> >> Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] >> >> Enviado el: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 17:39 >> >> Hasta: Louis Pouzin (well) >> >> CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> Asunto: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP >> >> Coalition as signatory? >> >> >> >> Excellent point Louis. >> >> >> >> Any other comments. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 >> >>> Chairman >> >>> Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide >> >>> about >> >>> the provisions proposed by CS. >> >>> >> >>> This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and >> >>> Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 >> >>> ITU >> >>> members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and >> >>> Al-Ghanim >> >>> to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. >> >>> >> >>> Louis >> >>> - - - >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Dear IGC, >> >>>> >> >>>> If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to >> >>>> the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. >> >>>> >> >>>> See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. >> >>>> >> >>>> Kind Regards, >> >>>> Sala >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.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 >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan www.anr.org -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ceo at bnnrc.net Sun Dec 9 23:45:29 2012 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:45:29 +0600 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: <50C5624A.3060102@itforchange.net> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB97080@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17145F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50C5624A.3060102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Yes! Pls add our organisation Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) With solidarity, Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Media Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Bangladesh Phone: +88-02-9130750, +88-02-9138501, Cell: +88 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105, E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnr cbd at gmail.com www.bnnrc.net On 10 December 2012 10:17, parminder wrote: > > yes > > parminder > On Monday 10 December 2012 07:33 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > +1 > Marília > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> +1 >> >> Lee >> ________________________________________ >> From: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] on behalf of Adam Peake [ >> ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 7:46 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP >> Coalition as signatory? >> >> Dr Toure's said he would relay CS comments to member states, and the >> Chair is the Chair, there's no problem. Endorse and send. >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> > Thanks Alejandro. >> > >> > I will reserve a response later - for now it would be great to gather >> > feedback. >> > >> > Kind Regards, >> > >> > Sala >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Sala, >> >> >> >> yes, another comment: no, it is not an excellent point. It feeds the >> idea >> >> that the ITU, ITU-T, and ITU-D are hands-off in these processes. They >> are >> >> not. >> >> >> >> 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 Salanieta T. >> >> Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] >> >> Enviado el: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 17:39 >> >> Hasta: Louis Pouzin (well) >> >> CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> Asunto: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP >> >> Coalition as signatory? >> >> >> >> Excellent point Louis. >> >> >> >> Any other comments. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > > >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 >> Chairman >> >>> Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide >> about >> >>> the provisions proposed by CS. >> >>> >> >>> This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and >> >>> Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to >> 193 ITU >> >>> members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and >> Al-Ghanim >> >>> to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. >> >>> >> >>> Louis >> >>> - - - >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Dear IGC, >> >>>> >> >>>> If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to >> >>>> the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. >> >>>> >> >>>> See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. >> >>>> >> >>>> Kind Regards, >> >>>> Sala >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> P.O. Box 17862 >> >> Suva >> >> Fiji >> >> >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> Tel: +679 3544828 <%2B679%203544828> >> >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 <%2B679%20998%202851> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> > P.O. Box 17862 >> > Suva >> > Fiji >> > >> > Twitter: @SalanietaT >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > Tel: +679 3544828 <%2B679%203544828> >> > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 <%2B679%20998%202851> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.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 >> >> > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Dec 10 00:09:54 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:09:54 +0400 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: <50C5624A.3060102@itforchange.net> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB97080@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17145F@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50C5624A.3060102@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <975FD47F-F43B-4251-95BA-927023D77C9C@uzh.ch> yes ***************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake www.williamdrake.org ***************************************************** On Dec 10, 2012, at 8:17, parminder wrote: > > yes > > parminder > On Monday 10 December 2012 07:33 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> +1 >> Marília >> >> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 11:39 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> +1 >>> >>> Lee >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] on behalf of Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >>> Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 7:46 PM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? >>> >>> Dr Toure's said he would relay CS comments to member states, and the >>> Chair is the Chair, there's no problem. Endorse and send. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>> > Thanks Alejandro. >>> > >>> > I will reserve a response later - for now it would be great to gather >>> > feedback. >>> > >>> > Kind Regards, >>> > >>> > Sala >>> > >>> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Sala, >>> >> >>> >> yes, another comment: no, it is not an excellent point. It feeds the idea >>> >> that the ITU, ITU-T, and ITU-D are hands-off in these processes. They are >>> >> not. >>> >> >>> >> 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 Salanieta T. >>> >> Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] >>> >> Enviado el: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 17:39 >>> >> Hasta: Louis Pouzin (well) >>> >> CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >> Asunto: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP >>> >> Coalition as signatory? >>> >> >>> >> Excellent point Louis. >>> >> >>> >> Any other comments. >>> >> >>> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman >>> >>> Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about >>> >>> the provisions proposed by CS. >>> >>> >>> >>> This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and >>> >>> Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU >>> >>> members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim >>> >>> to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. >>> >>> >>> >>> Louis >>> >>> - - - >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Dear IGC, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to >>> >>>> the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>> >>>> Sala >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> 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 >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> > To be removed from the list, visit: >>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> > >>> > For all other list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> > http://www.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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade >> FGV Direito Rio >> >> Center for Technology and Society >> Getulio Vargas Foundation >> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Mon Dec 10 00:09:47 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 05:09:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB97A75@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Bill, further, as mentioned earlier, they are not hands-off - assuming that is at best disingenuous. And, there seem to be traces of their offices' computers in the UAE et al. proposal falsely labelled as "compromise." National delegations and sector members must also be called to associate themselves with the statement and, whether they do or not, act according to the parts of it they believe in. 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 William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] Enviado el: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 21:06 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Louis Pouzin (well) CC: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Asunto: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? Hi While Louis is of course right that it's member states who vote, Toure is expected to put forward a "compromise text" that may become the focal point of discussion, and Al-Ghanim runs the discussion and plays the usual role of cajoling members to alter or withdraw proposals in the spirit of compromise so the process may move forward etc. Moreover, both may bring it to the attention of the delegations. So I don't think the letter is misdirected at all. Best, Bill On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:35 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: Hi, This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about the provisions proposed by CS. This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. Louis - - - On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: Dear IGC, If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. Kind Regards, Sala ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 01:17:52 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:17:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you Michael, an good piece of writing overall. You say "*... or 13th century Saudi Arabia dictating what goes over the Internet or as the term goes, “governing the Internet”*". Many do not understand the nature of culturally-driven and religiously-driven nations. Saudi Arabia, the Arab states, and many Asian countries are of this nature. It is best to understand such driving forces before making such claims. And besides, Isn't this the same country that the USA has tight bonds with? Let us not forget Aramco (a USA-KSA giant based in the eastern province of KSA) and the daily chats the Saudi ambassador (Prince Bandar at that time) and President George Bush Jr used to have over breakfast.... Unless of course the USA likes to deal with "13th century countries". Fahd On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > FWIW > > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet-some-r > eflections-on-wcit-2012/ > > MG > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 01:25:04 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:25:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Verisign Loses Dot-Com Piggybank Message-ID: 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. http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/06/verisign-loses-dot-com-piggyba?utm_source=.Nxt&utm_campaign=e0405ba712-edition_6Dec12&utm_medium=email Fahd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 10 01:30:59 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:00:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <06B290E1-954A-4967-B9B5-DB0790D3DC1E@hserus.net> In diplomacy, a country should be prepared to deal with the chief of a stone age tribe if need be, let alone a monarchy of comparatively recent creation (the kingdom of saudi arabia dates back to 1932 - or maybe 1902 when the Saud dynasty captured Riyadh). Certainly a much younger monarchy than that of the UK or Thailand, let alone Japan whose emperors are reputedly in an unbroken line that connects back to divinity. Though I suspect Gurstein's point was more about currently prevailng social attitudes in the KSA - which are, as fahd says, still moot. --srs (iPad) On 10-Dec-2012, at 11:47, "Fahd A. Batayneh" wrote: > Thank you Michael, an good piece of writing overall. > > You say "... or 13th century Saudi Arabia dictating what goes over the Internet or as the term goes, “governing the Internet”". Many do not understand the nature of culturally-driven and religiously-driven nations. Saudi Arabia, the Arab states, and many Asian countries are of this nature. It is best to understand such driving forces before making such claims. > > And besides, Isn't this the same country that the USA has tight bonds with? Let us not forget Aramco (a USA-KSA giant based in the eastern province of KSA) and the daily chats the Saudi ambassador (Prince Bandar at that time) and President George Bush Jr used to have over breakfast.... Unless of course the USA likes to deal with "13th century countries". > > Fahd > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> FWIW >> >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet-some-r >> eflections-on-wcit-2012/ >> >> MG >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Mon Dec 10 02:28:04 2012 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 23:28:04 -0800 Subject: [governance] Verisign Loses Dot-Com Piggybank In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you Fahd, It seems the US government is protecting consumes from over commercialization of domains. Verisign gets over 700% profit per domain. This also raises the age old question! Who controls the internet? Can Germany of Kenya or India stop the price increase of gTLDs? On 09/12/2012, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: > 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. > > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/06/verisign-loses-dot-com-piggyba?utm_source=.Nxt&utm_campaign=e0405ba712-edition_6Dec12&utm_medium=email > > Fahd > -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva For Business Development Transworld Computer Channels Cel: 0722402248 twitter.com/lordmwesh transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 10 02:58:31 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2012 23:58:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <035001cdd6ac$3a325af0$ae9710d0$@gmail.com> Tks Fahd. and sorry for that bit of poetic licence :) M From: Fahd A. Batayneh [mailto:fahd.batayneh at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2012 10:18 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: IG Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 Thank you Michael, an good piece of writing overall. You say "... or 13th century Saudi Arabia dictating what goes over the Internet or as the term goes, "governing the Internet"". Many do not understand the nature of culturally-driven and religiously-driven nations. Saudi Arabia, the Arab states, and many Asian countries are of this nature. It is best to understand such driving forces before making such claims. And besides, Isn't this the same country that the USA has tight bonds with? Let us not forget Aramco (a USA-KSA giant based in the eastern province of KSA) and the daily chats the Saudi ambassador (Prince Bandar at that time) and President George Bush Jr used to have over breakfast.... Unless of course the USA likes to deal with "13th century countries". Fahd On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 11:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: FWIW http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet-some-r eflections-on-wcit-2012/ MG ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Mon Dec 10 03:10:58 2012 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:10:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB97080@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <20121210081058.GB10029@thorion.it.jyu.fi> +1 On Dec 10 09:46, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > Dr Toure's said he would relay CS comments to member states, and the > Chair is the Chair, there's no problem. Endorse and send. > > Adam > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Thanks Alejandro. > > > > I will reserve a response later - for now it would be great to gather > > feedback. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Sala > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > > wrote: > >> > >> Sala, > >> > >> yes, another comment: no, it is not an excellent point. It feeds the idea > >> that the ITU, ITU-T, and ITU-D are hands-off in these processes. They are > >> not. > >> > >> 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 Salanieta T. > >> Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > >> Enviado el: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 17:39 > >> Hasta: Louis Pouzin (well) > >> CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> Asunto: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP > >> Coalition as signatory? > >> > >> Excellent point Louis. > >> > >> Any other comments. > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman > >>> Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about > >>> the provisions proposed by CS. > >>> > >>> This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and > >>> Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU > >>> members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim > >>> to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. > >>> > >>> Louis > >>> - - - > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Dear IGC, > >>>> > >>>> If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to > >>>> the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. > >>>> > >>>> See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. > >>>> > >>>> Kind Regards, > >>>> Sala > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.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 -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Mon Dec 10 03:30:30 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:30:30 +0400 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: <20121210081058.GB10029@thorion.it.jyu.fi> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB97080@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121210081058.GB10029@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: +1 On 10 Dec 2012, at 12:10, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > +1 > > On Dec 10 09:46, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > >> Dr Toure's said he would relay CS comments to member states, and the >> Chair is the Chair, there's no problem. Endorse and send. >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> Thanks Alejandro. >>> >>> I will reserve a response later - for now it would be great to gather >>> feedback. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Sala >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Sala, >>>> >>>> yes, another comment: no, it is not an excellent point. It feeds the idea >>>> that the ITU, ITU-T, and ITU-D are hands-off in these processes. They are >>>> not. >>>> >>>> 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 Salanieta T. >>>> Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] >>>> Enviado el: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 17:39 >>>> Hasta: Louis Pouzin (well) >>>> CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Asunto: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP >>>> Coalition as signatory? >>>> >>>> Excellent point Louis. >>>> >>>> Any other comments. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Louis Pouzin (well) >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman >>>>> Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about >>>>> the provisions proposed by CS. >>>>> >>>>> This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and >>>>> Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU >>>>> members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim >>>>> to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. >>>>> >>>>> Louis >>>>> - - - >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear IGC, >>>>>> >>>>>> If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to >>>>>> the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. >>>>>> >>>>>> See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>> Sala >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.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 > > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Mon Dec 10 04:24:39 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 01:24:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Verisign Loses Dot-Com Piggybank In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1355131479.66162.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Fahd and Kivuva, In addition to the question 'Who controls the internet?' one more question arises that 'Who is running Internet Business'.   However, the caps will have not affect the business as much as comparing to the expected migration of the domains from .com to the new gtLDs with in next few years.   Interestingly, the hundreds of new gTLDs are not feasible to sell on the same cost as charged for .com or .net domains from consumer. Is it possible for ICANN or DoC to caps the price of new gTLDs Domains? The huge cost of the new gTLDs will be transferred to the consumers.   Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ > From: Kivuva >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Fahd A. Batayneh >Cc: Arab IGF >Sent: Monday, 10 December 2012, 12:28 >Subject: Re: [governance] Verisign Loses Dot-Com Piggybank > >Thank you Fahd, > >It seems the US government is protecting consumes from over >commercialization of domains. Verisign gets over 700% profit per >domain. > >This also raises the age old question! Who controls the internet? Can >Germany of Kenya or India stop the price increase of gTLDs? > >On 09/12/2012, Fahd A. Batayneh wrote: >> 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. >> >> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/06/verisign-loses-dot-com-piggyba?utm_source=.Nxt&utm_campaign=e0405ba712-edition_6Dec12&utm_medium=email >> >> Fahd >> > > >-- >______________________ >Mwendwa Kivuva >For >Business Development >Transworld Computer Channels >Cel: 0722402248 >twitter.com/lordmwesh >transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing >kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: >    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 dave at difference.com.au Mon Dec 10 04:27:05 2012 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:27:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGP proposal for ICANN reform In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD228CE2A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4CEA649C-2BD1-4A64-AFB8-E9052485A2D7@difference.com.au> On 08/12/2012, at 10:12 AM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > A bit too late I presume or may be at the right time. But this would > only be possible if: > > 1. You talk to Fadi Chahde and show him the grim future under his leadership > > 2. You talk to the ICANN Board and remind them of how important it is > for them to remain ethical and impartial > > 3. You advocate for this with a targeted advocacy campaign and gain > buy-in from supportive govts, civil society (including both Civil and > Corporate Trade Associations) and finally the private sector like > getting the Internet Giants on your side. Are their likely to be 'supportive govts'? Most governments seem to fall clearly in the camp of wanting stronger role for government, either through a stronger GAC or replacing ICANN with a more government centric structure. There absolutely needs to be a better way of dealing with the issues of GAC participation in ICANN policy processes, and the tensions created by the difference in process. The GAC, however, recently seems to be strongly expressing the opinion that its preferred way of dealing with the different approaches to policy formation is for the GNSO (and other policy bodies) to remove themselves from the policy process when it conflict with the GAC. Cheers David -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Dec 10 04:42:23 2012 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 01:42:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The RUCAS Document shall not be presented Message-ID: <1355132543.47432.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hamadoun Touré has just informed African delegates that the proposal that is being championed by UAE has been rejected by the WCIT12 Chair. Will keep eyes open.. N -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Mon Dec 10 05:39:11 2012 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 02:39:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] Verisign Loses Dot-Com Piggybank In-Reply-To: <50C59622.1040209@cavebear.com> References: <50C59622.1040209@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Thank you Karl for those insights and for bringing a very important angle into the debate. With more than 10,000% profit, is it ethical for verisign to keep increasing their prices? Are the lobby groups that advocate for consumer protection toothless in trying to advocate for a reversal of these trends? Or are the lobby groups influenced and corrupted by big dip-pocket American dealmakers? Verisign is assured of Billions of dollars every year for renewal of existing 115million+ domains. With the increased use of this infinite resource, should the price be going up or down? It is time that the USDoC in conjunction with ICANN tendered for new .com and .net registries with the mandate of protecting consumers rather than fattening gluttons. But again, this might never see light of day On 09/12/2012, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 12/09/2012 11:28 PM, Kivuva wrote: > >> It seems the US government is protecting consumes from over >> commercialization of domains. Verisign gets over 700% profit per >> domain. > > My own calculations tend to show that Verisign's return (based on its > ICANN-allowed registration fee) over the cost of goods sold is rather > higher than your estimate - I find it to be more on the order of > 10,000%, i.e. at least a 100-fold markup. > > Your question is a good one and it goes to the heart of the notion of > accountability - who can hold ICANN (or any other body of internet > governance) accountable for its acts or its failures to act? > > The registry fee that ICANN allows to Verisign is a prime example of a > non-accountable act on the part of ICANN. The registry fee was a number > pulled out of thin air during a settlement of litigation between ICANN > and Verisign during an era when ICANN was nearly insolvent, had to to be > bailed out by the RIRs, had no money to sustain an extended legal > battle. And ICANN has never even considered subjecting that registry > fee to an audit or demonstration that the registry fee bears any > relationship to the actual cost of providing the registry service. > > ICANN's new TLD program is a small relief valve, but it is 15 years late > - and at the rate it is going it will be closer to 18-to-20 years late > by the time newcomers actually get running. > > When we established the Boston Working Group in 1997 our proposal to > NTIA for what could become ICANN contained sunset provisions that would > have prohibited the kind of infinite position of grace that ICANN has > granted unto Verisign. But that language did not make it into what > became ICANN. > > By-the-way, I am associated with one of the groups that is bidding for > new top level domains (I'm associated with Uniregistry). We are really > trying to find new models and ways to treat people who register domain > names with more respect for their rights, and their money, than has > typically been the case in many of the existing top level domains. And > we have voluntarily adopted significant constraints on our own ability > to raise fees and rates. (It's our hope that rates will go down over > time, rather than up.) > > --karl-- > > > > > -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva For Business Development Transworld Computer Channels Cel: 0722402248 twitter.com/lordmwesh transworldAfrica.com | Fluent in computing kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 10 05:57:51 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:27:51 +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> <50C1944E.508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50C5C02F.6000404@itforchange.net> On Friday 07 December 2012 10:12 PM, McTim wrote: > > 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."/* McTim, you must make up your mind whether you are advocating a 'free floating ICANN' model or are backing Milton's views, who is strongly, i repeat, strongly, against any free floating model for ICANN..... It is a different thing that I cannot at all understand how keeping ICANN rooted in the US legal system, as Milton advocates, can be called de-nationalisation of ICANN by any stretch... 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? > > 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 andrespiazza at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 06:36:42 2012 From: andrespiazza at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s_Piazza?=) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:36:42 -0200 Subject: [governance] The RUCAS Document shall not be presented In-Reply-To: <1355132543.47432.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1355132543.47432.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: It is official now: https://twitter.com/ITU/status/278079049983721472 Regards, Andrés Piazza 2012/12/10 Nnenna > Hamadoun Touré has just informed African delegates that the proposal that > is being championed by UAE has been rejected by the WCIT12 Chair. > Will keep eyes open.. > > N > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- *Andrés Piazza* www.andrespiazza.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 gideonrop at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 06:40:36 2012 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:40:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] The RUCAS Document shall not be presented In-Reply-To: References: <1355132543.47432.YahooMailNeo@web120104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: That is good news, Regards, Gideon Rop On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Andrés Piazza wrote: > It is official now: https://twitter.com/ITU/status/278079049983721472 > > Regards, > > Andrés Piazza > > > 2012/12/10 Nnenna > >> Hamadoun Touré has just informed African delegates that the proposal >> that is being championed by UAE has been rejected by the WCIT12 Chair. >> Will keep eyes open.. >> >> N >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > *Andrés Piazza* > www.andrespiazza.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 Mon Dec 10 08:12:05 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:12:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50C5C02F.6000404@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> <50C5C02F.6000404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50C5DFA5.9050603@gmail.com> Parminder I think here WE (or me?) have to maintain the dialectical opposites we face in this process. Mueller is definitely not in the same league as some of the US Exceptionalists/Status Quoists - politically in effect yes, but substantively perhaps not. On the perhaps not, there is virtue in pushing for the break in the DOC-ICANN link, as it opens up a gradation of possibilties that obsequious ICANNers have worked hard to foreclose discussion on. So Mueller needs to be put in a context that takes on board some if not all of your concerns as these are important allies, no matter how robustly we deal with them in the civil (read reason) society discourse. And on the other hand, they too need to be aware of the "authentic" legitimacy arguments and ensure their proposals (implicitly or explicity, former more than the latter) resonate somewhat with other views. There claim to be seeking Internationalisation is now subject to different substantive views, including what may well be called a Ptolemic exercise to salvage what is there... on this the simple processes (rather than substance) that have been put in place to deal with this (other than get into the ICANN programme) leaves me wondering as to the sincerity of some players. Of course, I do not get this from Milton, as robust as he is, he has been open and often generous in sharing his work... which reflects an openness and candour that we should allow some, how do I put it, saving of face (in Chinese parlance)... Riaz On 2012/12/10 12:57 PM, parminder wrote: > McTim, you must make up your mind whether you are advocating a 'free > floating ICANN' model or are backing Milton's views, who is strongly, > i repeat, strongly, against any free floating model for ICANN..... > > It is a different thing that I cannot at all understand how keeping > ICANN rooted in the US legal system, as Milton advocates, can be > called de-nationalisation of ICANN by any stretch... 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 08:29:52 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 08:29:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes? In-Reply-To: <50C5C02F.6000404@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> <50C5C02F.6000404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi, On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:57 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 07 December 2012 10:12 PM, McTim wrote: > > > 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." > > > McTim, you must make up your mind whether you are advocating a 'free > floating ICANN' model or are backing Milton's views, who is strongly, i > repeat, strongly, against any free floating model for ICANN..... > The only difference between MM position and mine is that he wants a treaty to limit ICANN and I don't think that is neccessary. We are both for "de-nationalisation". > It is a different thing that I cannot at all understand how keeping ICANN > rooted in the US legal system, as Milton advocates, can be called > de-nationalisation of ICANN by any stretch... parminder Since it means the removal of unilateralism, and NOT internationalisation via intergovernmental means, that to me defines "de-nationalisation". The ugly, dangerous process going on now in Dubai surely points out that a treaty process is not a desirable means to achieve internationalisation that we all seek. -- 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 Mon Dec 10 09:01:25 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:01:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > FWIW > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet-some-r > eflections-on-wcit-2012/ So, the HOI folks are right, but they are right for the wrong reasons? -- 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 09:25:37 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:25:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Sovereignty and the Geography of Cyberspace In-Reply-To: <20121207214057.4d1c2c13@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20121207214057.4d1c2c13@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, Thanks for integrating this in your map. Thanks also for the interest in the videos and transcripts. Here is the information. The Internet & Jurisdiction Project organized two workshops in Baku. 1) The first one was WS 154 ("*What Frameworks for online cross-border platforms*?"). the video has been uploaded to Youtube by the secretariat. You can find it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmlMkIQmMog The transcript is almost useless in its current form unfortunately and we'll try to polish it a bit in due time. Panelists were: Chinmayi Arun (CIS India), Brian Cute (PIR), Lee Hibbard (CoE), Konstantinos Komaitis (ISOC), Michael Niebel (European Commission) and Patrick Ryan (Google), 2) The other workshop was WS 171 ("*What is the Geography of Cyberspace*"). The video is not yet online, but the *cleaned transcript is attached*. Panelists were: Vint Cerf (Google), Wolfgang Kleinwächter (University of Aarhus), Erika Mann (Facebook), Marietje Schaake (Member, European Parliament), Vivek Vivekanandan (GIGA). Best Bertrand On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > > 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. > > Do you have links for these workshops? > > This is for http://idgovmap.org/map/issue/transboundary_harm > > Ideally I'd like to have URLs for the workshop reports, transcripts and > video recordings. > > Alas I don't see how to usefully link to the IGF website. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- ____________________ 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Transcript WS 171 What is the geography of cyberspace Final.doc Type: application/msword Size: 123904 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 09:36:38 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:36:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? Message-ID: Hi all, Ashamed to say that I do not get the webcast from WCIT on my MacBook Air. Apparently a plug-in missing somewhere. Anybody having the same problem? Help welcome. (I'm sure I will be humiliated by the response but never mind :-) Best Bertrand -- ____________________ 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Dec 10 09:49:52 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:49:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Download RealPlayer. If the application doesn't open automatically when you click on the link, option+click and a file with the extension .smil will download, drop that file on the RealPlayer application. Then keep awake by counting the number of times Iran asks for the floor (3 hour session... I go for 17) Best, Adam On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi all, > > Ashamed to say that I do not get the webcast from WCIT on my MacBook Air. > Apparently a plug-in missing somewhere. > > Anybody having the same problem? > > Help welcome. (I'm sure I will be humiliated by the response but never mind > :-) > > Best > > Bertrand > > > -- > ____________________ > 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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 10:08:04 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:08:04 -0800 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <04e301cdd6e8$2825e020$7871a060$@gmail.com> Good question McTim. At a normative/values level I do agree with the HOI folks except that I think that their position fails in three ways for one reason as I think is quite evident from what is currently transpiring at WCIT. Because the "Hands off the Internet" folks don't go beyond the negative into some positive vision/declaration of where/how they think the Internet should be "governed" (beyond an untenable status quo)--the position fails by first being contaminated by the blatant national/commercial self-interest of its primary movers and bankers; second, it doesn't deal with the quite evident financial inequities/assymetries that are resulting from the status quo; and third it doesn't provide any guide posts for resolving the myriad of issues that are emerging that require some sort of global management/governance/resolution framework--again beyond an unsustainable status quo. Best, M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 6:01 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 4:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > FWIW > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet- > some-r > eflections-on-wcit-2012/ So, the HOI folks are right, but they are right for the wrong reasons? -- 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 Mon Dec 10 10:17:24 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:17:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi all, > > Ashamed to say that I do not get the webcast from WCIT on my MacBook Air. > Apparently a plug-in missing somewhere. > > Anybody having the same problem? yes, but with my chromebook. no resolution, as I have other fish to fry. IIRC, they are .smil files, so this may help: http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/#SMIL -- 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 Mon Dec 10 10:27:43 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:27:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Ombudsman weighs in on this On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Martin McOsieno wrote: > Here are some interesting insights on a new conflict of interest case at > ICANN: https://omblog.icann.org/?m=201212 "Result As a result of this investigation, I consider that no disqualifying conflict of interest, or indeed any conflict of interest at all, is present in the actions of both Chris Disspain and Mike Silber." > > http://domainnewsafrica.com/the-plot-thickens-as-icann-and-africa-both-loose-africa/ > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121127_africa_vs_africa_gac_early_warnings_on_new_gtld_applications/ > > Martin. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 10:28:29 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 16:28:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Adam, It worked.... Looking forward to the session. Should be interesting. B. On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Download RealPlayer. > > If the application doesn't open automatically when you click on the > link, option+click and a file with the extension .smil will download, > drop that file on the RealPlayer application. Then keep awake by > counting the number of times Iran asks for the floor (3 hour > session... I go for 17) > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Ashamed to say that I do not get the webcast from WCIT on my MacBook Air. > > Apparently a plug-in missing somewhere. > > > > Anybody having the same problem? > > > > Help welcome. (I'm sure I will be humiliated by the response but never > mind > > :-) > > > > Best > > > > Bertrand > > > > > > -- > > ____________________ > > 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 > > > -- ____________________ 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 Mon Dec 10 10:33:39 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:33:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB99FB6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Tim, don't try the geeky stuff - the SMIL-capable players do things like not running, incomplete installs, changing your display's palette - so go for RealPlayer only. 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: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2012 09:17 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle Asunto: Re: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi all, > > Ashamed to say that I do not get the webcast from WCIT on my MacBook Air. > Apparently a plug-in missing somewhere. > > Anybody having the same problem? yes, but with my chromebook. no resolution, as I have other fish to fry. IIRC, they are .smil files, so this may help: http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/#SMIL -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Mon Dec 10 10:39:28 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:39:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9A065@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Tim, Bertrand, Adam, of course this also underlines the concept of "open" for the ITU... proprietary standards instead of something you could open with VLC... 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: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2012 09:17 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle Asunto: Re: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi all, > > Ashamed to say that I do not get the webcast from WCIT on my MacBook Air. > Apparently a plug-in missing somewhere. > > Anybody having the same problem? yes, but with my chromebook. no resolution, as I have other fish to fry. IIRC, they are .smil files, so this may help: http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/#SMIL -- 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 Mon Dec 10 10:41:46 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:11:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8E5D441D-1790-4C26-8AB1-EB0D0ADB094D@hserus.net> So now all that remains is for chris disspain and mike silber to bring a libel action against whoever impugned their integrity with a wrongful and unfounded allegation of conflict of interest --srs (iPad) On 10-Dec-2012, at 20:57, McTim wrote: > Ombudsman weighs in on this > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Martin McOsieno > wrote: >> Here are some interesting insights on a new conflict of interest case at >> ICANN: > > https://omblog.icann.org/?m=201212 > > "Result > As a result of this investigation, I consider that no disqualifying > conflict of interest, or indeed any conflict of interest at all, is > present in the actions of both Chris Disspain and Mike Silber." > > > >> >> http://domainnewsafrica.com/the-plot-thickens-as-icann-and-africa-both-loose-africa/ >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121127_africa_vs_africa_gac_early_warnings_on_new_gtld_applications/ >> >> Martin. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 11:24:57 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:24:57 -0200 Subject: [governance] Dubai In-Reply-To: References: <50B1009C.7090009@uninet.bg> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD658@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD73C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <50C54FB7.7070501@gmx.net> Message-ID: For people who read Portuguese, Joana Varon, from CTS/FGV, is reporting from Dubai. Marília On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:14 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Thanks Wolfgang, I could figure out using Google translation into English. > > Please keep the good reporting on! > > izumi > > 2012/12/10 Norbert Klein : > > On 12/10/2012 9:48 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > for people who read German: Here is my half-time report from Dubai > > > > wolfgang > > > > http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/38/38163/1.html > > > > Danke schön! > > > > Though I read also English :-) > > > > > > Norbert Klein > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 11:31:01 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:31:01 -0200 Subject: [governance] Dubai In-Reply-To: References: <50B1009C.7090009@uninet.bg> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD658@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD73C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <50C54FB7.7070501@gmx.net> Message-ID: For people who read Portuguese, Joana Varon, from CTS/FGV, is reporting from Dubai. http://observatoriodainternet.br/principais-andamentos-da-primeira-semana-da-wcit12-a-internet-esta-mesmo-sob-ameaca Marília On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > For people who read Portuguese, Joana Varon, from CTS/FGV, is reporting > from Dubai. > > Marília > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:14 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Thanks Wolfgang, I could figure out using Google translation into English. >> >> Please keep the good reporting on! >> >> izumi >> >> 2012/12/10 Norbert Klein : >> > On 12/10/2012 9:48 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> > >> > Hi >> > >> > for people who read German: Here is my half-time report from Dubai >> > >> > wolfgang >> > >> > http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/38/38163/1.html >> > >> > Danke schön! >> > >> > Though I read also English :-) >> > >> > >> > Norbert Klein >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> * * * * * >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >> www.anr.org >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joana at varonferraz.com Mon Dec 10 11:31:16 2012 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:31:16 +0400 Subject: [governance] Dubai In-Reply-To: References: <50B1009C.7090009@uninet.bg> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD658@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD73C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <50C54FB7.7070501@gmx.net> Message-ID: Dear all, Hi. Here is the link that Marilia has mentioned: http://observatoriodainternet.br/principais-andamentos-da-primeira-semana-da-wcit12-a-internet-esta-mesmo-sob-ameaca best, joana -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/ www.freenetfilm.org @joana_varon On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > For people who read Portuguese, Joana Varon, from CTS/FGV, is reporting > from Dubai. > > Marília > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:14 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Thanks Wolfgang, I could figure out using Google translation into English. >> >> Please keep the good reporting on! >> >> izumi >> >> 2012/12/10 Norbert Klein : >> > On 12/10/2012 9:48 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> > >> > Hi >> > >> > for people who read German: Here is my half-time report from Dubai >> > >> > wolfgang >> > >> > http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/38/38163/1.html >> > >> > Danke schön! >> > >> > Though I read also English :-) >> > >> > >> > Norbert Klein >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> * * * * * >> << Writing the Future of the History >> >> www.anr.org >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Dec 10 11:51:40 2012 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 11:51:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB970BD@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB970BD@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <6FD9AA77-24A0-459A-95EA-521BE6D95CF3@post.harvard.edu> I am afraid I see it differently, from my esteemed friend Dr. Pisanty. (All the while I have enjoyed the elegance of construction, in his response!) As Michael has now excerpted: > ... the "Hands off the Internet" folks don't go beyond the negative > into some positive vision/declaration of where/how they think the > Internet should be "governed" (beyond an untenable status quo) ... Which has led to stalemate, such as with both Tunis follow-ons, IGF and Enhanced Cooperation. With stalemate cropping up once again, here with Dubai. There has been repeated talk, over the years, of new global regimes, beyond states, grandly centered on multi-stakeholderism. But no reality - no practicable formulation that preserves democracy - to that talk. That is serious work. Jeremy began to suggest some thoughts forward > We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is > necessary to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers in the thread, Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution. David On Dec 9, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Mike, > > as the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli is often quoted to have said, > "it isn't even wrong." > > Your article mostly creates a hybrid of red herring, strawman and > bogeyman and misses the group, often identified in this list, which > does not say "hands off the Internet", is not acting by reflex, is > not being driven by the corporate interests you profer to dislike, > and therefore makes nuanced, rational analysis and action difficult. > > There are serious concerns about what is going on in the ITU's WCIT, > serious people trying to address them in a serious way. That they > some may find their allies uncomfortable does not fit in your text. > Your text becomes little more than a distraction. > > From such a flawed premise, little of use can be concluded. As I > said, it isn't even wrong. > > > 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: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 15:30 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? > Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 > > FWIW > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet-some-reflections-on-wcit-2012/ > > MG > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 12:13:20 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:13:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB99FB6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB99FB6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: got bad connection in the last part of the plenary today. Stopped working - garbled - in the middle of US intervention on human rights .... :-) Just joking. Was it the same for others, or just my connection? B. On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan at unam.mx> wrote: > Tim, > > don't try the geeky stuff - the SMIL-capable players do things like not > running, incomplete installs, changing your display's palette - so go for > RealPlayer only. > > 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: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2012 09:17 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle > Asunto: Re: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Ashamed to say that I do not get the webcast from WCIT on my MacBook Air. > > Apparently a plug-in missing somewhere. > > > > Anybody having the same problem? > > yes, but with my chromebook. > > no resolution, as I have other fish to fry. > > IIRC, they are .smil files, so this may help: > > http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/#SMIL > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > -- ____________________ 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 Mon Dec 10 12:34:06 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:34:06 -0800 Subject: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB99FB6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <05d801cdd6fc$8ed68ae0$ac83a0a0$@gmail.com> Well, I got an "Oops" error on my gmail account this morning. At which point, with a sinking feeling, I said "oh dear :) But fortunately it was only temporary :) M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:13 AM To: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? got bad connection in the last part of the plenary today. Stopped working - garbled - in the middle of US intervention on human rights .... :-) Just joking. Was it the same for others, or just my connection? B. On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: Tim, don't try the geeky stuff - the SMIL-capable players do things like not running, incomplete installs, changing your display's palette - so go for RealPlayer only. 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: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2012 09:17 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle Asunto: Re: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Hi all, > > Ashamed to say that I do not get the webcast from WCIT on my MacBook Air. > Apparently a plug-in missing somewhere. > > Anybody having the same problem? yes, but with my chromebook. no resolution, as I have other fish to fry. IIRC, they are .smil files, so this may help: http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/#SMIL -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -- ____________________ 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 gideonrop at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 12:33:50 2012 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:33:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: His report was only on the present discussions and not future. So he is essentially saying while there is no COI on current discussions, there could potentially be in future GTLD making process and should be monitored by the Board. I am posting the whole paragraph while you made your own selection. *Result* As a result of this investigation, I consider that no disqualifying conflict of interest, or indeed any conflict of interest at all, is present in the actions of both Chris Disspain and Mike Silber. It is likely this complaint has led to increased awareness of the possibilities of conflict of interest, which the Board will carefully consider in terms of the existing policy about conflict, when the issue arises. I consider this should continue to be a matter for consideration in gTLD decision making by the Board. Gideon Rop On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 6:27 PM, McTim wrote: > Ombudsman weighs in on this > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Martin McOsieno > wrote: > > Here are some interesting insights on a new conflict of interest case at > > ICANN: > > https://omblog.icann.org/?m=201212 > > "Result > As a result of this investigation, I consider that no disqualifying > conflict of interest, or indeed any conflict of interest at all, is > present in the actions of both Chris Disspain and Mike Silber." > > > > > > > > http://domainnewsafrica.com/the-plot-thickens-as-icann-and-africa-both-loose-africa/ > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121127_africa_vs_africa_gac_early_warnings_on_new_gtld_applications/ > > > > Martin. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Dec 10 12:37:04 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 18:37:04 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Dubai In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD73C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <50B1009C.7090009@uninet.bg> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD658@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD73C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <915538435.33999.1355161024048.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k12> Besten Dank, Wolfgang   Bis bald und fröhliche Weihnacht !   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 10/12/12 03:52 > De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Dubai > > Hi > > for people who read German: Here is my half-time report from Dubai > > wolfgang > > http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/38/38163/1.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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 10 12:40:45 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 02:40:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? In-Reply-To: <05d801cdd6fc$8ed68ae0$ac83a0a0$@gmail.com> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB99FB6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <05d801cdd6fc$8ed68ae0$ac83a0a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael, that's the cost of free (your personal data only monetized by others.) Suggest a back up. Adam On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:34 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Well, I got an "Oops" error on my gmail account this morning. At which > point, with a sinking feeling, I said "oh dear… :) > > > > But fortunately it was only temporary :) > > > > M > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La > Chapelle > Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 9:13 AM > To: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim > Subject: Re: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? > > > > got bad connection in the last part of the plenary today. Stopped working - > garbled - in the middle of US intervention on human rights .... :-) > > > > Just joking. Was it the same for others, or just my connection? > > > > B. > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > wrote: > > Tim, > > don't try the geeky stuff - the SMIL-capable players do things like not > running, incomplete installs, changing your display's palette - so go for > RealPlayer only. > > > 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: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2012 09:17 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle > Asunto: Re: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Ashamed to say that I do not get the webcast from WCIT on my MacBook Air. >> Apparently a plug-in missing somewhere. >> >> Anybody having the same problem? > > yes, but with my chromebook. > > no resolution, as I have other fish to fry. > > IIRC, they are .smil files, so this may help: > > http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/#SMIL > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > > > -- > ____________________ > 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 keith at internetnz.net.nz Mon Dec 10 12:44:40 2012 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:44:40 +1300 Subject: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB99FB6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <50C61F88.2040203@internetnz.net.nz> That's exactly how it was live in the room Bertrand :-) Cheers Keith On 11/12/2012 6:13 a.m., Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > got bad connection in the last part of the plenary today. Stopped > working - garbled - in the middle of US intervention on human rights > .... :-) > > Just joking. Was it the same for others, or just my connection? > > B. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Dec 10 13:01:48 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 19:01:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1524077266.36067.1355162508669.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k12> Louis, Bill and all   I suggest that the letter should also be sent to the Members of the ITU Council. This would ensure a good distribution amidst the member-states and recieve a better/wider echo. Subsequently, the Council could put the content of the letter on his agenda for the coming meetinge. Memebers are Americas : Argentina, Brasil, Canada, Costa-Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay, United States, Venezuela Europe West : France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey Europe East : Bulgaria, Poland, Tchech Republic, Romania, Russia Africa : Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Maroc, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Rep. South Africa, Tunisia Asia Australia : Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Rep. of), Koweit, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Saoudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates Best regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 10/12/12 04:06 > De : "William Drake" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Louis Pouzin (well)" > Copie à : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Objet : Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? > >Hi > While Louis is of course right that it's member states who vote, Toure is expected to put forward a "compromise text" that may become the focal point of discussion, and  Al-Ghanim runs the discussion and plays the usual role of cajoling members to alter or withdraw proposals in the spirit of compromise so the process may move forward etc.  Moreover, both may bring it to the attention of the delegations. So I don't think the letter is misdirected at all. > Best, > Bill >   > On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:35 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: Hi, > > This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about the provisions proposed by CS. > > This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. > > Louis > - - - > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear IGC, > If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list.  > See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. > Kind Regards, > Sala > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >     http://www.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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 13:06:54 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:06:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Gideon, On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Gideon wrote: > > His report was only on the present discussions and not future. Your employer has cast aspersions on 2 Board Members. These allegations were found to be without merit. You (DCA) should apologize. So he is > essentially saying while there is no COI on current discussions, there could > potentially be in future GTLD making process and should be monitored by the > Board. I am posting the whole paragraph while you made your own selection. > Of course, the Board should remain cognizant of potential COI issues, that goes without saying. Don't try to suggest that you didn't get bitch-slapped by pointing out that I included one sentence from the blog! -- 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 Mon Dec 10 13:13:34 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 13:13:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB99FB6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <05d801cdd6fc$8ed68ae0$ac83a0a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Michael, that's the cost of free (your personal data only monetized by others.) > Internet is a "best-effort" service > Suggest a back up. QoS?? ;-) -- 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon Dec 10 13:22:33 2012 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:22:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast? In-Reply-To: <05d801cdd6fc$8ed68ae0$ac83a0a0$@gmail.com> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB99FB6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <05d801cdd6fc$8ed68ae0$ac83a0a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Google had an outage today. Apparently it was short. On Dec 10, 2012 1:35 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Well, I got an "Oops" error on my gmail account this morning. At which > point, with a sinking feeling, I said "oh dear… :)**** > > ** ** > > But fortunately it was only temporary :)**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand de La > Chapelle > *Sent:* Monday, December 10, 2012 9:13 AM > *To:* Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast?**** > > ** ** > > got bad connection in the last part of the plenary today. Stopped working > - garbled - in the middle of US intervention on human rights .... :-)**** > > ** ** > > Just joking. Was it the same for others, or just my connection?**** > > ** ** > > B.**** > > ** ** > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < > apisan at unam.mx> wrote:**** > > Tim, > > don't try the geeky stuff - the SMIL-capable players do things like not > running, incomplete installs, changing your display's palette - so go for > RealPlayer only.**** > > > 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: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2012 09:17 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle > Asunto: Re: [governance] Tech help with the WCIT webcast?**** > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Ashamed to say that I do not get the webcast from WCIT on my MacBook Air. > > Apparently a plug-in missing somewhere. > > > > Anybody having the same problem? > > yes, but with my chromebook. > > no resolution, as I have other fish to fry. > > IIRC, they are .smil files, so this may help: > > http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/#SMIL > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel**** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > ____________________ > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 10 13:25:13 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:25:13 +1300 Subject: [governance] Human Rights Day [ A moment of reflection] Message-ID: Dear All, Today is December 10th in many parts of the world and Human Rights Day, we celebrate a simple but powerful declaration that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Today is also a day of reflection. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted some 64 years ago from today stands as a monument to the courage of its founders and to freedoms longed for by every human being. The fight for these freedoms as we all know still goes on - for as long as there is injustice, tyrants - the fight will continue. History has shown us that generations are capable of powerful social and national transformation - what was completely acceptable in one era (such as slavery) became unacceptable in the next. There are nations that are still reeling from war, famine, political conflict and struggle with the recovery process. The Internet has completely revolutionized the manner in which human rights violations gets reported and we know that challenges continue to exist and atrocities did not end with the historic adoption of the Universal Declaration on December 10, 1948. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead There are many threats and challenges that abound in relation to an Open and Free Internet and in the midst of navigating through these and managing the concerns of diverse stakeholders within the Internet Universe. We have through many challenges because there are some who were thoughtful and committed and continue to sacrifice their time and energy into raising the issues, creating awareness, running training, organizing meetings, activating communities etc. Today and every other day, I raise a toast to you, ordinary individuals who do extraordinary things - for your courage, passionate belief that you can make a difference, I salute you! Warm Regards, -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 13:31:10 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:31:10 +1300 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: <1524077266.36067.1355162508669.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k12> References: <1524077266.36067.1355162508669.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k12> Message-ID: This is great, I am seeing majority support. Yes we can also within our own countries take time to talk to our country representatives and alert them through making submissions, seeking face to face meetings etc. Sala On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Louis, Bill and all > > > > I suggest that the letter should also be sent to the Members of the ITU > Council. This would ensure a good distribution amidst the member-states and > recieve a better/wider echo. Subsequently, the Council could put the > content of the letter on his agenda for the coming meetinge. > > Memebers are > > Americas : Argentina, Brasil, Canada, Costa-Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay, > United States, Venezuela > > Europe West : France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, > Turkey > > Europe East : Bulgaria, Poland, Tchech Republic, Romania, Russia > > Africa : Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, > Maroc, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Rep. South Africa, Tunisia > > Asia Australia : Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, > Korea (Rep. of), Koweit, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Saoudi Arabia, > United Arab Emirates > > Best regards > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > Message du 10/12/12 04:06 > > De : "William Drake" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Louis Pouzin (well)" > > Copie à : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > Objet : Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP > Coalition as signatory? > > > > >Hi > > > > While Louis is of course right that it's member states who vote, Toure is > expected to put forward a "compromise text" that may become the focal point > of discussion, and Al-Ghanim runs the discussion and plays the usual role > of cajoling members to alter or withdraw proposals in the spirit of > compromise so the process may move forward etc. Moreover, both may bring > it to the attention of the delegations. So I don't think the letter is > misdirected at all. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:35 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman > Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about > the provisions proposed by CS. > > > > This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and > Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU > members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim > to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. > > > > Louis > > - - - > > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> Dear IGC, >> >> > >> If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to the >> ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. >> >> > >> See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. >> >> > >> Kind Regards, >> > Sala >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro 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 vanda at uol.com.br Mon Dec 10 14:07:17 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 17:07:17 -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: <98DE9B41-3537-47C1-B486-08A99D4992AC@uol.com.br> Looks like the awful proposal was not accepted. Who are there could comment! Best Vanda Scartezini Sent from my iPad 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 Mon Dec 10 14:13:44 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 14:13:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Marco Civil is not dead!!! In-Reply-To: <98DE9B41-3537-47C1-B486-08A99D4992AC@uol.com.br> References: <3516858890910361147@unknownmsgid> <50B9F9C2.4010508@cafonso.ca> <00FDFF10-6FD4-4C97-B8E7-0ADC6B1CA666@gmail.com> <98DE9B41-3537-47C1-B486-08A99D4992AC@uol.com.br> Message-ID: What do u mean Vanda? On Dec 10, 2012 2:08 PM, "Vanda UOL" wrote: > Looks like the awful proposal was not accepted. Who are there could > comment! > Best > > Vanda Scartezini > Sent from my iPad > > 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Mon Dec 10 14:24:02 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:24:02 +0400 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: <1524077266.36067.1355162508669.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k12> References: <1524077266.36067.1355162508669.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k12> Message-ID: Hi About 20 CS people met today with SG Toure in Dubai. He has the letter, and the main points were repeated verbally. No immediate commitments on these or real replies to specific questions on items like public participation in the May WTPF, but folks were varyingly optimistic that a dialogue has been opened and there's something to build on. In the meanwhile, the wider situation has evolved here. With the parties far apart on many issues and basically two days left to negotiate, small groups of government reps from xxx countries (not clear exactly who/how many) went behind closed doors at 10:30pm to see if they can pull a rabbit out of a hat (or insert your preferred metaphor) and come back to plenary tomorrow at 11 am with something for everyone to work on. So contrary to some rumors that were floating about, there's no SG text, and at the moment the likelihood of a magic compromise vs. a train wreck is pretty hard to work out. Many variables interacting, so one could paint diametrically opposed but equally plausible scenarios. In this stressed context, I don't think there's going to be a lot of energy devoted to responding to CS concerns about transparency and inclusion. Nevertheless, the caucus may wish to endorse the letter to be on record alongside other advocacy groups and networks, particularly with an eye to the WTPF. Which, BTW, will be held the week before the IGF consultation and MAG meeting in May—would be a good time to come to Geneva if possible. Best, Bill On Dec 10, 2012, at 10:01 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Louis, Bill and all > > > I suggest that the letter should also be sent to the Members of the ITU Council. This would ensure a good distribution amidst the member-states and recieve a better/wider echo. Subsequently, the Council could put the content of the letter on his agenda for the coming meetinge. > > Memebers are > > Americas : Argentina, Brasil, Canada, Costa-Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay, United States, Venezuela > > Europe West : France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey > > Europe East : Bulgaria, Poland, Tchech Republic, Romania, Russia > > Africa : Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Maroc, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Rep. South Africa, Tunisia > > Asia Australia : Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Rep. of), Koweit, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Saoudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates > > Best regards > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > Message du 10/12/12 04:06 > > De : "William Drake" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Louis Pouzin (well)" > > Copie à : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > Objet : Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? > > > >Hi > > > > While Louis is of course right that it's member states who vote, Toure is expected to put forward a "compromise text" that may become the focal point of discussion, and Al-Ghanim runs the discussion and plays the usual role of cajoling members to alter or withdraw proposals in the spirit of compromise so the process may move forward etc. Moreover, both may bring it to the attention of the delegations. So I don't think the letter is misdirected at all. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:35 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about the provisions proposed by CS. > > > > This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. > > > > Louis > > - - - > > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > Dear IGC, > > > > If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. > > > > See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 14:25:57 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:25:57 +1300 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: References: <1524077266.36067.1355162508669.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k12> Message-ID: Thanks Bill for the update. The consensus is that there is favour to endorse the letter so we will send our note to Marilyn. On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 8:24 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > About 20 CS people met today with SG Toure in Dubai. He has the letter, > and the main points were repeated verbally. No immediate commitments on > these or real replies to specific questions on items like public > participation in the May WTPF, but folks were varyingly optimistic that a > dialogue has been opened and there's something to build on. > > In the meanwhile, the wider situation has evolved here. With the parties > far apart on many issues and basically two days left to negotiate, small > groups of government reps from xxx countries (not clear exactly who/how > many) went behind closed doors at 10:30pm to see if they can pull a rabbit > out of a hat (or insert your preferred metaphor) and come back to plenary > tomorrow at 11 am with something for everyone to work on. So contrary to > some rumors that were floating about, there's no SG text, and at the moment > the likelihood of a magic compromise vs. a train wreck is pretty hard to > work out. Many variables interacting, so one could paint diametrically > opposed but equally plausible scenarios. > > In this stressed context, I don't think there's going to be a lot of > energy devoted to responding to CS concerns about transparency and > inclusion. Nevertheless, the caucus may wish to endorse the letter to be > on record alongside other advocacy groups and networks, particularly with > an eye to the WTPF. Which, BTW, will be held the week before the IGF > consultation and MAG meeting in May—would be a good time to come to Geneva > if possible. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 10:01 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > Louis, Bill and all > > > I suggest that the letter should also be sent to the Members of the ITU > Council. This would ensure a good distribution amidst the member-states and > recieve a better/wider echo. Subsequently, the Council could put the > content of the letter on his agenda for the coming meetinge. > > Memebers are > > Americas : Argentina, Brasil, Canada, Costa-Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay, > United States, Venezuela > > Europe West : France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, > Turkey > > Europe East : Bulgaria, Poland, Tchech Republic, Romania, Russia > > Africa : Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, > Maroc, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Rep. South Africa, Tunisia > > Asia Australia : Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, > Korea (Rep. of), Koweit, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Saoudi Arabia, > United Arab Emirates > > Best regards > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > Message du 10/12/12 04:06 > > De : "William Drake" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Louis Pouzin (well)" > > Copie à : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > Objet : Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP > Coalition as signatory? > > > >Hi > > > > While Louis is of course right that it's member states who vote, Toure is > expected to put forward a "compromise text" that may become the focal point > of discussion, and Al-Ghanim runs the discussion and plays the usual role > of cajoling members to alter or withdraw proposals in the spirit of > compromise so the process may move forward etc. Moreover, both may bring > it to the attention of the delegations. So I don't think the letter is > misdirected at all. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:35 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman > Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about > the provisions proposed by CS. > > > > This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and > Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU > members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim > to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. > > > > Louis > > - - - > > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> Dear IGC, >> >> > >> If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to the >> ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. >> >> > >> See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. >> >> > >> Kind Regards, >> > Sala >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro 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 aldo.matteucci at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 14:28:27 2012 From: aldo.matteucci at gmail.com (Aldo Matteucci) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:28:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Human Rights Day [ A moment of reflection] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sala, can't resist it... "Never doubt that a small group of mischievous teenagers can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead (she knows) On 10 December 2012 19:25, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can > change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has." > Margaret Mead > -- Aldo Matteucci 65, Pourtalèsstr. CH 3074 MURI b. Bern Switzerland aldo.matteucci at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gideonrop at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 15:24:30 2012 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:24:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: McTim, Yes you left out the important sentence Anyhow there is nothing to apologize. DCA is still concerned of the possible conflict of interest to its. Africa application. Gideon DotConnectAfrica On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:06 PM, McTim wrote: > Gideon, > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Gideon wrote: > > > > His report was only on the present discussions and not future. > > Your employer has cast aspersions on 2 Board Members. > > These allegations were found to be without merit. > > You (DCA) should apologize. > > > > So he is > > essentially saying while there is no COI on current discussions, there > could > > potentially be in future GTLD making process and should be monitored by > the > > Board. I am posting the whole paragraph while you made your own > selection. > > > > > Of course, the Board should remain cognizant of potential COI issues, > that goes without saying. > > Don't try to suggest that you didn't get bitch-slapped by pointing out > that I included one sentence from the blog! > > -- > 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 Mon Dec 10 15:34:03 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 15:34:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Gideon wrote: > McTim, > > Yes you left out the important sentence I included the important sentence. > > Anyhow there is nothing to apologize. DCA is still concerned of the > possible conflict of interest to its. Africa application. When one is desperate, grasping at straws seems like a useful strategy. -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 15:44:06 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:44:06 +1300 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, It is ok to have differing views and agree to disagree. Sala On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:34 AM, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Gideon wrote: > > McTim, > > > > Yes you left out the important sentence > > > I included the important sentence. > > > > > Anyhow there is nothing to apologize. DCA is still concerned of the > > possible conflict of interest to its. Africa application. > > When one is desperate, grasping at straws seems like a useful strategy. > > -- > 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 > > -- 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 ggithaiga at hotmail.com Mon Dec 10 16:12:54 2012 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:12:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: References: <1524077266.36067.1355162508669.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k12>, Message-ID: Good summary Bill. Lets see if there is going to be some consensus (less brackets or non at all) starting tomorrow at 11.RgdsGrace From: william.drake at uzh.ch Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:24:02 +0400 CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; pouzin at well.com; salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com To: jlfullsack at orange.fr Subject: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? Hi About 20 CS people met today with SG Toure in Dubai. He has the letter, and the main points were repeated verbally. No immediate commitments on these or real replies to specific questions on items like public participation in the May WTPF, but folks were varyingly optimistic that a dialogue has been opened and there's something to build on. In the meanwhile, the wider situation has evolved here. With the parties far apart on many issues and basically two days left to negotiate, small groups of government reps from xxx countries (not clear exactly who/how many) went behind closed doors at 10:30pm to see if they can pull a rabbit out of a hat (or insert your preferred metaphor) and come back to plenary tomorrow at 11 am with something for everyone to work on. So contrary to some rumors that were floating about, there's no SG text, and at the moment the likelihood of a magic compromise vs. a train wreck is pretty hard to work out. Many variables interacting, so one could paint diametrically opposed but equally plausible scenarios. In this stressed context, I don't think there's going to be a lot of energy devoted to responding to CS concerns about transparency and inclusion. Nevertheless, the caucus may wish to endorse the letter to be on record alongside other advocacy groups and networks, particularly with an eye to the WTPF. Which, BTW, will be held the week before the IGF consultation and MAG meeting in May—would be a good time to come to Geneva if possible. Best, Bill On Dec 10, 2012, at 10:01 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:Louis, Bill and all I suggest that the letter should also be sent to the Members of the ITU Council. This would ensure a good distribution amidst the member-states and recieve a better/wider echo. Subsequently, the Council could put the content of the letter on his agenda for the coming meetinge.Memebers areAmericas : Argentina, Brasil, Canada, Costa-Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Paraguay, United States, VenezuelaEurope West : France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, TurkeyEurope East : Bulgaria, Poland, Tchech Republic, Romania, RussiaAfrica : Algeria, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Maroc, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Rep. South Africa, TunisiaAsia Australia : Australia, Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Rep. of), Koweit, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Saoudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 10/12/12 04:06 > De : "William Drake" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Louis Pouzin (well)" > Copie à : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > Objet : Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? > >Hi > While Louis is of course right that it's member states who vote, Toure is expected to put forward a "compromise text" that may become the focal point of discussion, and Al-Ghanim runs the discussion and plays the usual role of cajoling members to alter or withdraw proposals in the spirit of compromise so the process may move forward etc. Moreover, both may bring it to the attention of the delegations. So I don't think the letter is misdirected at all. > Best, > Bill > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 3:35 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: Hi, > > This letter is adressed to Secretary General Touré and WCIT-12 Chairman Al-Ghanim, neither of them being institutionally mandated to decide about the provisions proposed by CS. > > This may stem from a common misperception of ITU structures. Touré and Al-Ghanim are neither ITU CEO nor Chair. Decision power belongs to 193 ITU members. It would be logical that the CS letter did ask Touré and Al-Ghanim to relay to ITU members CS complaints and proposals. > > Louis > - - - > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear IGC, > If there is enough support from the IGC to support the open letter to the ITU, we could add the IGC to the list. > See Marianne's email below to the IRP Coalition. > Kind Regards, > Sala > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 16:35:30 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 23:35:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Gideon, no offense, but you folks at DCA must start searching for a plan B. It is obvious where .africa is heading to. Fahd On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Gideon wrote: > McTim, > > Yes you left out the important sentence > > Anyhow there is nothing to apologize. DCA is still concerned of the > possible conflict of interest to its. Africa application. > > Gideon > DotConnectAfrica > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:06 PM, McTim wrote: > >> Gideon, >> >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Gideon wrote: >> > >> > His report was only on the present discussions and not future. >> >> Your employer has cast aspersions on 2 Board Members. >> >> These allegations were found to be without merit. >> >> You (DCA) should apologize. >> >> >> >> So he is >> > essentially saying while there is no COI on current discussions, there >> could >> > potentially be in future GTLD making process and should be monitored by >> the >> > Board. I am posting the whole paragraph while you made your own >> selection. >> > >> >> >> Of course, the Board should remain cognizant of potential COI issues, >> that goes without saying. >> >> Don't try to suggest that you didn't get bitch-slapped by pointing out >> that I included one sentence from the blog! >> >> -- >> 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 10 17:15:17 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 03:45:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> To what extent? This isn't disagreement as much as it is a tendency to allege that anybody at all that doesn't support them is not doing so because of corruption, conflict of interest or other malicious intent, --srs (iPad) On 11-Dec-2012, at 2:14, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > Hi, > > It is ok to have differing views and agree to disagree. > > Sala > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:34 AM, McTim wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Gideon wrote: >> > McTim, >> > >> > Yes you left out the important sentence >> >> >> I included the important sentence. >> >> > >> > Anyhow there is nothing to apologize. DCA is still concerned of the >> > possible conflict of interest to its. Africa application. >> >> When one is desperate, grasping at straws seems like a useful strategy. >> >> -- >> 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 > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 17:23:54 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:23:54 +1300 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > To what extent? This isn't disagreement as much as it is a tendency to > allege that anybody at all that doesn't support them is not doing so > because of corruption, conflict of interest or other malicious intent, > > --srs (iPad) > Where there is clearly no way views are going to be reconciled which is clear and apparent between the perspective that Gideon raised and the perspective that McTim raised, they can agree to "disagree". > > On 11-Dec-2012, at 2:14, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > It is ok to have differing views and agree to disagree. > > Sala > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:34 AM, McTim wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Gideon wrote: >> > McTim, >> > >> > Yes you left out the important sentence >> >> >> I included the important sentence. >> >> > >> > Anyhow there is nothing to apologize. DCA is still concerned of the >> > possible conflict of interest to its. Africa application. >> >> When one is desperate, grasping at straws seems like a useful strategy. >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro 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 apisan at unam.mx Mon Dec 10 20:57:18 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:57:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9C2A8@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Sala, I don't think your statement about "agreeing to disagree" grasps the situation 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 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Enviado el: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2012 16:23 Hasta: Suresh Ramasubramanian CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim; Gideon Asunto: Re: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: To what extent? This isn't disagreement as much as it is a tendency to allege that anybody at all that doesn't support them is not doing so because of corruption, conflict of interest or other malicious intent, --srs (iPad) Where there is clearly no way views are going to be reconciled which is clear and apparent between the perspective that Gideon raised and the perspective that McTim raised, they can agree to "disagree". On 11-Dec-2012, at 2:14, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > wrote: Hi, It is ok to have differing views and agree to disagree. Sala On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:34 AM, McTim > wrote: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Gideon > wrote: > McTim, > > Yes you left out the important sentence I included the important sentence. > > Anyhow there is nothing to apologize. DCA is still concerned of the > possible conflict of interest to its. Africa application. When one is desperate, grasping at straws seems like a useful strategy. -- 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 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 20:59:46 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:59:46 +1300 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9C2A8@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9C2A8@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: > I don't think your statement about "agreeing to disagree" grasps the > situation well. > > Each man has the right to his or her opinion. Happy Human Rights Day > Alejandro! :) > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > 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 Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] > *Enviado el:* lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2012 16:23 > *Hasta:* Suresh Ramasubramanian > *CC:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim; Gideon > *Asunto:* Re: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > suresh at hserus.net> wrote: > >> To what extent? This isn't disagreement as much as it is a tendency to >> allege that anybody at all that doesn't support them is not doing so >> because of corruption, conflict of interest or other malicious intent, >> >> --srs (iPad) >> > > Where there is clearly no way views are going to be reconciled which is > clear and apparent between the perspective that Gideon raised and the > perspective that McTim raised, they can agree to "disagree". > >> >> On 11-Dec-2012, at 2:14, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> It is ok to have differing views and agree to disagree. >> >> Sala >> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 9:34 AM, McTim wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 3:24 PM, Gideon wrote: >>> > McTim, >>> > >>> > Yes you left out the important sentence >>> >>> >>> I included the important sentence. >>> >>> > >>> > Anyhow there is nothing to apologize. DCA is still concerned of the >>> > possible conflict of interest to its. Africa application. >>> >>> When one is desperate, grasping at straws seems like a useful strategy. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Dec 10 21:44:38 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:44:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9C2A8@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> I don't think your statement about "agreeing to disagree" grasps the >> situation well. >> >> Each man has the right to his or her opinion. Correct, but no one has the right to their own facts! -- 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 rrangnath at publicknowledge.org Tue Dec 11 03:10:10 2012 From: rrangnath at publicknowledge.org (Rashmi Rangnath) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 03:10:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] US government conversation with civil society Message-ID: All: Please hold 11 AM UTC, 3 PM Dubai Time, tomorrow December 12th for a phone call with Ambassador Kramer. Please let me know if you can join the call. Call details will follow. Best, Rashmi -- Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036 202 861 0020 rrangnath at publicknowledge.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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 03:26:01 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:26:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9C2A8@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <50C6EE19.8020701@gmail.com> +1 (With the fine print that being can create reality instead of just vice versa) On 2012/12/11 04:44 AM, McTim wrote: > Correct, but no one has the right to their own facts! > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Dec 11 04:45:10 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:45:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9C2A8@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <20121211104510.341c6eea@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > >> I don't think your statement about "agreeing to disagree" grasps > >> the situation well. > >> > >> Each man has the right to his or her opinion. > > Correct, but no one has the right to their own facts! And this is doubly true when, as in the present situation, it concerns an accusation that damages the reputation of individuals and/or an organisation. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Tue Dec 11 05:16:24 2012 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:16:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <1412835349.290385.1355150951797.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <1412835349.290385.1355150951797.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> Message-ID: <2141381838.345412.1355220984422.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> As the old Greek philosopher Heraclit famously said, you can never step into the same river twice. It may be the same river by name, but the water always flows and always changes. Insofar the analogy of the Internet and the Sea fits. While the Sea always appears to be non-changing, it's a constant flow of renewal and change, just as much as the Internet is fluid and constantly changing. Cheers Peter H. Hellmonds +49 (160) 360-2852 On 09.12.2012, at 18:12, "Jovan Kurbalija" wrote: Alejandro, as always, it is great to engage in creative discussion with you. The diversity of experiences on this list (professional, cultural, personal) may produce something useful. I share your concern about a very simplified analogy between the Internet and LOS (Law of the Sea). The question of the 'fixedness' of the sea is more complex. While the sea (even with all of its natural changes) remains more or less the same, our way of using the sea changes. In my previous message to Nick, I mentioned the example of the Arctic. Last week, the first liquid gas tanker passed through the Arctic. The opening of the Arctic northern navigation route will have numerous economic and geo-political consequences. Only a few decades ago, the Arctic was an endless icy space of interest only to scientists. Another example is the importance of the oceans as an absorber of C02 in mitigating climate changes (absorbs more than 30% of C02). The ocean is also central for geo-engineering projects. We will discover different 'oceans' while the ocean remains the same. As a mental exercise, we might think of the analogy between the TCP/IP and the ocean. Like the ocean TCP/IP has not changes substantially, but its use has gone beyond even the wildest possible imagination of its inventors. To paraphrase Heraclitus, we cannot step into the same water twice, not because of the water, but because of us. We change. This type of 'useless' exchanges may create useful insights. Thanks for triggering it. As ever, Jovan 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 11 05:18:31 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:18:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: <20121211104510.341c6eea@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9C2A8@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121211104510.341c6eea@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Are you suggesting the ombudsman would favor the organization over the complainant? Adam On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> > >> >> I don't think your statement about "agreeing to disagree" grasps >> >> the situation well. >> >> >> >> Each man has the right to his or her opinion. >> >> Correct, but no one has the right to their own facts! > > And this is doubly true when, as in the present situation, it concerns > an accusation that damages the reputation of individuals and/or an > organisation. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gideonrop at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 06:29:53 2012 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:29:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: <20121211104510.341c6eea@quill.bollow.ch> References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9C2A8@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121211104510.341c6eea@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: And this is doubly true when, as in the present situation, it concerns an accusation that damages the reputation of individuals and/or an organisation. Really this is not personal it is professional. We do not feel at all we have damaged any one's reputation. The only thing DCA asked is that they recuse themselves from decisions and discussions on .africa. In DCA's estimation the matter remains unsettled. Gideon Rop, DotConnectAfrica On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > > > > >> I don't think your statement about "agreeing to disagree" grasps > > >> the situation well. > > >> > > >> Each man has the right to his or her opinion. > > > > Correct, but no one has the right to their own facts! > > And this is doubly true when, as in the present situation, it concerns > an accusation that damages the reputation of individuals and/or an > organisation. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Dec 11 07:14:05 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:14:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9C2A8@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121211104510.341c6eea@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20121211131405.5202a6aa@quill.bollow.ch> I had written: >> And this is doubly true when, as in the present situation, it >> concerns an accusation that damages the reputation of individuals >> and/or an organisation. Gideon Rop replied: > Really this is not personal it is professional. We do not feel at > all we have damaged any one's reputation. The only thing DCA asked > is that they recuse themselves from decisions and discussions > on .africa. In DCA's estimation the matter remains unsettled. Well what ICANN's ombudsman answered was an (actual or implied or perhaps wrongly assumed to be implied) accusation of misconduct. Did DCA's letters explicitly ask only "that they recuse themselves from decisions and discussions on .africa"? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 07:31:59 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 07:31:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9C2A8@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121211104510.341c6eea@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Gideon wrote: > > And this is doubly true when, as in the present situation, it concerns > an accusation that damages the reputation of individuals and/or an > organisation. > > Really this is not personal it is professional. We do not feel at all we > have damaged any one's reputation. It seems however that you have tried to damage the reputation of several: http://www.dotconnectafrica.org/2012/08/alice-munyua-trying-to-legitimize-a-massive-cover-up-and-fraud/ http://www.dotconnectafrica.org/2011/10/the-illegitimate-african-agenda-dakar-arc-illegal-cabal-supporting-it/ http://www.dotconnectafrica.org/2011/10/dca-exclusive-commentary-travesty-africa-internet-governance-forum-afigf/ One can google "say No dotconnect africa" for more examples. Which is why the Ombudsman suggested you take it down a notch (or two), which is what I have been saying for a long time. -- 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 11 08:48:01 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 08:48:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced Message-ID: as "C-47" -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Dec 11 09:11:57 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:41:57 +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> <50C1944E.508@itforchange.net> <50C5C02F.6000404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50C73F2D.2010108@itforchange.net> On Monday 10 December 2012 06:59 PM, McTim wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:57 AM, parminder wrote: >> On Friday 07 December 2012 10:12 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> >> >> McTim, you must make up your mind whether you are advocating a 'free >> floating ICANN' model or are backing Milton's views, who is strongly, i >> repeat, strongly, against any free floating model for ICANN..... >> > The only difference between MM position and mine is that he wants a > treaty to limit ICANN and I don't think that is neccessary. Well, that, a treaty limiting ICANN, is also, more or less, the only difference between my position and and yours! Do you think it is a small difference. That is encouraging. > > We are both for "de-nationalisation". I just cut paste what I said in my last email (see below) - as for Milton's position " I cannot at all understand how keeping ICANN rooted in the US legal system, as Milton advocates, can be called de-nationalisation of ICANN by any stretch" Perhaps you, if not Milton, may want to comment on this all-important point. parminder > >> It is a different thing that I cannot at all understand how keeping ICANN >> rooted in the US legal system, as Milton advocates, can be called >> de-nationalisation of ICANN by any stretch... parminder > Since it means the removal of unilateralism, and NOT > internationalisation via intergovernmental means, that to me defines > "de-nationalisation". > > The ugly, dangerous process going on now in Dubai surely points out > that a treaty process is not a desirable means to achieve > internationalisation that we all seek. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Dec 11 11:37:53 2012 From: rrangnath at publicknowledge.org (Rashmi Rangnath) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:37:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: US government conversation with civil society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All: Friendly reminder to let me know if you can join the call with Ambassador Kramer tomorrow. It would be good to gauge the level of interest. Call in information will follow. Thanks to those who have already responded. Best, Rashmi On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Rashmi Rangnath < rrangnath at publicknowledge.org> wrote: > All: > > Please hold 11 AM UTC, 3 PM Dubai Time, tomorrow December 12th for a phone > call with Ambassador Kramer. Please let me know if you can join the call. > > Call details will follow. > > Best, > > Rashmi > > -- > Rashmi Rangnath > Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney > Public Knowledge > 1818 N Street NW > Suite 410 > Washington, D.C. 20036 > 202 861 0020 > rrangnath at publicknowledge.org > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -- Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036 202 861 0020 rrangnath at publicknowledge.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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Dec 11 12:06:46 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:06:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: WCIT Opening plenary, Hamadoun Touré: "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance. WCIT is about making sure that we connect the billion people without access to mobile telephony, and that we connect the 4.5 billion people who are still off line." Got it. WCIT is Dr. Touré's legacy. If it fails he won't have too much to look back on after 8 years. A lot of compromise would be a good idea. Adam On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM, McTim wrote: > as "C-47" > > > > -- > 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 12:11:04 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:11:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Dear Nick, Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "*non-tampering with transit traffic*" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. Best Bertrand On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an > interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. > > It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in > maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, > the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open > sea and by definition not owned by anyone. > > If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that > might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, > after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood > principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. > > We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when > transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, > was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the > state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. > > (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku > I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). > > FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has > yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very > much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative > branch). > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Geneva Representative > Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) > Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 > > *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: > http://meetme.so/nashton* > > Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic > mangling. > > On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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 nashton at ccianet.org Tue Dec 11 12:18:17 2012 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:18:17 +0100 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> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Glad you liked it. Given that cloud services inherently operate such that a given end-user is using physical services simultaneously in multiple jurisdictions, ensuring that transit traffic can respond solely based upon optimising network usage to provide predictable services will only become more and more important. When Matthias and I visit with delegations in Geneva, they are often unaware of these issues - but immediately understand the importance. Creating inadvertent traffic impediments due to measures only designed to have a national impact is understood as not desirable (and one could see in fact that doing so might be contrary to at least some countries' existing WTO commitments on the services side). On 11 Dec 2012, at 18:11, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear Nick, > > Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. > > Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. > > It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. > > If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. > > We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. > > (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). > > FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch). > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Geneva Representative > Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) > Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 > > Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: http://meetme.so/nashton > > Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. > > On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 12:20:35 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:20:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB91F57@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB91F57@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Alejandro, I am generally in agreement, but you mentioned one point that I want to clarify: Also, ideally all eight elements of the framework should apply to the same "commons", not one per area. I initially understood this sentence as meaning that the same structure or combination of elements should apply to all areas. Re-reading it, I think you meant that each "area", ie topic, should have all eight components, right? But moving forward, I want to add one thought: the modalities may vary according to the issue/topic to be addressed. The governance ecosystem dealing with the logical layer of the Internet (standards and protocols, names, numbers, etc...) is a distributed one, with different actors developing different norms through different procedures and structures. I think that, likewise, the different Internet-related public policy issues should be addressed by a constellation of dedicated issue-based structures, with their respective relevant stakeholders and appropriate procedures. This network of interoperable issue-based governance networks would be preferable to a single centralized and hierarchical organization. The challenge for the IGF will be whether it can catalyze/facilitate the emergence of such ad-hoc governance networks. Best B. On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Also, ideally all eight elements of the framework should apply to the same > "commons", not one per area. -- ____________________ 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 Tue Dec 11 12:45:47 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 12:45:47 -0500 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> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Hi, On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear Nick, > > Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an > interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt > acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of > "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet > during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the > easter coast of Africa. I'm not sure they could have done so (short of severing the submarine cables). IIRC, the BGP sessions from ASes of Egyptian networks were brought down, and East Africa traffic doesn't pass thru Egyptian IXPs or networks. In other words, when I would do a traceroute from Kenya to the EU, the Mombasa to Marseille leg is just one hop. They did however, make the cable laying company shift the cable from the east side of the Suez to the west side, which slowed construction and made the project cost more. But I do see your point. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 11 13:13:22 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 03:13:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: But they have just finished discussing a document, briefly introduced, (thanks again wcitleaks) that looks like a good start. Sure to be arguments. The proposed resolution on enabling environment looks like a wide open invitation for future ITU conferences to invade. But it's late, and expect Kieren will have wise words on soon. No idea what has happened to document 47, just ignored? Adam On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > WCIT Opening plenary, Hamadoun Touré: > "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many > comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the > Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about > taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance. > WCIT is about making sure that we connect the billion people without > access to mobile telephony, and that we connect the 4.5 billion people > who are still off line." > > Got it. > > WCIT is Dr. Touré's legacy. If it fails he won't have too much to > look back on after 8 years. A lot of compromise would be a good idea. > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM, McTim wrote: >> as "C-47" >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Tue Dec 11 13:38:00 2012 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Matthias C. Kettemann) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 19:38:00 +0100 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> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <50C77D88.7050108@uni-graz.at> Cher Bertrand, dear all, I'd even go one step further. In a article published in the Heidelberg Journal of International Law, I argued that the example of Egypt is not only reflective of an emerging international principle but even indicative of the crystallization of the application of the international customary law norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the stability and functionality of the Intenret can by now be clearly considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by international law. States that violate this common obligation engage their international responsibility. (I'm happy to share the article on an individual basis if you're interested (but it's in German): /K//ettemann/, Das Internet als internationales Schutzgut: Entwicklungsperspek­tiven des Internetvölkerrechts anlässlich des Arabischen Frühlings [The Internet als a Global Object of Protection: Perspectives on International Internet Law in Light of the Arab Spring],ZaöRV/Heidelberg Journal of Int'l Law 72 (2012), 469-482) Kind regards Matthias Am 11.12.2012 18:11, schrieb Bertrand de La Chapelle: > Dear Nick, > > Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an > interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that > Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international > principle of "*non-tampering with transit traffic*" when it blocked > access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the > transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. > > Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could > probably be part of an international/global regime. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: > > Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks > as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open > flow of data. > > It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but > in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a > state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the > territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned > by anyone. > > If we used this construct to protect the flow of international > data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea > embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of > internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go > back to the Roman period. > > We could do much worse than an international understanding that > data, when transiting any country between a source and destination > in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or > subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject > only to an international regime. > > (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you > at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might > have potential). > > FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the > USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current > Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are > many members of the legislative branch). > -- > Regards, > Nick Ashton-Hart > Geneva Representative > Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) > Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 > > *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: > http://meetme.so/nashton* > > Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic > mangling. > > On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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") > -- Univ.-Ass. Mag. Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich T | +43 316 380 6711 (Büro) M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobil) F | +43 316 380 9455 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com -- Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) Institute of International Law and International Relations University of Graz Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria T | +43 316 380 6711 (office) M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobile) F | +43 316 380 9455 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | internationallawandtheinternet.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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 11 13:41:31 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:11:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <50C77D88.7050108@uni-graz.at> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <50C77D88.7050108@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: With the level of control Egypt had over their Internet there was really no technical way to shut that cable down. Of course they might have sent a ship over with instructions to drag its anchor across the seabed, but short of that ., --srs (iPad) On 12-Dec-2012, at 0:08, "Matthias C. Kettemann" wrote: > Cher Bertrand, dear all, > > I'd even go one step further. In a article published in the Heidelberg Journal of International Law, I argued that the example of Egypt is not only reflective of an emerging international principle but even indicative of the crystallization of the application of the international customary law norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the stability and functionality of the Intenret can by now be clearly considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by international law. States that violate this common obligation engage their international responsibility. > > (I'm happy to share the article on an individual basis if you're interested (but it's in German): Kettemann, Das Internet als internationales Schutzgut: Entwicklungsperspek­tiven des Internetvölkerrechts anlässlich des Arabischen Frühlings [The Internet als a Global Object of Protection: Perspectives on International Internet Law in Light of the Arab Spring], ZaöRV/Heidelberg Journal of Int'l Law 72 (2012), 469-482 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Tue Dec 11 14:47:47 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 23:47:47 +0400 Subject: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <85D7060F-0FA7-434B-82E2-CBF1E99FAC71@uzh.ch> Hi On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:13 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > But they have just finished discussing a document, briefly introduced, > > (thanks again wcitleaks) that looks like a good start. I would suggest a second look. Will be a long day tomorrow… Bill > Sure to be > arguments. The proposed resolution on enabling environment looks like > a wide open invitation for future ITU conferences to invade. But it's > late, and expect Kieren will have wise words on > soon. > > No idea what has happened to document 47, just ignored? > > Adam > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> WCIT Opening plenary, Hamadoun Touré: >> "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many >> comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the >> Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about >> taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance. >> WCIT is about making sure that we connect the billion people without >> access to mobile telephony, and that we connect the 4.5 billion people >> who are still off line." >> >> Got it. >> >> WCIT is Dr. Touré's legacy. If it fails he won't have too much to >> look back on after 8 years. A lot of compromise would be a good idea. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM, McTim wrote: >>> as "C-47" >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 valeriab at apc.org Tue Dec 11 15:12:24 2012 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:12:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Your inputs please: Shape the future, now - very important civil society survey! Message-ID: <122A7D35-27FE-4DC1-83B5-FC03F0A3F69A@apc.org> Dear all, IMPORTANT: Shape the future, now! We need more responses to our WSIS survey for civil society to have a voice! APC would like to invite civil society organisations that participated in the WSIS process and that are concerned in some way with the WSIS goal of building a 'people-centred information society' to participate in a survey we are conducting as part of our WSIS +10 efforts. The survey's goal is to assess civil society's views on progress (or lack of progress) in achieving the WSIS goals, particularly the goals that we put in the civil society declaration in 2003: "Shaping the information society for human needs". www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/civil-society-declaration.pdf The survey is available at: The deadline for completing the survey is: URGENT! Your inputs are really essential to this process. Please try to make the time to respond. Best regards The APC team PD. We would appreciate if you disseminate the survey among your networks and contacts -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Dec 11 15:13:24 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (bdelachapelle at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 21:13:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <50C77D88.7050108@uni-graz.at> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <50C77D88.7050108@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: <95E1EF0F-6876-44DA-8CD6-87DAC2EF65D4@gmail.com> Dear Matthias, I agree with your thesis. Very happy to hear about this article of yours. My German is unfortunately probably not good enough to get all of it, but Paul Fehlinger (copied on this mail), who is working with me on the I&J project, is German and will certainly help me get the best of it. Would you have it in electronic format? By the way, this contributes to the documentation of cases illustrating the non-trains boundary harm principle introduced in the Council of Europe recommendation. Thanks very much for the information. We will read with great interest. This will. Sent from my iPad On 11 déc. 2012, at 19:38, "Matthias C. Kettemann" wrote: > Cher Bertrand, dear all, > > I'd even go one step further. In a article published in the Heidelberg Journal of International Law, I argued that the example of Egypt is not only reflective of an emerging international principle but even indicative of the crystallization of the application of the international customary law norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the stability and functionality of the Intenret can by now be clearly considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by international law. States that violate this common obligation engage their international responsibility. > > (I'm happy to share the article on an individual basis if you're interested (but it's in German): Kettemann, Das Internet als internationales Schutzgut: Entwicklungsperspek­tiven des Internetvölkerrechts anlässlich des Arabischen Frühlings [The Internet als a Global Object of Protection: Perspectives on International Internet Law in Light of the Arab Spring], ZaöRV/Heidelberg Journal of Int'l Law 72 (2012), 469-482 ) > > Kind regards > Matthias > > > Am 11.12.2012 18:11, schrieb Bertrand de La Chapelle: >> Dear Nick, >> >> Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. >> >> Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. >>> >>> It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. >>> >>> If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. >>> >>> We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. >>> >>> (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). >>> >>> FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch). >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Nick Ashton-Hart >>> Geneva Representative >>> Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) >>> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 >>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >>> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >>> USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 >>> >>> Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: http://meetme.so/nashton >>> >>> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. >>> >>> On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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") > > -- > > Univ.-Ass. Mag. Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) > > Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen > Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz > > Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich > > T | +43 316 380 6711 (Büro) > M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobil) > F | +43 316 380 9455 > E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at > Blog | internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com > > > -- > > Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) > > Institute of International Law and International Relations > University of Graz > > Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria > > T | +43 316 380 6711 (office) > M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobile) > F | +43 316 380 9455 > E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at > Blog | internationallawandtheinternet.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 sana.pryhod at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 17:53:18 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 00:53:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: US government conversation with civil society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, I would like to join this call. Best regards, Oksana Prykhodko director of iNGO European Media Platform Ukraine +380 44 289 5859 2012/12/11 Rashmi Rangnath : > All: > > Friendly reminder to let me know if you can join the call with Ambassador > Kramer tomorrow. It would be good to gauge the level of interest. > > Call in information will follow. > > Thanks to those who have already responded. > > Best, > > Rashmi > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Rashmi Rangnath > wrote: >> >> All: >> >> Please hold 11 AM UTC, 3 PM Dubai Time, tomorrow December 12th for a phone >> call with Ambassador Kramer. Please let me know if you can join the call. >> >> Call details will follow. >> >> Best, >> >> Rashmi >> >> -- >> Rashmi Rangnath >> Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney >> Public Knowledge >> 1818 N Street NW >> Suite 410 >> Washington, D.C. 20036 >> 202 861 0020 >> rrangnath at publicknowledge.org >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > > > > -- > Rashmi Rangnath > Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney > Public Knowledge > 1818 N Street NW > Suite 410 > Washington, D.C. 20036 > 202 861 0020 > rrangnath at publicknowledge.org > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 11 20:15:32 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:15:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires Message-ID: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> (lots of implications here for Internet Governance... M http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=69550 Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires Facebook's recent attempt at playing democracy are perhaps a good example of a Web site that's gone too far with user engagement and promised more than it is able, or willing to deliver. Facebook held a governance vote that closed yesterday and received more than 650,000 votes from its site users. In that vote 88 per cent voted for "Existing Documents: The current SRR and Data Use Policy" while a mere 12 per cent voted for "Proposed Documents: The proposed SRR and Data Use Policy." If you have no idea what that really means, you can be excused. Facebook's use of legal jargon is only one of the layers of confusion the social network has created around this issue in an attempt to do what it wants to do while also trying to be able to say that it did its best to involve site users in the decision. Basically, the vote comes down to a yes or no question on whether users wanted to allow Facebook to share their personal data with its business partners, such as recent acquisition Instagram. So despite the opaque language used by Facebook - which was in a poll held in the Facebook Site Governance app - 88 per cent of voters still said "no, don't share my personal data." But Facebook is going ahead to do so in any case, because the poll didn't reach the 30 per cent required threshold imposed by Facebook, so they only have to treat it as a matter of guidance (meaning they can ignore it if it doesn't suit their business interests.) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 22:44:45 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:14:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced In-Reply-To: <85D7060F-0FA7-434B-82E2-CBF1E99FAC71@uzh.ch> References: <85D7060F-0FA7-434B-82E2-CBF1E99FAC71@uzh.ch> Message-ID: McTim referred to the Russia/UAE text as C47. Adam's link to the actual document introduced (after discussions, perhaps as a compromise) points to Document DT/51-‐E 11 December 2012 Original English DRAFT INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS. There are clever provisions in DT/51 --E. Do these provisions come from or in any way a reflection of (a part of) the text from C47 ? Or, as Adam points out, is C 47 ignored? Sivasubramanian M On Dec 12, 2012 1:17 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > Hi > > On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:13 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > But they have just finished discussing a document, briefly introduced, > > > > (thanks again wcitleaks) that looks like a good start. > > I would suggest a second look. > > Will be a long day tomorrow… > > Bill > > > Sure to be > > arguments. The proposed resolution on enabling environment looks like > > a wide open invitation for future ITU conferences to invade. But it's > > late, and expect Kieren will have wise words on > > soon. > > > > No idea what has happened to document 47, just ignored? > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> WCIT Opening plenary, Hamadoun Touré: > >> "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many > >> comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the > >> Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about > >> taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance. > >> WCIT is about making sure that we connect the billion people without > >> access to mobile telephony, and that we connect the 4.5 billion people > >> who are still off line." > >> > >> Got it. > >> > >> WCIT is Dr. Touré's legacy. If it fails he won't have too much to > >> look back on after 8 years. A lot of compromise would be a good idea. > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM, McTim wrote: > >>> as "C-47" > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> 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 > >>> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Dec 11 22:56:32 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:56:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced In-Reply-To: References: <85D7060F-0FA7-434B-82E2-CBF1E99FAC71@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Document 51 is the text that matters. And the resolution is bad. Adam On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > McTim referred to the Russia/UAE text as C47. Adam's link to the actual > document introduced (after discussions, perhaps as a compromise) points to > Document DT/51-‐E 11 December 2012 Original English DRAFT > INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS. > > There are clever provisions in DT/51 --E. Do these provisions come from or > in any way a reflection of (a part of) the text from C47 ? Or, as Adam > points out, is C 47 ignored? > > Sivasubramanian M > > On Dec 12, 2012 1:17 AM, "William Drake" wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:13 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > But they have just finished discussing a document, briefly introduced, >> > >> > (thanks again wcitleaks) that looks like a good start. >> >> I would suggest a second look. >> >> Will be a long day tomorrow… >> >> Bill >> >> > Sure to be >> > arguments. The proposed resolution on enabling environment looks like >> > a wide open invitation for future ITU conferences to invade. But it's >> > late, and expect Kieren will have wise words on >> > soon. >> > >> > No idea what has happened to document 47, just ignored? >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> WCIT Opening plenary, Hamadoun Touré: >> >> "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many >> >> comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the >> >> Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about >> >> taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance. >> >> WCIT is about making sure that we connect the billion people without >> >> access to mobile telephony, and that we connect the 4.5 billion people >> >> who are still off line." >> >> >> >> Got it. >> >> >> >> WCIT is Dr. Touré's legacy. If it fails he won't have too much to >> >> look back on after 8 years. A lot of compromise would be a good idea. >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> as "C-47" >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> 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 >> >>> >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.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 apisan at unam.mx Tue Dec 11 23:06:22 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 04:06:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced In-Reply-To: References: <85D7060F-0FA7-434B-82E2-CBF1E99FAC71@uzh.ch> , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA08EE@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Hi, the "compromise" text of 51-E is indeed horrible. ISOC Mexico has prepared a response, communicated to our national delegation: http://t.co/GJ2IYggU Hope you find it of interest. Comments welcome. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] en nombre de Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Enviado el: martes, 11 de diciembre de 2012 21:56 Hasta: Sivasubramanian M CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced Document 51 is the text that matters. And the resolution is bad. Adam On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > McTim referred to the Russia/UAE text as C47. Adam's link to the actual > document introduced (after discussions, perhaps as a compromise) points to > Document DT/51-‐E 11 December 2012 Original English DRAFT > INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS. > > There are clever provisions in DT/51 --E. Do these provisions come from or > in any way a reflection of (a part of) the text from C47 ? Or, as Adam > points out, is C 47 ignored? > > Sivasubramanian M > > On Dec 12, 2012 1:17 AM, "William Drake" wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:13 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > But they have just finished discussing a document, briefly introduced, >> > >> > (thanks again wcitleaks) that looks like a good start. >> >> I would suggest a second look. >> >> Will be a long day tomorrow… >> >> Bill >> >> > Sure to be >> > arguments. The proposed resolution on enabling environment looks like >> > a wide open invitation for future ITU conferences to invade. But it's >> > late, and expect Kieren will have wise words on >> > soon. >> > >> > No idea what has happened to document 47, just ignored? >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> WCIT Opening plenary, Hamadoun Touré: >> >> "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many >> >> comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the >> >> Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about >> >> taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance. >> >> WCIT is about making sure that we connect the billion people without >> >> access to mobile telephony, and that we connect the 4.5 billion people >> >> who are still off line." >> >> >> >> Got it. >> >> >> >> WCIT is Dr. Touré's legacy. If it fails he won't have too much to >> >> look back on after 8 years. A lot of compromise would be a good idea. >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM, McTim wrote: >> >>> as "C-47" >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> 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 >> >>> >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.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 isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Dec 11 23:10:25 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:40:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires In-Reply-To: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> References: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 12, 2012 6:46 AM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > (lots of implications here for Internet Governance... > > M > > http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=69550 > > Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires > Facebook's recent attempt at playing democracy are perhaps a good example of > a Web site that's gone too far with user engagement and promised more than > it is able, or willing to deliver. > > Facebook held a governance vote that closed yesterday and received more than > 650,000 votes from its site users. In that vote 88 per cent voted for > "Existing Documents: The current SRR and Data Use Policy" while a mere 12 > per cent voted for "Proposed Documents: The proposed SRR and Data Use > Policy." > > If you have no idea what that really means, you can be excused. Facebook's > use of legal jargon is only one of the layers of confusion the social > network has created around this issue in an attempt to do what it wants to > do while also trying to be able to say that it did its best to involve site > users in the decision. Users sign click-through agreements that are long, legally complex and not at all easy for the average mind to understand. The rare user who patiently reads through the click-through agreement and understands what the agreement implies, would still go ahead and click-through the process because there is no way one could opt to refuse to sign one or more clauses / present alternate text / negotiate. The options are to sign the agreement as presented or be excluded from the network. In this situation, it is fair on the part of the user to expect Facebook to present alongside a paraphrased summary in such language as used in an advertisement. That would have enabled more users to understand what they have already agreed for and, in this situation, what they are asked to vote for. Sivasubramanian M Basically, the vote comes down to a yes or no > question on whether users wanted to allow Facebook to share their personal > data with its business partners, such as recent acquisition Instagram. > > So despite the opaque language used by Facebook - which was in a poll held > in the Facebook Site Governance app - 88 per cent of voters still said "no, > don't share my personal data." But Facebook is going ahead to do so in any > case, because the poll didn't reach the 30 per cent required threshold > imposed by Facebook, so they only have to treat it as a matter of guidance > (meaning they can ignore it if it doesn't suit their business interests.) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 00:11:59 2012 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:41:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA08EE@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <85D7060F-0FA7-434B-82E2-CBF1E99FAC71@uzh.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA08EE@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Thank you Alejandro, Thank you Adam. On Dec 12, 2012 9:36 AM, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" wrote: > Hi, > > the "compromise" text of 51-E is indeed horrible. > > ISOC Mexico has prepared a response, communicated to our national > delegation: > > http://t.co/GJ2IYggU > > Hope you find it of interest. Comments welcome. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] en nombre de Adam Peake [ > ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Enviado el: martes, 11 de diciembre de 2012 21:56 > Hasta: Sivasubramanian M > CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced > > Document 51 is the text that matters. And the resolution is bad. > > > > Adam > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Sivasubramanian M > wrote: > > > > McTim referred to the Russia/UAE text as C47. Adam's link to the actual > > document introduced (after discussions, perhaps as a compromise) points > to > > Document DT/51-‐E 11 December 2012 Original English DRAFT > > INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS. > > > > There are clever provisions in DT/51 --E. Do these provisions come from > or > > in any way a reflection of (a part of) the text from C47 ? Or, as Adam > > points out, is C 47 ignored? > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > On Dec 12, 2012 1:17 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > >> > >> Hi > >> > >> On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:13 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > >> > But they have just finished discussing a document, briefly introduced, > >> > < > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-121203-TD-0051!!MSW-E.pdf> > >> > (thanks again wcitleaks) that looks like a good start. > >> > >> I would suggest a second look. > >> > >> Will be a long day tomorrow… > >> > >> Bill > >> > >> > Sure to be > >> > arguments. The proposed resolution on enabling environment looks like > >> > a wide open invitation for future ITU conferences to invade. But it's > >> > late, and expect Kieren will have wise words on > >> > soon. > >> > > >> > No idea what has happened to document 47, just ignored? > >> > > >> > Adam > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >> WCIT Opening plenary, Hamadoun Touré: > >> >> "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many > >> >> comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the > >> >> Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about > >> >> taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance. > >> >> WCIT is about making sure that we connect the billion people without > >> >> access to mobile telephony, and that we connect the 4.5 billion > people > >> >> who are still off line." > >> >> > >> >> Got it. > >> >> > >> >> WCIT is Dr. Touré's legacy. If it fails he won't have too much to > >> >> look back on after 8 years. A lot of compromise would be a good idea. > >> >> > >> >> Adam > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM, McTim wrote: > >> >>> as "C-47" > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> 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 > >> >>> > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> > To be removed from the list, visit: > >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: > >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> > http://www.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 st.amour at isoc.org Wed Dec 12 01:25:22 2012 From: st.amour at isoc.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:25:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA08EE@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <85D7060F-0FA7-434B-82E2-CBF1E99FAC71@uzh.ch> , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA08EE@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <01B560E4-DFFD-43CE-96A5-765B5922F4AA@isoc.org> Thanks Alejandro, very useful here in Dubai. Best, Lynn On Dec 11, 2012, at 11:06 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Hi, > > the "compromise" text of 51-E is indeed horrible. > > ISOC Mexico has prepared a response, communicated to our national delegation: > > http://t.co/GJ2IYggU > > Hope you find it of interest. Comments welcome. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] en nombre de Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Enviado el: martes, 11 de diciembre de 2012 21:56 > Hasta: Sivasubramanian M > CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced > > Document 51 is the text that matters. And the resolution is bad. > > > > Adam > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> >> McTim referred to the Russia/UAE text as C47. Adam's link to the actual >> document introduced (after discussions, perhaps as a compromise) points to >> Document DT/51-‐E 11 December 2012 Original English DRAFT >> INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS. >> >> There are clever provisions in DT/51 --E. Do these provisions come from or >> in any way a reflection of (a part of) the text from C47 ? Or, as Adam >> points out, is C 47 ignored? >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> On Dec 12, 2012 1:17 AM, "William Drake" wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:13 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>> But they have just finished discussing a document, briefly introduced, >>>> >>>> (thanks again wcitleaks) that looks like a good start. >>> >>> I would suggest a second look. >>> >>> Will be a long day tomorrow… >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> Sure to be >>>> arguments. The proposed resolution on enabling environment looks like >>>> a wide open invitation for future ITU conferences to invade. But it's >>>> late, and expect Kieren will have wise words on >>>> soon. >>>> >>>> No idea what has happened to document 47, just ignored? >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> WCIT Opening plenary, Hamadoun Touré: >>>>> "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many >>>>> comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the >>>>> Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about >>>>> taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance. >>>>> WCIT is about making sure that we connect the billion people without >>>>> access to mobile telephony, and that we connect the 4.5 billion people >>>>> who are still off line." >>>>> >>>>> Got it. >>>>> >>>>> WCIT is Dr. Touré's legacy. If it fails he won't have too much to >>>>> look back on after 8 years. A lot of compromise would be a good idea. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM, McTim wrote: >>>>>> as "C-47" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From deborah at accessnow.org Wed Dec 12 01:34:36 2012 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:34:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced In-Reply-To: <01B560E4-DFFD-43CE-96A5-765B5922F4AA@isoc.org> References: <85D7060F-0FA7-434B-82E2-CBF1E99FAC71@uzh.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA08EE@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <01B560E4-DFFD-43CE-96A5-765B5922F4AA@isoc.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone, Here's the Rev.1 of the text that Adam circulated earlier. http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/51v51r1.pdf Also, I wanted to share a blog post that Access put together analyzing the text (the one released last night, not the revision). https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2012/12/11/wcit-watch-analysis-of-chairmans-compromise-proposal-document-dt-51-e The DT/51/Rev1 is being discussed now, live webcast (in 6 UN languages) here: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/webcast.aspx Live captioning in English here: http://www.streamtext.net/player?event=CFI-WCIT Best, Deborah On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > Thanks Alejandro, > > very useful here in Dubai. > > Best, > > Lynn > > On Dec 11, 2012, at 11:06 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > the "compromise" text of 51-E is indeed horrible. > > > > ISOC Mexico has prepared a response, communicated to our national > delegation: > > > > http://t.co/GJ2IYggU > > > > Hope you find it of interest. Comments welcome. > > > > Yours, > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > > > SMS +525541444475 > > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > > > ________________________________________ > > Desde: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] en nombre de Adam Peake [ > ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > > Enviado el: martes, 11 de diciembre de 2012 21:56 > > Hasta: Sivasubramanian M > > CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Asunto: Re: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced > > > > Document 51 is the text that matters. And the resolution is bad. > > > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Sivasubramanian M > wrote: > >> > >> McTim referred to the Russia/UAE text as C47. Adam's link to the actual > >> document introduced (after discussions, perhaps as a compromise) points > to > >> Document DT/51-‐E 11 December 2012 Original English DRAFT > >> INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS. > >> > >> There are clever provisions in DT/51 --E. Do these provisions come from > or > >> in any way a reflection of (a part of) the text from C47 ? Or, as Adam > >> points out, is C 47 ignored? > >> > >> Sivasubramanian M > >> > >> On Dec 12, 2012 1:17 AM, "William Drake" wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:13 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>> > >>>> But they have just finished discussing a document, briefly introduced, > >>>> < > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-121203-TD-0051!!MSW-E.pdf> > >>>> (thanks again wcitleaks) that looks like a good start. > >>> > >>> I would suggest a second look. > >>> > >>> Will be a long day tomorrow… > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>>> Sure to be > >>>> arguments. The proposed resolution on enabling environment looks like > >>>> a wide open invitation for future ITU conferences to invade. But it's > >>>> late, and expect Kieren will have wise words on > >>>> soon. > >>>> > >>>> No idea what has happened to document 47, just ignored? > >>>> > >>>> Adam > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>>> WCIT Opening plenary, Hamadoun Touré: > >>>>> "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many > >>>>> comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the > >>>>> Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about > >>>>> taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance. > >>>>> WCIT is about making sure that we connect the billion people without > >>>>> access to mobile telephony, and that we connect the 4.5 billion > people > >>>>> who are still off line." > >>>>> > >>>>> Got it. > >>>>> > >>>>> WCIT is Dr. Touré's legacy. If it fails he won't have too much to > >>>>> look back on after 8 years. A lot of compromise would be a good idea. > >>>>> > >>>>> Adam > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM, McTim wrote: > >>>>>> as "C-47" > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> 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 > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>>> > >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Dec 12 01:48:45 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 06:48:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires In-Reply-To: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> References: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com>, at 02:15:32 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012, michael gurstein writes >Facebook held a governance vote that closed yesterday and received more than >650,000 votes from its site users. In that vote 88 per cent voted for >"Existing Documents: The current SRR and Data Use Policy" while a mere 12 >per cent voted for "Proposed Documents: The proposed SRR and Data Use >Policy." > >If you have no idea what that really means, you can be excused. Facebook's >use of legal jargon is only one of the layers of confusion the social >network has created around this issue It's not just the changes which are somewhat opaque, even the way the current privacy, security and audience settings work (under the current policy) is too complicated for the average user. That's why I'm involved in a project called www.safer-settings.com, which offers to secure the Facebook settings of vulnerable users who are being harassed or stalked using Facebook. Telling people to close their account is not-an-option, as that denies them access to their support networks, in the same way that many users regard it as not-an-option to say "no" to the Facebook Policies and deny themselves membership. -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 02:06:35 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:06:35 +1300 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires In-Reply-To: References: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:48 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$**c92591d0$@gmail.com>, at 02:15:32 on > Wed, 12 Dec 2012, michael gurstein writes > > Facebook held a governance vote that closed yesterday and received more >> than >> 650,000 votes from its site users. In that vote 88 per cent voted for >> "Existing Documents: The current SRR and Data Use Policy" while a mere 12 >> per cent voted for "Proposed Documents: The proposed SRR and Data Use >> Policy." >> >> If you have no idea what that really means, you can be excused. Facebook's >> use of legal jargon is only one of the layers of confusion the social >> network has created around this issue >> > > It's not just the changes which are somewhat opaque, even the way the > current privacy, security and audience settings work (under the current > policy) is too complicated for the average user. > > That's why I'm involved in a project called www.safer-settings.com, which > offers to secure the Facebook settings of vulnerable users who are being > harassed or stalked using Facebook. > > Telling people to close their account is not-an-option, as that denies > them access to their support networks, in the same way that many users > regard it as not-an-option to say "no" to the Facebook Policies and deny > themselves membership. > -- > Roland Perry > > This is why there is need for regulators because even with the freedom to > "self-regulate", you will always have those who abuse their "powers". How > different is this "abuse" I wonder from an "abuse of public office"? Even > if facebook is not traditionally "government" but the fact that it has > control and the power to wield its influence arbitrarily which reminds me > of what Marilia had raised this year on the list. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 02:18:40 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:18:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires In-Reply-To: References: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Snip> >> This is why there is need for regulators Who would be these "regulators" you speak of? because even with the freedom to >> "self-regulate", you will always have those who abuse their "powers". How >> different is this "abuse" I wonder from an "abuse of public office"? Even if >> facebook is not traditionally "government" but the fact that it has control >> and the power to wield its influence arbitrarily which reminds me of what >> Marilia had raised this year on the list. What is arbitrary about this, the rules were published in advance? Are you suggesting that even though less than 1% of people voted that their choice should stand? that hardly seems 'democratic" to me. -- 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 rrangnath at publicknowledge.org Wed Dec 12 02:23:11 2012 From: rrangnath at publicknowledge.org (Rashmi Rangnath) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:23:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: US government conversation with civil society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All: Below is the call in information for the call with Ambassador Kramer. Hope to have many of you on the call. Best, Rashmi *USA Toll-Free:***** 888-273-3658**** *USA Caller Paid/International Toll:***** 213-270-2124**** *ACCESS CODE:***** 9240927**** *HOST PASSWORD:***** 6433 On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Rashmi Rangnath < rrangnath at publicknowledge.org> wrote: > All: > > Please hold 11 AM UTC, 3 PM Dubai Time, tomorrow December 12th for a phone > call with Ambassador Kramer. Please let me know if you can join the call. > > Call details will follow. > > Best, > > Rashmi > > -- > Rashmi Rangnath > Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney > Public Knowledge > 1818 N Street NW > Suite 410 > Washington, D.C. 20036 > 202 861 0020 > rrangnath at publicknowledge.org > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > -- Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036 202 861 0020 rrangnath at publicknowledge.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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 02:25:37 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:25:37 +1300 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires In-Reply-To: References: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:18 PM, McTim wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > Snip> > >> This is why there is need for regulators > > Who would be these "regulators" you speak of? > > because even with the freedom to > >> "self-regulate", you will always have those who abuse their "powers". > How > >> different is this "abuse" I wonder from an "abuse of public office"? > Even if > >> facebook is not traditionally "government" but the fact that it has > control > >> and the power to wield its influence arbitrarily which reminds me of > what > >> Marilia had raised this year on the list. > > What is arbitrary about this, the rules were published in advance? > Are you suggesting that even > though less than 1% of people voted that their choice should stand? > that hardly seems 'democratic" to me. > > Good point McTim. The more I think about it, the more I think that the philosophy behind it is the same which countries use when they pass laws on censorship and justify it by saying that it fulfills Article 19 of the ICCPR in that they made a law but they forget that sometimes even the exceptions in the rules are "abused". Have "ts" crossed and "i"s dotted don't necessarily mean that power is not "abused. Another example from a different industry would be the financial crisis a few years ago in the US when "self regulation" did nothing to stop some from "paying themselves". I am thinking of the German regulators who admonished Facebook for the use of "the like tag". > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 02:32:00 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:32:00 +1300 Subject: [governance] ICANN and ITU In-Reply-To: <33CBB087AD29A54C92372731469F728F33745EEC@TUCHM01.TUECSP.UNICC.ORG> References: <33CBB087AD29A54C92372731469F728F33745EEC@TUCHM01.TUECSP.UNICC.ORG> Message-ID: *A new season of cooperation between ICANN and ITU* December 5, 2012 · by itu4u · in Broadband , Lee-Roy Chetty, WCIT-12 **** [image: Description: ICANN_ITU]The World Conference on International Telecommunications( #WCIT-12 ) currently taking place in Dubai is now in full swing.**** A number of high ranking officials and dignitaries are in attendance at the conference, including Mohamed Nasser Al-Ghanim, Director-General of the UAE Telecommunications Regulatory Authority and Chairman of the Conference; Fadi Chehadé, President and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN); and ITU Secretary-General, Dr. Hamadoun I. Touré.**** Addressing what he described as a historic opening ceremony, Fadi Chehadé is on record stating that his presence at WCIT-12 is due to his and ICANN’s firm belief in the power of engagement.**** Mr. Chehadé went on to say that it is a new season of engagement at ICANN, and for cooperation between ICANN and ITU, which started recently at a meeting with Dr. Touré at the Internet Governance Forumin Baku. **** ICANN – under Mr. Chehadé’s stewardship – has recognized ITU’s deep impact on the development of the telecommunication industry and broadband infrastructure, which has specifically impacted the developing world tremendously.**** Mr. Chehadé believes that ITU and ICANN have complementary functions to facilitate and in the future, will cooperate in good spirit, while clearly respecting each organization’s distinct roles.**** ICANN therefore – along with other Internet organizations, which include; ISOC (the Internet Society), IETF(the Internet Engineering Task Force), and other regional Internet registries – plan to continue their deep commitment to servicing the world’s needs for Internet governance.**** Mr. Chehadé also added that when building any organization, there are two options. You could either build it as a fortress or as an oasis.**** ICANN chooses the latter option when it comes to their organization.**** The President and CEO of ICANN pointed out that oases are open and vital, and that it is important to remove the walls, open the windows, and build organizations that are welcoming and transparent.**** Dr. Touré thanked ICANN and Mr. Chehadé as well as Steve Crocker, ICANN’s Chairman, for accepting the invitation to come to WCIT-12.**** Dr. Touré said he looked forward to the exciting opportunities that lie ahead and all that can be achieved by ITU and ICANN together, in a positive spirit of collaboration.**** This is indeed a welcome development and bodes well for the world’s users who can only benefit from such strengthened cooperation. A good news story to watch and one the ITU4U will be sure to return to.**** For more highlights from the WCIT-12 opening week, please visit http://www.itu.int/osg/wcit-12/highlights/dec03.html**** [image: Description: medium_chetty]By: Lee-Roy Chetty **** Lee-Roy Chetty is a proud citizen of the Republic of South Africa. He works as a researcher and writer for ITU**** ** ** -- 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: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 45474 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 39378 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 Wed Dec 12 03:03:23 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:03:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires In-Reply-To: References: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <561CC178-6DAC-49E8-90CF-E8E6E27FE147@gmail.com> But why frame this in democratic terms? This was customer outreach, seems to have sought endorsement rather than engage in deliberation, and is public relations... It of course is in a unique context... The quest for a profitable business model while not eroding users proclivities to "share"...on matters that are personal and also political, which makes simple analogies of talking in the public park or sanctity of the mail/post look completely different... In condition where market power can be abused in forms that are not readily captured by abuse of market dominance, as there are choices for users, and whose political/rights impact is rather novel... Asserting or accepting the absolute right of firms to do what they like is NO different to allowing the state in a similar way... ...,... On 12 Dec 2012, at 9:18 AM, McTim wrote: > > What is arbitrary about this, the rules were published in advance? > Are you suggesting that even > though less than 1% of people voted that their choice should stand? > that hardly seems 'democratic" to me. > > > -- > 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 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Wed Dec 12 03:28:37 2012 From: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:28:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA08EE@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <85D7060F-0FA7-434B-82E2-CBF1E99FAC71@uzh.ch> , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA08EE@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <3844BA29-958B-401C-931C-E82F0300D27B@isoc.be> Great work Alejandro, may we, ISOC chapters, forward your statement to our national delegation ? Rudi Vansnick ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" Op 12-dec-2012, om 05:06 heeft Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch het volgende geschreven: > Hi, > > the "compromise" text of 51-E is indeed horrible. > > ISOC Mexico has prepared a response, communicated to our national delegation: > > http://t.co/GJ2IYggU > > Hope you find it of interest. Comments welcome. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] en nombre de Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Enviado el: martes, 11 de diciembre de 2012 21:56 > Hasta: Sivasubramanian M > CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced > > Document 51 is the text that matters. And the resolution is bad. > > > > Adam > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> >> McTim referred to the Russia/UAE text as C47. Adam's link to the actual >> document introduced (after discussions, perhaps as a compromise) points to >> Document DT/51-‐E 11 December 2012 Original English DRAFT >> INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS. >> >> There are clever provisions in DT/51 --E. Do these provisions come from or >> in any way a reflection of (a part of) the text from C47 ? Or, as Adam >> points out, is C 47 ignored? >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> On Dec 12, 2012 1:17 AM, "William Drake" wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:13 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>> But they have just finished discussing a document, briefly introduced, >>>> >>>> (thanks again wcitleaks) that looks like a good start. >>> >>> I would suggest a second look. >>> >>> Will be a long day tomorrow… >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> Sure to be >>>> arguments. The proposed resolution on enabling environment looks like >>>> a wide open invitation for future ITU conferences to invade. But it's >>>> late, and expect Kieren will have wise words on >>>> soon. >>>> >>>> No idea what has happened to document 47, just ignored? >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> WCIT Opening plenary, Hamadoun Touré: >>>>> "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many >>>>> comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the >>>>> Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about >>>>> taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance. >>>>> WCIT is about making sure that we connect the billion people without >>>>> access to mobile telephony, and that we connect the 4.5 billion people >>>>> who are still off line." >>>>> >>>>> Got it. >>>>> >>>>> WCIT is Dr. Touré's legacy. If it fails he won't have too much to >>>>> look back on after 8 years. A lot of compromise would be a good idea. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM, McTim wrote: >>>>>> as "C-47" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 03:32:43 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:32:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced In-Reply-To: <3844BA29-958B-401C-931C-E82F0300D27B@isoc.be> References: <85D7060F-0FA7-434B-82E2-CBF1E99FAC71@uzh.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA08EE@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <3844BA29-958B-401C-931C-E82F0300D27B@isoc.be> Message-ID: What is the procedure of voting? Who, when and for what will vote? 2012/12/12 Rudi Vansnick : > Great work Alejandro, may we, ISOC chapters, forward your statement to our national delegation ? > > Rudi Vansnick > ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- > President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 > rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 > Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen > www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" > > Op 12-dec-2012, om 05:06 heeft Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch het volgende geschreven: > >> Hi, >> >> the "compromise" text of 51-E is indeed horrible. >> >> ISOC Mexico has prepared a response, communicated to our national delegation: >> >> http://t.co/GJ2IYggU >> >> Hope you find it of interest. Comments welcome. >> >> Yours, >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> ! !! !!! !!!! >> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >> >> >> >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO >> >> SMS +525541444475 >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> ________________________________________ >> Desde: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] en nombre de Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Enviado el: martes, 11 de diciembre de 2012 21:56 >> Hasta: Sivasubramanian M >> CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Asunto: Re: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced >> >> Document 51 is the text that matters. And the resolution is bad. >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >>> >>> McTim referred to the Russia/UAE text as C47. Adam's link to the actual >>> document introduced (after discussions, perhaps as a compromise) points to >>> Document DT/51-‐E 11 December 2012 Original English DRAFT >>> INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS. >>> >>> There are clever provisions in DT/51 --E. Do these provisions come from or >>> in any way a reflection of (a part of) the text from C47 ? Or, as Adam >>> points out, is C 47 ignored? >>> >>> Sivasubramanian M >>> >>> On Dec 12, 2012 1:17 AM, "William Drake" wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:13 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>>> But they have just finished discussing a document, briefly introduced, >>>>> >>>>> (thanks again wcitleaks) that looks like a good start. >>>> >>>> I would suggest a second look. >>>> >>>> Will be a long day tomorrow… >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>>> Sure to be >>>>> arguments. The proposed resolution on enabling environment looks like >>>>> a wide open invitation for future ITU conferences to invade. But it's >>>>> late, and expect Kieren will have wise words on >>>>> soon. >>>>> >>>>> No idea what has happened to document 47, just ignored? >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>> WCIT Opening plenary, Hamadoun Touré: >>>>>> "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many >>>>>> comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the >>>>>> Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about >>>>>> taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance. >>>>>> WCIT is about making sure that we connect the billion people without >>>>>> access to mobile telephony, and that we connect the 4.5 billion people >>>>>> who are still off line." >>>>>> >>>>>> Got it. >>>>>> >>>>>> WCIT is Dr. Touré's legacy. If it fails he won't have too much to >>>>>> look back on after 8 years. A lot of compromise would be a good idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM, McTim wrote: >>>>>>> as "C-47" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Wed Dec 12 03:40:52 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:40:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced In-Reply-To: <3844BA29-958B-401C-931C-E82F0300D27B@isoc.be> References: <85D7060F-0FA7-434B-82E2-CBF1E99FAC71@uzh.ch> , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA08EE@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<3844BA29-958B-401C-931C-E82F0300D27B@isoc.be> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA1E4D@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Rudi, thanks for your comment. Yes, please, the way we wrote and published the statement is intended to make re-use easy if it is found useful. Feedback welcome, of course. We thought instead of speaking about what to do - interact with national delegations as well as other organizations - we might as well just do it. Others (not ISOC chapters, also in this list) equally welcome. 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: Rudi Vansnick [rudi.vansnick at isoc.be] Enviado el: miércoles, 12 de diciembre de 2012 02:28 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Asunto: Re: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced Great work Alejandro, may we, ISOC chapters, forward your statement to our national delegation ? Rudi Vansnick ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" Op 12-dec-2012, om 05:06 heeft Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch het volgende geschreven: > Hi, > > the "compromise" text of 51-E is indeed horrible. > > ISOC Mexico has prepared a response, communicated to our national delegation: > > http://t.co/GJ2IYggU > > Hope you find it of interest. Comments welcome. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] en nombre de Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] > Enviado el: martes, 11 de diciembre de 2012 21:56 > Hasta: Sivasubramanian M > CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced > > Document 51 is the text that matters. And the resolution is bad. > > > > Adam > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >> >> McTim referred to the Russia/UAE text as C47. Adam's link to the actual >> document introduced (after discussions, perhaps as a compromise) points to >> Document DT/51-‐E 11 December 2012 Original English DRAFT >> INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS. >> >> There are clever provisions in DT/51 --E. Do these provisions come from or >> in any way a reflection of (a part of) the text from C47 ? Or, as Adam >> points out, is C 47 ignored? >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> On Dec 12, 2012 1:17 AM, "William Drake" wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:13 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>> But they have just finished discussing a document, briefly introduced, >>>> >>>> (thanks again wcitleaks) that looks like a good start. >>> >>> I would suggest a second look. >>> >>> Will be a long day tomorrow… >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> Sure to be >>>> arguments. The proposed resolution on enabling environment looks like >>>> a wide open invitation for future ITU conferences to invade. But it's >>>> late, and expect Kieren will have wise words on >>>> soon. >>>> >>>> No idea what has happened to document 47, just ignored? >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> WCIT Opening plenary, Hamadoun Touré: >>>>> "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many >>>>> comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the >>>>> Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about >>>>> taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance. >>>>> WCIT is about making sure that we connect the billion people without >>>>> access to mobile telephony, and that we connect the 4.5 billion people >>>>> who are still off line." >>>>> >>>>> Got it. >>>>> >>>>> WCIT is Dr. Touré's legacy. If it fails he won't have too much to >>>>> look back on after 8 years. A lot of compromise would be a good idea. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM, McTim wrote: >>>>>> as "C-47" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Wed Dec 12 03:42:32 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:42:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced In-Reply-To: References: <85D7060F-0FA7-434B-82E2-CBF1E99FAC71@uzh.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA08EE@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <3844BA29-958B-401C-931C-E82F0300D27B@isoc.be>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA1E5E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Oksana, only governments take the floor, discuss and decide. They tend to avoid votes and work continuously on text until there is some agreement or at least till disagreement is not audibly expressed. 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 Oksana Prykhodko [sana.pryhod at gmail.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 12 de diciembre de 2012 02:32 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Rudi Vansnick CC: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Asunto: Re: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced What is the procedure of voting? Who, when and for what will vote? 2012/12/12 Rudi Vansnick : > Great work Alejandro, may we, ISOC chapters, forward your statement to our national delegation ? > > Rudi Vansnick > ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- > President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 > rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 > Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen > www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" > > Op 12-dec-2012, om 05:06 heeft Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch het volgende geschreven: > >> Hi, >> >> the "compromise" text of 51-E is indeed horrible. >> >> ISOC Mexico has prepared a response, communicated to our national delegation: >> >> http://t.co/GJ2IYggU >> >> Hope you find it of interest. Comments welcome. >> >> Yours, >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> ! !! !!! !!!! >> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >> >> >> >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO >> >> SMS +525541444475 >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> ________________________________________ >> Desde: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] en nombre de Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >> Enviado el: martes, 11 de diciembre de 2012 21:56 >> Hasta: Sivasubramanian M >> CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Asunto: Re: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced >> >> Document 51 is the text that matters. And the resolution is bad. >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >>> >>> McTim referred to the Russia/UAE text as C47. Adam's link to the actual >>> document introduced (after discussions, perhaps as a compromise) points to >>> Document DT/51-‐E 11 December 2012 Original English DRAFT >>> INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS. >>> >>> There are clever provisions in DT/51 --E. Do these provisions come from or >>> in any way a reflection of (a part of) the text from C47 ? Or, as Adam >>> points out, is C 47 ignored? >>> >>> Sivasubramanian M >>> >>> On Dec 12, 2012 1:17 AM, "William Drake" wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:13 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>>> But they have just finished discussing a document, briefly introduced, >>>>> >>>>> (thanks again wcitleaks) that looks like a good start. >>>> >>>> I would suggest a second look. >>>> >>>> Will be a long day tomorrow… >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>>> Sure to be >>>>> arguments. The proposed resolution on enabling environment looks like >>>>> a wide open invitation for future ITU conferences to invade. But it's >>>>> late, and expect Kieren will have wise words on >>>>> soon. >>>>> >>>>> No idea what has happened to document 47, just ignored? >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>> WCIT Opening plenary, Hamadoun Touré: >>>>>> "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many >>>>>> comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the >>>>>> Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about >>>>>> taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance. >>>>>> WCIT is about making sure that we connect the billion people without >>>>>> access to mobile telephony, and that we connect the 4.5 billion people >>>>>> who are still off line." >>>>>> >>>>>> Got it. >>>>>> >>>>>> WCIT is Dr. Touré's legacy. If it fails he won't have too much to >>>>>> look back on after 8 years. A lot of compromise would be a good idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM, McTim wrote: >>>>>>> as "C-47" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 03:45:58 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:45:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA1E5E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <85D7060F-0FA7-434B-82E2-CBF1E99FAC71@uzh.ch> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA08EE@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <3844BA29-958B-401C-931C-E82F0300D27B@isoc.be> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA1E5E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Thank you very much, Alejandro! In Ukraine we have only ISOC Ukraine chapter in formation, but we of course support your excellent address by our European Media Platform. we just the best way to do it 2012/12/12 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch : > Oksana, > > only governments take the floor, discuss and decide. They tend to avoid votes and work continuously on text until there is some agreement or at least till disagreement is not audibly expressed. > > 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 Oksana Prykhodko [sana.pryhod at gmail.com] > Enviado el: miércoles, 12 de diciembre de 2012 02:32 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Rudi Vansnick > CC: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > Asunto: Re: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced > > What is the procedure of voting? Who, when and for what will vote? > > 2012/12/12 Rudi Vansnick : >> Great work Alejandro, may we, ISOC chapters, forward your statement to our national delegation ? >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> ------------------ Internet Society Belgium --------------------- >> President - CEO Tel +32/(0)9/329.39.16 >> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 >> Dendermondesteenweg 143 B-9070 Destelbergen >> www.internetsociety.be "The Internet is for everyone" >> >> Op 12-dec-2012, om 05:06 heeft Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch het volgende geschreven: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> the "compromise" text of 51-E is indeed horrible. >>> >>> ISOC Mexico has prepared a response, communicated to our national delegation: >>> >>> http://t.co/GJ2IYggU >>> >>> Hope you find it of interest. Comments welcome. >>> >>> Yours, >>> >>> Alejandro Pisanty >>> >>> ! !! !!! !!!! >>> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >>> >>> >>> >>> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >>> >>> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO >>> >>> SMS +525541444475 >>> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >>> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >>> >>> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >>> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> Desde: apeake at gmail.com [apeake at gmail.com] en nombre de Adam Peake [ajp at glocom.ac.jp] >>> Enviado el: martes, 11 de diciembre de 2012 21:56 >>> Hasta: Sivasubramanian M >>> CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Asunto: Re: [governance] Russia/UAE text is officially introduced >>> >>> Document 51 is the text that matters. And the resolution is bad. >>> >>> >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: >>>> >>>> McTim referred to the Russia/UAE text as C47. Adam's link to the actual >>>> document introduced (after discussions, perhaps as a compromise) points to >>>> Document DT/51-‐E 11 December 2012 Original English DRAFT >>>> INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATION REGULATIONS. >>>> >>>> There are clever provisions in DT/51 --E. Do these provisions come from or >>>> in any way a reflection of (a part of) the text from C47 ? Or, as Adam >>>> points out, is C 47 ignored? >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian M >>>> >>>> On Dec 12, 2012 1:17 AM, "William Drake" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> On Dec 11, 2012, at 10:13 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But they have just finished discussing a document, briefly introduced, >>>>>> >>>>>> (thanks again wcitleaks) that looks like a good start. >>>>> >>>>> I would suggest a second look. >>>>> >>>>> Will be a long day tomorrow… >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>>> Sure to be >>>>>> arguments. The proposed resolution on enabling environment looks like >>>>>> a wide open invitation for future ITU conferences to invade. But it's >>>>>> late, and expect Kieren will have wise words on >>>>>> soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> No idea what has happened to document 47, just ignored? >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>>> WCIT Opening plenary, Hamadoun Touré: >>>>>>> "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many >>>>>>> comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the >>>>>>> Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about >>>>>>> taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance. >>>>>>> WCIT is about making sure that we connect the billion people without >>>>>>> access to mobile telephony, and that we connect the 4.5 billion people >>>>>>> who are still off line." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Got it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WCIT is Dr. Touré's legacy. If it fails he won't have too much to >>>>>>> look back on after 8 years. A lot of compromise would be a good idea. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:48 PM, McTim wrote: >>>>>>>> as "C-47" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Dec 12 03:50:05 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:50:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires In-Reply-To: References: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message , at 20:25:37 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >I am thinking of the German regulators who admonished Facebook for the >use of "the like tag" There's not much wrong with the "Like" tag, because no-one is forcing you to attach it, and it's pretty obvious what it does. Where the unexpected consequences creep in is when, unexpectedly, it's grabbed by the entity you "liked", and used as an advert; eg "Roland Likes Starbucks" and sent out to people I've never heard of. -- 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 sana.pryhod at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 04:26:25 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:26:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: US government conversation with civil society In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Unfortunately, I am not sure that I can join this call (because of problems with connection). Our iNGO European Media Platform is extremely concerned with the lack of transparency and accountability of WCIT 12 process and official position of the Ukrainian delegation. Just few minutes ago I received official responce from our Telecommunication Administration that it is too late to discuss all these issues. In case if Ukrainian delegation will vote for any decision, which will limited freedom of Internet, we will have to express our distrust for such decisions. We had no open discussions within preparatory process, official delegation does not include or civil society representatives or even ISPs, we have no idea what Ukrainian delegation does in Dubai just now. We will do our best to draw attention of the US Embassy, European Delegation, Council of Europe and OECD offices in Kiev to discuss this situation and more general issues on Internet Governance and multistakeholderism. I am writing just now as the director of iNGO European Media Platform, but we discussed these issues during our General Assembly (26 November), and especially with Hanne Severinsen, the President of iNGO European Media Platform. Hoping for your understanding and help, Best regards, Oksana Prykhodko +380 44 289 5859 +380 50 3532911 2012/12/12 Rashmi Rangnath > All: > > Below is the call in information for the call with Ambassador Kramer. Hope > to have many of you on the call. > > Best, > > Rashmi > > *USA Toll-Free:***** > > 888-273-3658**** > > *USA Caller Paid/International Toll:***** > > 213-270-2124**** > > *ACCESS CODE:***** > > 9240927**** > > *HOST PASSWORD:***** > > 6433 > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Rashmi Rangnath < > rrangnath at publicknowledge.org> wrote: > >> All: >> >> Please hold 11 AM UTC, 3 PM Dubai Time, tomorrow December 12th for a >> phone call with Ambassador Kramer. Please let me know if you can join the >> call. >> >> Call details will follow. >> >> Best, >> >> Rashmi >> >> -- >> Rashmi Rangnath >> Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney >> Public Knowledge >> 1818 N Street NW >> Suite 410 >> Washington, D.C. 20036 >> 202 861 0020 >> rrangnath at publicknowledge.org >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> > > > -- > Rashmi Rangnath > Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney > Public Knowledge > 1818 N Street NW > Suite 410 > Washington, D.C. 20036 > 202 861 0020 > rrangnath at publicknowledge.org > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rrangnath at publicknowledge.org Wed Dec 12 05:49:20 2012 From: rrangnath at publicknowledge.org (Rashmi Rangnath) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:49:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call with Amd. Kramer delayed by 15 minutes Message-ID: All: Apologies for the inconvenience. The call with the Ambassador has been delayed by 15 minutes. Rashmi -- Rashmi Rangnath Director, Global Knowledge Initiative and Staff Attorney Public Knowledge 1818 N Street NW Suite 410 Washington, D.C. 20036 202 861 0020 rrangnath at publicknowledge.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 pouzin at well.com Wed Dec 12 06:46:04 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:46:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires In-Reply-To: References: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: This FB thread is floating alongside drug addiction, with the usual pro & con dialectics. Next step is how to get off FB. Louis - - - On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message jf_2Jw at mail.gmail.com >, at 20:25:37 on > Wed, 12 Dec 2012, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@**gmail.com> > writes > > > I am thinking of the German regulators who admonished Facebook for the >> use of "the like tag" >> > > There's not much wrong with the "Like" tag, because no-one is forcing you > to attach it, and it's pretty obvious what it does. > > Where the unexpected consequences creep in is when, unexpectedly, it's > grabbed by the entity you "liked", and used as an advert; eg "Roland Likes > Starbucks" and sent out to people I've never heard of. > -- > Roland Perry > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 07:03:38 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:03:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires In-Reply-To: References: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12 December 2012 13:46, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > This FB thread is floating alongside drug addiction, with the usual pro & > con dialectics. Next step is how to get off FB. > > Louis > - - - > google + things disappear never to be seen... so much for competitive markets... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Dec 12 07:11:47 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:11:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires In-Reply-To: References: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message , at 12:46:04 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012, "Louis Pouzin (well)" writes >This FB thread is floating alongside drug addiction, with the usual pro >& con dialectics. Next step is how to get off FB It depends a lot on your demographic. Some people don't need it, others discover it's inextricably woven into their world (for example Universities that schedule student seminars via FB). They haven't even thought about it much (the Universities that is). Even I was guilty of scheduling professional meetings using Google Calendar, although the obvious drawbacks of having such an account may well be less than an equivalent FB one. -- 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 07:38:39 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 08:38:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires In-Reply-To: References: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Do you think we may be losing, or have already lost, the right to say no if the "crowd" is saying yes? Deirdre On 12 December 2012 08:11, Roland Perry wrote: > In message mail.gmail.com>, > at 12:46:04 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012, "Louis Pouzin (well)" > writes > > This FB thread is floating alongside drug addiction, with the usual pro & >> con dialectics. Next step is how to get off FB >> > > It depends a lot on your demographic. Some people don't need it, > others discover it's inextricably woven into their world (for > example Universities that schedule student seminars via FB). > > They haven't even thought about it much (the Universities that is). > > Even I was guilty of scheduling professional meetings using Google > Calendar, although the obvious drawbacks of having such an account may well > be less than an equivalent FB one. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ginger at paque.net Wed Dec 12 07:44:13 2012 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 06:44:13 -0600 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires In-Reply-To: References: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: De, we have the right to say 'no'... have we lost the habit (and necessary willpower) of exercising our rights? gp On 12 December 2012 06:38, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Do you think we may be losing, or have already lost, the right to say no > if the "crowd" is saying yes? > Deirdre > > On 12 December 2012 08:11, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message > mail.gmail.com>, >> at 12:46:04 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012, "Louis Pouzin (well)" >> writes >> >> This FB thread is floating alongside drug addiction, with the usual pro >>> & con dialectics. Next step is how to get off FB >>> >> >> It depends a lot on your demographic. Some people don't need it, >> others discover it's inextricably woven into their world (for >> example Universities that schedule student seminars via FB). >> >> They haven't even thought about it much (the Universities that is). >> >> Even I was guilty of scheduling professional meetings using Google >> Calendar, although the obvious drawbacks of having such an account may well >> be less than an equivalent FB one. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 07:48:03 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:48:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires In-Reply-To: References: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > De, we have the right to say 'no'... We did have the opportunity (not sure it was a right) and I voted "no".... have we lost the habit (and necessary > willpower) of exercising our rights? With less than 1% voting on it, I would say yes! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 08:52:45 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:52:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires In-Reply-To: References: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50C88C2D.1010600@gmail.com> Ginger This goes to the heart of the American Dream (not the, work hard, lets all get rich hype) but that of a governmental experiment of for the people, by the people... the US founding fathers were rather influenced by a range of thoughts on governance (Jefferson even had a Quran, along with Kant type thinking) where the "good" had a much clearer conception than current (the market is always right)... and one of those key issues was the enlightened individual... so does web2.0 basically reduce or increase our ability to make our own choices not subordinated to other goals/logics... Riaz On 2012/12/12 02:44 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > De, we have the right to say 'no'... have we lost the habit (and > necessary willpower) of exercising our rights? gp > > > On 12 December 2012 06:38, Deirdre Williams > > wrote: > > Do you think we may be losing, or have already lost, the right to > say no if the "crowd" is saying yes? > Deirdre > > On 12 December 2012 08:11, Roland Perry > > wrote: > > In message > >, > at 12:46:04 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012, "Louis Pouzin (well)" > > writes > > This FB thread is floating alongside drug addiction, with > the usual pro & con dialectics. Next step is how to get off FB > > > It depends a lot on your demographic. Some people don't need it, > others discover it's inextricably woven into their world (for > example Universities that schedule student seminars via FB). > > They haven't even thought about it much (the Universities that > is). > > Even I was guilty of scheduling professional meetings using > Google Calendar, although the obvious drawbacks of having such > an account may well be less than an equivalent FB one. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at Wed Dec 12 08:53:18 2012 From: Philipp.Mirtl at oiip.ac.at (Philipp Mirtl) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:53:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] National Cyber Security Framework Manual Message-ID: <45460B8AE6CC454F846577DC3E9B38A075FCC6@srvsbs01.OIIP.local> Dear members of the list, I would like to share with you the link to the recently published "National Cyber Security Framework Manual", of which Alexander Klimburg (cc'd) is the editor. Although viewed from a purely national security perspective, the book also accounts for Internet governance. The publication was funded by the NATO Science for Peace and Security Programme and is available as a free pdf via: http://www.ccdcoe.org/369.html If you have any comments, please do not hesitate to forward them either to the list or directly to Alexander. Warm regards, Philipp Mirtl Fellow / Adviser Österreichisches Institut für Internationale Politik (oiip) Austrian Institute for International Affairs Berggasse 7 A-1090 WIEN/VIENNA Tel: +43-(0)1-581 11 06-29 Fax: +43-(1)1-581 11 06-10 E-Mail: philipp.mirtl at oiip.ac.at Website: www.oiip.ac.at -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Dec 12 08:54:42 2012 From: Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com (Michael Kende) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:54:42 +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> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Hello Bertrand and Nick, This is a very interesting thread, as we have been doing a lot of work helping to setup IXPs in countries, and for one project we were working on in an Arab country it seemed that this principle was not commonly accepted with respect to hosted traffic. In other words, no one worried about traffic that was transiting the country, by terrestrial or submarine cables, but content providers questioned what would happen if that traffic was going to be hosted in a country where it was illegal, even if it was not meant for consumption in that country. I guess to extend the Sea metaphor this is like shipping something that is legal in the source and destination country, but not in a country where the container may be offloaded to move to a new ship. Is it illegally in that third country? The equivalent that was cited to us was that it was legal to transport alcohol across some countries where it was illegal, as long as the truck was sealed. The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was filtered along with other international content before being viewed by citizens of the country where it was hosted. Thanks Michael From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Dear Nick, Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. Best Bertrand On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch). -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: http://meetme.so/nashton Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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") ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 12 08:57:26 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 05:57:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <20121212135726.GA26108@hserus.net> Hi In an exchange point there's no "storing" of traffic as such Think of it as an interchange where cars take different exits to reach different places, rather than as a parking garage where the car finally gets parked, would be a non technical (and of course, extremely nit pickable) analogy Michael Kende [12/12/12 13:54 +0000]: >Hello Bertrand and Nick, > >This is a very interesting thread, as we have been doing a lot of work helping to setup IXPs in countries, and for one project we were working on in an Arab country it seemed that this principle was not commonly accepted with respect to hosted traffic. In other words, no one worried about traffic that was transiting the country, by terrestrial or submarine cables, but content providers questioned what would happen if that traffic was going to be hosted in a country where it was illegal, even if it was not meant for consumption in that country. I guess to extend the Sea metaphor this is like shipping something that is legal in the source and destination country, but not in a country where the container may be offloaded to move to a new ship. Is it illegally in that third country? The equivalent that was cited to us was that it was legal to transport alcohol across some countries where it was illegal, as long as the truck was sealed. > >The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was filtered along with other international content before being viewed by citizens of the country where it was hosted. > >Thanks >Michael > > > >From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle >Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM >To: Nick Ashton-Hart >Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim >Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! > >Dear Nick, > >Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. > >Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. > >Best > >Bertrand > > >On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: >Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. > >It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. > >If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. > >We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. > >(Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). > >FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch). >-- >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart >Geneva Representative >Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) >Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 >Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 > >Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: http://meetme.so/nashton > >Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. > >On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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") > >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your 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 Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com Wed Dec 12 09:00:42 2012 From: Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com (Michael Kende) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:00:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <20121212135726.GA26108@hserus.net> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <20121212135726.GA26108@hserus.net> Message-ID: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B998@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Yes, thank you, I could have explained that a key part of the IXP was to attract content providers to host their content in proximity to the IXP, either in a larger data center (like Equinix) or at independent data centers (like AMS-IX). Michael -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:57 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Kende Cc: Bertrand de La Chapelle; Nick Ashton-Hart; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Hi In an exchange point there's no "storing" of traffic as such Think of it as an interchange where cars take different exits to reach different places, rather than as a parking garage where the car finally gets parked, would be a non technical (and of course, extremely nit pickable) analogy Michael Kende [12/12/12 13:54 +0000]: >Hello Bertrand and Nick, > >This is a very interesting thread, as we have been doing a lot of work helping to setup IXPs in countries, and for one project we were working on in an Arab country it seemed that this principle was not commonly accepted with respect to hosted traffic. In other words, no one worried about traffic that was transiting the country, by terrestrial or submarine cables, but content providers questioned what would happen if that traffic was going to be hosted in a country where it was illegal, even if it was not meant for consumption in that country. I guess to extend the Sea metaphor this is like shipping something that is legal in the source and destination country, but not in a country where the container may be offloaded to move to a new ship. Is it illegally in that third country? The equivalent that was cited to us was that it was legal to transport alcohol across some countries where it was illegal, as long as the truck was sealed. > >The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was filtered along with other international content before being viewed by citizens of the country where it was hosted. > >Thanks >Michael > > > >From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de >La Chapelle >Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM >To: Nick Ashton-Hart >Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan >Kurbalija; McTim >Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! > >Dear Nick, > >Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. > >Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. > >Best > >Bertrand > > >On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: >Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. > >It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. > >If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. > >We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. > >(Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). > >FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch). >-- >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart >Geneva Representative >Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) >Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 >Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA DID: +1 (202) >640-5430 > >Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: >http://meetme.so/nashton > >Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. > >On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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.orggcaucus.org> >[governance-request at lists.igcaucus.orgigcaucus.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") > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >------------------------------------------------------------------ >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 >----------------------------------------------------------------------- >------------------------------------------------------------------ >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 09:00:32 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:00:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <20121212135726.GA26108@hserus.net> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <20121212135726.GA26108@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Hi > In an exchange point there's no "storing" of traffic as such right. I think he is talking about CDNs, when using the term "stored". -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 09:02:41 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:02:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <50C88E81.4090200@gmail.com> It would be interesting to know if the European laws on counterfeiting would apply here... under that silly (patent holder biased) law a mere complaint can result in seizing of shipments (even World Health Organisation approved medicines were seized, resulting in morbidity)... and leaves it to the shipper to prove the merits of the case (there is often not a right of being heard before the seizure - even that basic right when it comes to Intel Prop was dispensed with in Europe...) so perhaps from an Intel Property angle, the rich countries ought to be a subject of inquiry as they are the "leaders" on the Intel Prop sphere (pursuing the TPP which is SOPA and ACTA on steriods... by some accounts).... Riaz On 2012/12/12 03:54 PM, Michael Kende wrote: > > Hello Bertrand and Nick, > > This is a very interesting thread, as we have been doing a lot of work > helping to setup IXPs in countries, and for one project we were > working on in an Arab country it seemed that this principle was not > commonly accepted with respect to hosted traffic. In other words, no > one worried about traffic that was transiting the country, by > terrestrial or submarine cables, but content providers questioned what > would happen if that traffic was going to be hosted in a country where > it was illegal, even if it was not meant for consumption in that > country. I guess to extend the Sea metaphor this is like shipping > something that is legal in the source and destination country, but not > in a country where the container may be offloaded to move to a new > ship. Is it illegally in that third country? The equivalent that was > cited to us was that it was legal to transport alcohol across some > countries where it was illegal, as long as the truck was sealed. > > The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with > transit traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, > even if it was filtered along with other international content before > being viewed by citizens of the country where it was hosted. > > Thanks > > Michael > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand > de La Chapelle > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM > *To:* Nick Ashton-Hart > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; > Jovan Kurbalija; McTim > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new > approach to Internet governance! > > Dear Nick, > > Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an > interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that > Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international > principle of "*non-tampering with transit traffic*" when it blocked > access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the > transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. > > Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could > probably be part of an international/global regime. > > Best > > Bertrand > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: > > Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as > an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of > data. > > It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in > maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. > However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters > limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. > > If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, > that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in > UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of > internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back > to the Roman period. > > We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, > when transiting any country between a source and destination in third > countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to > the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an > international regime. > > (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at > Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have > potential). > > FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG > has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration > is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of > the legislative branch). > > -- > > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > Geneva Representative > > Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) > > Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 > > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > > USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 > > *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: > http://meetme.so/nashton* > > Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic > mangling. > > > On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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") > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When > addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of > business. > > Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered > office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered > number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email > enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 09:07:49 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:07:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: Did You Know the Facebook Tipping Point Happened in Ghana on Sunday? In-Reply-To: <50C703FF.6030607@zeromail.org> References: <9879BB20-2C3F-4FE6-9862-F74251A81E4C@esat.kuleuven.be> <50C703FF.6030607@zeromail.org> Message-ID: <10d301cdd872$176663f0$46332bd0$@gmail.com> I think, as these folks are indicating some sort of tipping point has been reached. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/is-facebook-a-human-right-egypt-and -tunisia-transform-social-media/ M -----Original Message----- From: unlike-us [mailto:unlike-us-bounces at listcultures.org] On Behalf Of oleist at zeromail.org Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:59 AM To: unlike-us at listcultures.org Subject: Did You Know the Facebook Tipping Point Happened in Ghana on Sunday? On Sunday, the Electoral Commission of Ghana changed the place of social media in African politics forever. After a very close race for the presidency of Ghana, they posted Ghana's official election results on Facebook! http://www.ictworks.org/news/2012/12/11/did-you-know-facebook-tipping-point- happened-ghana-sunday? -Oliver _______________________________________________ unlike-us mailing list unlike-us at listcultures.org http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/unlike-us_listcultures.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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 09:14:02 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:14:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: Did You Know the Facebook Tipping Point Happened in Ghana on Sunday? In-Reply-To: <10d301cdd872$176663f0$46332bd0$@gmail.com> References: <9879BB20-2C3F-4FE6-9862-F74251A81E4C@esat.kuleuven.be> <50C703FF.6030607@zeromail.org> <10d301cdd872$176663f0$46332bd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: As much as I like and respect Wayan, I think that tipping point was reached long ago. When I heard on NPR that the EC had posted results on FB, I did not think it was that remarkable, just the "new normal". On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:07 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > I think, as these folks are indicating some sort of tipping point has been > reached. > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2011/02/04/is-facebook-a-human-right-egypt-and > -tunisia-transform-social-media/ > > -- 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 12 09:40:52 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:10:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B998@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <20121212135726.GA26108@hserus.net> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B998@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <065E4ACD-B368-4348-A08E-5AFD767909B6@hserus.net> When you put it that way, I do agree - but the liability doesn't fall on the IXP at all, it still falls on the ISPs that actually host the content. I do agree that for certain "cybercrime police" in various countries might not be able to tell the difference - the sort about whom sarcastic stories from a decade or so back used to circulate about siezing a monitor on which they saw live evidence of some fraud, while leaving the PC's CPU right there at the criminal's house .. --srs (iPad) On 12-Dec-2012, at 19:30, Michael Kende wrote: > Yes, thank you, I could have explained that a key part of the IXP was to attract content providers to host their content in proximity to the IXP, either in a larger data center (like Equinix) or at independent data centers (like AMS-IX). > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:57 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Kende > Cc: Bertrand de La Chapelle; Nick Ashton-Hart; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim > Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! > > Hi > > In an exchange point there's no "storing" of traffic as such > > Think of it as an interchange where cars take different exits to reach different places, rather than as a parking garage where the car finally gets parked, would be a non technical (and of course, extremely nit > pickable) analogy > > Michael Kende [12/12/12 13:54 +0000]: > >Hello Bertrand and Nick, > > > >This is a very interesting thread, as we have been doing a lot of work helping to setup IXPs in countries, and for one project we were working on in an Arab country it seemed that this principle was not commonly accepted with respect to hosted traffic. In other words, no one worried about traffic that was transiting the country, by terrestrial or submarine cables, but content providers questioned what would happen if that traffic was going to be hosted in a country where it was illegal, even if it was not meant for consumption in that country. I guess to extend the Sea metaphor this is like shipping something that is legal in the source and destination country, but not in a country where the container may be offloaded to move to a new ship. Is it illegally in that third country? The equivalent that was cited to us was that it was legal to transport alcohol across some countries where it was illegal, as long as the truck was sealed. > > > >The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was filtered along with other international content before being viewed by citizens of the country where it was hosted. > > > >Thanks > >Michael > > > > > > > >From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > >[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de > >La Chapelle > >Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM > >To: Nick Ashton-Hart > >Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan > >Kurbalija; McTim > >Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! > > > >Dear Nick, > > > >Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. > > > >Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. > > > >Best > > > >Bertrand > > > > > >On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: > >Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. > > > >It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. > > > >If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. > > > >We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. > > > >(Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). > > > >FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch). > >-- > >Regards, > > > >Nick Ashton-Hart > >Geneva Representative > >Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) > >Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 > >Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > >Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA DID: +1 (202) > >640-5430 > > > >Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: > >http://meetme.so/nashton > > > >Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. > > > >On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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 >gcaucus.org> > >[governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >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") > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > >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 > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > >For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >To 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 is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. > > Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 09:56:28 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 09:56:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <50C77D88.7050108@uni-graz.at> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <50C77D88.7050108@uni-graz.at> Message-ID: Mathias, I'm very interested in learning with your article. Can you share it in PDF? You made a very good point: "States that violate this common obligation engage their international responsibility." That interpretation is valid and flows from International Law as it developed in the last three centuries. My doubt, again, is related to attribution. Do you deal with that in your research? On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Matthias C. Kettemann < matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at> wrote: > Cher Bertrand, dear all, > > I'd even go one step further. In a article published in the Heidelberg > Journal of International Law, I argued that the example of Egypt is not > only reflective of an emerging international principle but even indicative > of the crystallization of the application of the international customary > law norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the > stability and functionality of the Intenret can by now be clearly > considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by > international law. States that violate this common obligation engage their > international responsibility. > > (I'm happy to share the article on an individual basis if you're > interested (but it's in German): *K**ettemann*, Das Internet als > internationales Schutzgut: Entwicklungsperspek­tiven des > Internetvölkerrechts anlässlich des Arabischen Frühlings [The Internet als > a Global Object of Protection: Perspectives on International Internet Law > in Light of the Arab Spring], ZaöRV/Heidelberg Journal of Int'l Law 72 > (2012), 469-482**** ) > > Kind regards > Matthias > > > Am 11.12.2012 18:11, schrieb Bertrand de La Chapelle: > > Dear Nick, > > Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an > interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that > Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of > "*non-tampering with transit traffic*" when it blocked access to the > Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic > serving the easter coast of Africa. > > Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably > be part of an international/global regime. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an >> interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. >> >> It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in >> maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, >> the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open >> sea and by definition not owned by anyone. >> >> If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, >> that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS >> is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood >> principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. >> >> We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, >> when transiting any country between a source and destination in third >> countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the >> laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international >> regime. >> >> (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku >> I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). >> >> FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has >> yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very >> much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative >> branch). >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart >> Geneva Representative >> Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) >> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 <%2B41%20%2822%29%20534%2099%2045> >> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 <%2B41%20%2822%29%20594-85-44> >> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >> USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 >> >> *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: >> http://meetme.so/nashton* >> >> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic >> mangling. >> >> On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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 <%2B41%20%280%29%2022%207410435> *| **Mobile.* +41 >> (0) 797884226 <%2B41%20%280%29%20797884226> >> >> *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") > > > -- > > Univ.-Ass. Mag. Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) > > Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen > Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz > > Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich > > T | +43 316 380 6711 (Büro) > M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobil) > F | +43 316 380 9455 > E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at > Blog | internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com > > > -- > > Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) > > Institute of International Law and International Relations > University of Graz > > Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria > > T | +43 316 380 6711 (office) > M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobile) > F | +43 316 380 9455 > E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at > Blog | internationallawandtheinternet.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 > > -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Dec 12 10:07:54 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:37:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <50C89DCA.7040401@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 07:24 PM, Michael Kende wrote: > > Hello Bertrand and Nick, > > > The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with > transit traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, > even if it was filtered along with other international content before > being viewed by citizens of the country where it was hosted. > Michael You may know that third party cargo in transit is being impounded in OECD countries for IP violation when the stuff is made on one country and headed for another, and has nothing to do with the impounding jurisdiction. see for instance, http://keionline.org/blogs/2009/02/03/intervention-by-brazil-at-wto-general-council-on-seizure-of-500-kilos-of-generic-medicines-by-dutch-customs-aut There have been other cases as well. I understand 'border measures' envisaged under ACTA also enables such in transit seizures of third party goods. parminder > Thanks > > Michael > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Bertrand > de La Chapelle > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM > *To:* Nick Ashton-Hart > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; > Jovan Kurbalija; McTim > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new > approach to Internet governance! > > Dear Nick, > > Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an > interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that > Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international > principle of "*non-tampering with transit traffic*" when it blocked > access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the > transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. > > Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could > probably be part of an international/global regime. > > Best > > Bertrand > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: > > Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as > an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of > data. > > It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in > maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. > However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters > limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. > > If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, > that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in > UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of > internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back > to the Roman period. > > We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, > when transiting any country between a source and destination in third > countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to > the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an > international regime. > > (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at > Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have > potential). > > FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG > has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration > is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of > the legislative branch). > > -- > > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > Geneva Representative > > Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) > > Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 > > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > > USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 > > *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: > http://meetme.so/nashton* > > Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic > mangling. > > > On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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") > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When > addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of > business. > > Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered > office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered > number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email > enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 12 10:18:04 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:48:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <50C89DCA.7040401@itforchange.net> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <50C89DCA.7040401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <176F9968-93B8-4AAB-A561-21C4F647DA61@hserus.net> Parminder - not "in transit" as such (which would be in international waters). That ship was In the country's waters and in fact docked at a port in the country. So while it is rather bad form - and not as far as I can see OECD policy, but an individual decision by a country to exercise its jurisdiction in this manner .. I can't see where they lack jurisdiction to do this. If for example there was a murder or theft or whatever on board the ship when it was docked in port, even though neither the victim nor the criminal were to have left the ship .. what do you think? --srs (iPad) On 12-Dec-2012, at 20:37, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 07:24 PM, Michael Kende wrote: >> Hello Bertrand and Nick, >> > The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was filtered along with other international content before being viewed by citizens of the country where it was hosted. > > Michael > > You may know that third party cargo in transit is being impounded in OECD countries for IP violation when the stuff is made on one country and headed for another, and has nothing to do with the impounding jurisdiction. see for instance, http://keionline.org/blogs/2009/02/03/intervention-by-brazil-at-wto-general-council-on-seizure-of-500-kilos-of-generic-medicines-by-dutch-customs-aut > > There have been other cases as well. I understand 'border measures' envisaged under ACTA also enables such in transit seizures of third party goods. > > parminder > > > > > >> >> Thanks >> Michael >> >> >> >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM >> To: Nick Ashton-Hart >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim >> Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! >> >> Dear Nick, >> >> Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. >> >> Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. >> >> It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. >> >> If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. >> >> We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. >> >> (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). >> >> FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch). >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart >> Geneva Representative >> Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) >> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 >> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >> USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 >> >> Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: http://meetme.so/nashton >> >> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. >> >> On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Wed Dec 12 10:20:29 2012 From: Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com (Michael Kende) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:20:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <50C89DCA.7040401@itforchange.net> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <50C89DCA.7040401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2C464@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Thank you Parminder, that is very interesting, and I did not know that. According to the original principle described below, though there would not be interference in transit traffic, even if it contained content that violated domestic rules. But what if that content was stored in the country even though it was not consumed in that country? So in other words, if something is sent from country A to B via C via transit, there would not be any interference, but what if it was stored in a cache in country C for use by country B? From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:08 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! On Wednesday 12 December 2012 07:24 PM, Michael Kende wrote: Hello Bertrand and Nick, [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Dear Nick, Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. Best Bertrand On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch). -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: http://meetme.so/nashton Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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") ________________________________ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.com ________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 apisan at unam.mx Wed Dec 12 10:43:01 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:43:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> ,<3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA2D8E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Michael, the pitfalls of associating content distributors with IXPs become evident. The layers principle of Internet architecture helps spot it early on in IXP projects. You don't need to get fundamentalist about Internet design principles to manage this. The content distributors and the content owners realize this pretty fast. However people should be aware that OSPs and CDNs (and all other OTT, if we adopt that telco terminology) are finding renewed attraction to IXPs, and IXPs may become self-financing by way of the savings in connectivity to content if these other guys do place enough of their stuff at or close to the IXP. The implications with customs, ACTA, the emerging TPP, etc. have to be managed in advance and suitable liability exemptions will have to be built in. Also, this strains the analogy to the sea - you are talking about the equivalent of building shipping lanes to landlocked countries now. The differences between a built environment and a few zillion tons of salt water already there are highlighted. 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: Michael Kende [Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 12 de diciembre de 2012 07:54 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle; Nick Ashton-Hart CC: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Asunto: RE: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Hello Bertrand and Nick, This is a very interesting thread, as we have been doing a lot of work helping to setup IXPs in countries, and for one project we were working on in an Arab country it seemed that this principle was not commonly accepted with respect to hosted traffic. In other words, no one worried about traffic that was transiting the country, by terrestrial or submarine cables, but content providers questioned what would happen if that traffic was going to be hosted in a country where it was illegal, even if it was not meant for consumption in that country. I guess to extend the Sea metaphor this is like shipping something that is legal in the source and destination country, but not in a country where the container may be offloaded to move to a new ship. Is it illegally in that third country? The equivalent that was cited to us was that it was legal to transport alcohol across some countries where it was illegal, as long as the truck was sealed. The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was filtered along with other international content before being viewed by citizens of the country where it was hosted. Thanks Michael From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Dear Nick, Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. Best Bertrand On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch). -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: http://meetme.so/nashton Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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") ________________________________ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 10:48:16 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 04:48:16 +1300 Subject: [governance] Telecom TV on Google and Taxes Message-ID: Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. Source: http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in taxes) Posted By TelecomTV One , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments | (0) Tags: *Google * *corporate * *tax * *Finance * As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as well. Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level of available State support for the most needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. An investigative report by Bloomberg has discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get cut.” Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. Advertisement As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten Things We Know to be True” page on Google ’s website is the following: “You can make money without doing evil.” I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for all. *Further reading: *The Pearse Trust blog has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 12 10:54:59 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 04:54:59 +1300 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2C464@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <50C89DCA.7040401@itforchange.net> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2C464@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:20 AM, Michael Kende < Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com> wrote: > Thank you Parminder, that is very interesting, and I did not know that. > According to the original principle described below, though there would not > be interference in transit traffic, even if it contained content that > violated domestic rules. But what if that content was stored in the > country even though it was not consumed in that country? So in other > words, if something is sent from country A to B via C via transit, there > would not be any interference, but what if it was stored in a cache in > country C for use by country B? > If we continue with the example that Parminder raised in relation to addressing IPR violations where the "subject" in this case the "content" is in "transit"- this is why countries around the world at least as far as IPRs have been pushing harmonisation of their laws. There are massive implications on openness etc. Sala > **** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:08 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new > approach to Internet governance!**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 07:24 PM, Michael Kende wrote:**** > > Hello Bertrand and Nick,**** > > > The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit > traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was > filtered along with other international content before being viewed by > citizens of the country where it was hosted. **** > > > Michael > > You may know that third party cargo in transit is being impounded in OECD > countries for IP violation when the stuff is made on one country and headed > for another, and has nothing to do with the impounding jurisdiction. see > for instance, > http://keionline.org/blogs/2009/02/03/intervention-by-brazil-at-wto-general-council-on-seizure-of-500-kilos-of-generic-medicines-by-dutch-customs-aut > > There have been other cases as well. I understand 'border measures' > envisaged under ACTA also enables such in transit seizures of third party > goods. > > parminder > > > > > > > **** > > **** > > Thanks**** > > Michael**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > *On Behalf Of *Bertrand de La Chapelle > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM > *To:* Nick Ashton-Hart > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan > Kurbalija; McTim > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new > approach to Internet governance!**** > > **** > > Dear Nick, **** > > **** > > Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an > interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that > Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of > "*non-tampering with transit traffic*" when it blocked access to the > Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic > serving the easter coast of Africa. **** > > **** > > Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably > be part of an international/global regime. **** > > **** > > Best**** > > **** > > Bertrand**** > > **** > > **** > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote:**** > > Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an > interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data.** > ** > > **** > > It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in > maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, > the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open > sea and by definition not owned by anyone.**** > > **** > > If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that > might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, > after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood > principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. **** > > **** > > We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when > transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, > was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the > state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. > > (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku > I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential).*** > * > > **** > > FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has > yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very > much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative > branch).**** > > -- **** > > Regards,**** > > **** > > Nick Ashton-Hart**** > > Geneva Representative**** > > Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA)**** > > Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45**** > > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44**** > > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 **** > > USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430**** > > **** > > *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: > http://meetme.so/nashton***** > > **** > > Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic > mangling.**** > > > On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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")**** > > **** > > > **** > ------------------------------ > > This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed > to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. > > Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered > office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number > 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or > visit www.analysysmason.com **** > ------------------------------ > > ** ** > > > > ------------------------------ > This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed > to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. > > Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered > office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number > 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or > visit www.analysysmason.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 > > -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 10:58:26 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 04:58:26 +1300 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <065E4ACD-B368-4348-A08E-5AFD767909B6@hserus.net> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <20121212135726.GA26108@hserus.net> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B998@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <065E4ACD-B368-4348-A08E-5AFD767909B6@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 3:40 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > When you put it that way, I do agree - but the liability doesn't fall on > the IXP at all, it still falls on the ISPs that actually host the content. > It depends on the laws in the country hosting and what it says about liability. Each context differs. This can be found in their Policy or Law. > > > > On 12-Dec-2012, at 19:30, Michael Kende > wrote: > > Yes, thank you, I could have explained that a key part of the IXP was to > attract content providers to host their content in proximity to the IXP, > either in a larger data center (like Equinix) or at independent data > centers (like AMS-IX). > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net ] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:57 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Michael Kende > Cc: Bertrand de La Chapelle; Nick Ashton-Hart; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim > Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach > to Internet governance! > > Hi > > In an exchange point there's no "storing" of traffic as such > > Think of it as an interchange where cars take different exits to reach > different places, rather than as a parking garage where the car finally > gets parked, would be a non technical (and of course, extremely nit > pickable) analogy > > Michael Kende [12/12/12 13:54 +0000]: > >Hello Bertrand and Nick, > > > >This is a very interesting thread, as we have been doing a lot of work > helping to setup IXPs in countries, and for one project we were working on > in an Arab country it seemed that this principle was not commonly accepted > with respect to hosted traffic. In other words, no one worried about > traffic that was transiting the country, by terrestrial or submarine > cables, but content providers questioned what would happen if that traffic > was going to be hosted in a country where it was illegal, even if it was > not meant for consumption in that country. I guess to extend the Sea > metaphor this is like shipping something that is legal in the source and > destination country, but not in a country where the container may be > offloaded to move to a new ship. Is it illegally in that third country? The > equivalent that was cited to us was that it was legal to transport alcohol > across some countries where it was illegal, as long as the truck was sealed. > > > >The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit > traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was > filtered along with other international content before being viewed by > citizens of the country where it was hosted. > > > >Thanks > >Michael > > > > > > > >From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > >[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > On Behalf Of Bertrand de > >La Chapelle > >Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM > >To: Nick Ashton-Hart > >Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan > >Kurbalija; McTim > >Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new > approach to Internet governance! > > > >Dear Nick, > > > >Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an > interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that > Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of > "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet > during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the > easter coast of Africa. > > > >Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably > be part of an international/global regime. > > > >Best > > > >Bertrand > > > > > >On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart < > mailto:nashton at ccianet.org >> wrote: > >Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an > interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. > > > >It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in > maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, > the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open > sea and by definition not owned by anyone. > > > >If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that > might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, > after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood > principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. > > > >We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, > when transiting any country between a source and destination in third > countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the > laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international > regime. > > > >(Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku > I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). > > > >FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has > yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very > much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative > branch). > >-- > >Regards, > > > >Nick Ashton-Hart > >Geneva Representative > >Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) > >Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 > >Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > >Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA DID: +1 (202) > >640-5430 > > > >Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: > >http://meetme.so/nashton > > > >Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic > mangling. > > > >On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" < > mailto:apisan at unam.mx >> 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 > >gcaucus.org> > >[governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >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< > http://diplo.smugmug.com/ILLUSTRATIONS/Posters-1/4464706_T4FW6r#%21i=1104113260&k=2GsD8hV&lb=1&s=A > >). > > > >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") > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > >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 > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > >For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >To 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 is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed > to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. > > Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered > office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number > 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or > visit www.analysysmason.com > ------------------------------ > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 11:07:05 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 05:07:05 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: More on Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against the > likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is almost > impeccable with the WCIT. > > Source: > http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 > > Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in taxes) > Posted By TelecomTV One > , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments > | (0) > Tags: *Google > * *corporate > * *tax * * > Finance * > > As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying corporation > taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income through a “Double > Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per cent on its overseas > profits. Guy Daniels reports. > > Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax avoidance? > We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations have a duty to > pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever respective > governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, in most countries, > we voted the politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the > amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms are > available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with far less > access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as > well. > > > > Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English Dictionary > defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or “something which is > harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means tax avoidance is evil, > simple as that. > > > > Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that avoiding tax > is wrong (especially through aggressive and mind-boggling complicated > avoidance schemes) and if you believe that depriving society of tax > revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level of available State support for > the most needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must > conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. > > > > An investigative report by Bloomberg has > discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes > in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – > almost double its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed > in a November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was > discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. > > > > It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas subsidiaries > into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, thereby enabling > it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. Bloomberg says the amount > moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 per cent of Google’s total > pretax profit in 2011. > > > > Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 > trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 > trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent this > financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. > > > > Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which pretty > much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to Richard > Murphy of Tax Research: > > > > “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep > embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness now > being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: > It’s us or them. People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody > else has to pay or services get cut.” > > > > Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the US > coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at all), it > started to boycott the chain. > Advertisement > As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… > > > > The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 per > cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it paid UK > corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says Google avoids tax > by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues from ads sold in the UK, > which then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence > is in Bermuda. Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the > Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the tax haven > of Bermuda. > > > > Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the internet > company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten Things We Know to > be True” page on Google ’s > website is the following: > > > > “You can make money without doing evil.” > > > > I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but evil. > Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders to maximise > profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely ethical, whilst some > are legal. There is no indication or suggestion that Google has acted > illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. > > > > And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I > don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will only > act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their fair > share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then they’ll > change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the so-called > ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured heavily in annual > reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. > > > > Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this complicated tax > evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean ‘mitigation’…) structure include > Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the > others, who no doubt will soon be named and shamed – will continue their > sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments > can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers to vote > with their feet and walk away from Google services. As Richard Murphy said, > consumers are beginning to get the message that it’s “us or them”, and > we’re already being squeezed by the many austerity measures that are in > effect to drag us out of recession. > > > > Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. Pay > your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do likewise. Or > else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your > website once and for all. > > > > *Further reading: *The Pearse Trust blog > has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” > tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. > > > -- 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 Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com Wed Dec 12 11:26:31 2012 From: Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com (Michael Kende) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:26:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA2D8E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> ,<3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA2D8E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2CCFC@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Thank you Alejandro, On one level, the question was triggered by IXPs, but really is more general to do with how this principle of non-tampering of transit traffic would apply when the traffic is stored in the country in some fashion even if it is not intended for that country. More broadly, it is true that at one level content and IXPs are separate, but in practical terms it is hard to separate them, as you allude. Countries are now seeing the value of IXPs to lower the cost of tromboning and latency, and to improve the internet ecosystem, and attracting content is a big part of that - likewise, content providers / CDNs will look at the presence of an IXP when deciding where to put a cache. Further, given economies of scale these IXPs become more valuable when they serve more countries in the region - hence my original question relating to content hosted in one country that is only destined for neighboring countries. With the portability of content, if one country cannot address liability concerns, then the content will simply be hosted in a neighboring country, if at all. By the way, before someone points it out, I realize that 'countries' are not essential to deploying an IXP, but increasingly countries are stepping in to help setup an IXP, both to improve their domestic ecosystem and take compete with neighbors over becoming a hub for traffic. Michael From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:43 PM To: Michael Kende; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle; Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Subject: RE: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Michael, the pitfalls of associating content distributors with IXPs become evident. The layers principle of Internet architecture helps spot it early on in IXP projects. You don't need to get fundamentalist about Internet design principles to manage this. The content distributors and the content owners realize this pretty fast. However people should be aware that OSPs and CDNs (and all other OTT, if we adopt that telco terminology) are finding renewed attraction to IXPs, and IXPs may become self-financing by way of the savings in connectivity to content if these other guys do place enough of their stuff at or close to the IXP. The implications with customs, ACTA, the emerging TPP, etc. have to be managed in advance and suitable liability exemptions will have to be built in. Also, this strains the analogy to the sea - you are talking about the equivalent of building shipping lanes to landlocked countries now. The differences between a built environment and a few zillion tons of salt water already there are highlighted. 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: Michael Kende [Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 12 de diciembre de 2012 07:54 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle; Nick Ashton-Hart CC: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Asunto: RE: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Hello Bertrand and Nick, This is a very interesting thread, as we have been doing a lot of work helping to setup IXPs in countries, and for one project we were working on in an Arab country it seemed that this principle was not commonly accepted with respect to hosted traffic. In other words, no one worried about traffic that was transiting the country, by terrestrial or submarine cables, but content providers questioned what would happen if that traffic was going to be hosted in a country where it was illegal, even if it was not meant for consumption in that country. I guess to extend the Sea metaphor this is like shipping something that is legal in the source and destination country, but not in a country where the container may be offloaded to move to a new ship. Is it illegally in that third country? The equivalent that was cited to us was that it was legal to transport alcohol across some countries where it was illegal, as long as the truck was sealed. The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was filtered along with other international content before being viewed by citizens of the country where it was hosted. Thanks Michael From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Dear Nick, Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. Best Bertrand On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch). -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: http://meetme.so/nashton Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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") ________________________________ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.com ________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Dec 12 11:45:37 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 01:45:37 +0900 Subject: [governance] happy returns Message-ID: In response to WCIT "Rod Beckstrom @RodBeckstrom One world. One Internet. Everyone Connected. - the vision. Let's keep it open and unified." Miss him, lots? Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 11:48:42 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:48:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] happy returns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As a person, somewhat, but as a CEO of ICANN, NEVER! Fahd On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 7:45 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > In response to WCIT "Rod Beckstrom @RodBeckstrom One world. One Internet. > Everyone Connected. - the vision. Let's keep > it open and unified." > > Miss him, lots? > > Adam > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Dec 12 11:59:47 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:59:47 +0400 Subject: [governance] happy returns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46EB1BF0-F6A7-4B81-9843-7BA6F3531B5A@uzh.ch> On Dec 12, 2012, at 20:45, Adam Peake wrote: > In response to WCIT "Rod Beckstrom @RodBeckstrom > One world. One Internet. Everyone Connected. - the vision. Let's keep > it open and unified." > > Miss him, lots? That was cold.... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 12 12:00:22 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:00:22 +1300 Subject: [governance] happy returns In-Reply-To: <46EB1BF0-F6A7-4B81-9843-7BA6F3531B5A@uzh.ch> References: <46EB1BF0-F6A7-4B81-9843-7BA6F3531B5A@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Good Morning folks, Grateful if we could shift the conversation to more substantial issues of Internet Governance. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:59 AM, William Drake wrote: > > > On Dec 12, 2012, at 20:45, Adam Peake wrote: > > > In response to WCIT "Rod Beckstrom @RodBeckstrom > > One world. One Internet. Everyone Connected. - the vision. Let's keep > > it open and unified." > > > > Miss him, lots? > > That was cold.... > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 12:02:42 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:02:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] happy returns In-Reply-To: <46EB1BF0-F6A7-4B81-9843-7BA6F3531B5A@uzh.ch> References: <46EB1BF0-F6A7-4B81-9843-7BA6F3531B5A@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM, William Drake wrote: > > > On Dec 12, 2012, at 20:45, Adam Peake wrote: > >> In response to WCIT "Rod Beckstrom @RodBeckstrom >> One world. One Internet. Everyone Connected. - the vision. Let's keep >> it open and unified." >> >> Miss him, lots? > > That was cold.... RB does have a point, there is a real threat to a unified, single Internet from certain WCIT outcomes. Is that substantive enough Sala? -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 12:06:38 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:06:38 +1300 Subject: [governance] happy returns In-Reply-To: References: <46EB1BF0-F6A7-4B81-9843-7BA6F3531B5A@uzh.ch> Message-ID: > > RB does have a point, there is a real threat to a unified, single > Internet from certain WCIT outcomes. > > Is that substantive enough Sala? > > That is McTim - the distinction is a fine line between addressing the issues as opposed to attacks on persons whether it is RB or anyone for that matter. > -- > 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 > > -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Dec 12 12:08:54 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:08:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] happy returns In-Reply-To: References: <46EB1BF0-F6A7-4B81-9843-7BA6F3531B5A@uzh.ch> Message-ID: McTim, yes, of course Rod has a point. And his way of expressing it is also vapid, which is reminiscent of his time as CEO of ICANN. Sala, is that OK, a comment of Rod's substance/lack thereof, and on problems with is period at ICANN? Thank you. Best, Adam On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:02 AM, McTim wrote: > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >> >> On Dec 12, 2012, at 20:45, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> In response to WCIT "Rod Beckstrom @RodBeckstrom >>> One world. One Internet. Everyone Connected. - the vision. Let's keep >>> it open and unified." >>> >>> Miss him, lots? >> >> That was cold.... > > > RB does have a point, there is a real threat to a unified, single > Internet from certain WCIT outcomes. > > Is that substantive enough Sala? > > -- > 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 gideonrop at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 12:09:51 2012 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:09:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9C2A8@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121211104510.341c6eea@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: It seems however that you have tried to damage the reputation of several: I am sure if any of the facts contained is not true, anyone of them can sue DCA, and DCA can defend its statement very well. BTW, the Ombudsman's reference was specific to the complaint made to him and the arguments DCA got with Mike Silber and that was placed in public domain and not the no campaigns as you would like it to be. I suppose you were also in their meeting? The point is that Mike is on the Board Director of ZADNA who also endorsed UNIFORUM application and for him not to recuse himself on .africa and think he is not conflicted is not appropriate. Just because the ICANN Ombudsman exonerated them does not mean DCA is wrong or does not have a legitimate complaint. That would be a wrong calculation. I recall in ICANN Prague in one of the meetings that discussed COI, Chris Disppain got up in front of every body and said the unbelievable " Yes I am conflicted and so what, what are you going to do about it". It simply means the COIs are not being taken seriously at ICANN especially at the Board level period. However the Ombudsman has recommended for it to be taken seriously in the future, that is why I said the matter we brought to the Ombudsman is still unsettled for DCA. I hope this helps, but it is not fair you keep misrepresenting DCA for its stand. Your position with our opponents from the beginning is well known, and so there may be no point to continue to defend our position from your views. Gideon Rop DotConnectAfrica On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 3:31 PM, McTim wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Gideon wrote: > > > > And this is doubly true when, as in the present situation, it concerns > > an accusation that damages the reputation of individuals and/or an > > organisation. > > > > Really this is not personal it is professional. We do not feel at all we > > have damaged any one's reputation. > > > > > It seems however that you have tried to damage the reputation of several: > > > http://www.dotconnectafrica.org/2012/08/alice-munyua-trying-to-legitimize-a-massive-cover-up-and-fraud/ > > > http://www.dotconnectafrica.org/2011/10/the-illegitimate-african-agenda-dakar-arc-illegal-cabal-supporting-it/ > > > http://www.dotconnectafrica.org/2011/10/dca-exclusive-commentary-travesty-africa-internet-governance-forum-afigf/ > > One can google "say No dotconnect africa" for more examples. > > > Which is why the Ombudsman suggested you take it down a notch (or > two), which is what I have been saying for a long time. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 12:10:49 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:10:49 +1300 Subject: [governance] REMINDER Call for Nominees for Election [IGC Coordinator Position] and Election Schedule Message-ID: Brief Reminder: This is to advise that we would like to invite people to submit Nominations for Candidates to stand in the elections for the purposes of occupying the Co-Coordinator position which Izumi Aizu used to occupy. *Nominations* Those who are interested in standing for elections or in nominating persons to stand for the elections should submit their Nominations by *15th December, 2012 at 10pm UTC +12*. We would like to encourage people to either nominate themselves or nominate others whom you think would make great coordinators. Responsibilities of coordinators can be viewed in the IGC Charter. All Nominations are asked to submit their Nominations in the following format: *Nomination By:* [Self Nomination or -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Wed Dec 12 12:16:43 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:16:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Help with 'bestbits' membership management Message-ID: Hello, I see neither a footer in mails received from bestbits nor a link on igcaucus.org site to help subscribe to or unsubscribe from the bestbits list. Could anyone please direct me? Since I can't seem to know which one of my addresses is subscribed to it, I'm sending also to the governance list. Sorry for spamming. Cheers, Mawaki -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Wed Dec 12 12:25:07 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 17:25:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2CCFC@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> ,<3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA2D8E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2CCFC@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA3093@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Michael, briefly put, isn't this what Google, Yahoo!, etc. face in China, and with different angles in France and Germany? With data-protection and right-to-be-forgotten in Spain? etc. It does make "cloud" management very complex. More lawyers than engineers. 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: Michael Kende [Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 12 de diciembre de 2012 10:26 Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle; Nick Ashton-Hart CC: Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Asunto: RE: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Thank you Alejandro, On one level, the question was triggered by IXPs, but really is more general to do with how this principle of non-tampering of transit traffic would apply when the traffic is stored in the country in some fashion even if it is not intended for that country. More broadly, it is true that at one level content and IXPs are separate, but in practical terms it is hard to separate them, as you allude. Countries are now seeing the value of IXPs to lower the cost of tromboning and latency, and to improve the internet ecosystem, and attracting content is a big part of that – likewise, content providers / CDNs will look at the presence of an IXP when deciding where to put a cache. Further, given economies of scale these IXPs become more valuable when they serve more countries in the region – hence my original question relating to content hosted in one country that is only destined for neighboring countries. With the portability of content, if one country cannot address liability concerns, then the content will simply be hosted in a neighboring country, if at all. By the way, before someone points it out, I realize that ‘countries’ are not essential to deploying an IXP, but increasingly countries are stepping in to help setup an IXP, both to improve their domestic ecosystem and take compete with neighbors over becoming a hub for traffic. Michael From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:43 PM To: Michael Kende; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle; Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Subject: RE: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Michael, the pitfalls of associating content distributors with IXPs become evident. The layers principle of Internet architecture helps spot it early on in IXP projects. You don't need to get fundamentalist about Internet design principles to manage this. The content distributors and the content owners realize this pretty fast. However people should be aware that OSPs and CDNs (and all other OTT, if we adopt that telco terminology) are finding renewed attraction to IXPs, and IXPs may become self-financing by way of the savings in connectivity to content if these other guys do place enough of their stuff at or close to the IXP. The implications with customs, ACTA, the emerging TPP, etc. have to be managed in advance and suitable liability exemptions will have to be built in. Also, this strains the analogy to the sea - you are talking about the equivalent of building shipping lanes to landlocked countries now. The differences between a built environment and a few zillion tons of salt water already there are highlighted. 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: Michael Kende [Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 12 de diciembre de 2012 07:54 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle; Nick Ashton-Hart CC: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Asunto: RE: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Hello Bertrand and Nick, This is a very interesting thread, as we have been doing a lot of work helping to setup IXPs in countries, and for one project we were working on in an Arab country it seemed that this principle was not commonly accepted with respect to hosted traffic. In other words, no one worried about traffic that was transiting the country, by terrestrial or submarine cables, but content providers questioned what would happen if that traffic was going to be hosted in a country where it was illegal, even if it was not meant for consumption in that country. I guess to extend the Sea metaphor this is like shipping something that is legal in the source and destination country, but not in a country where the container may be offloaded to move to a new ship. Is it illegally in that third country? The equivalent that was cited to us was that it was legal to transport alcohol across some countries where it was illegal, as long as the truck was sealed. The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was filtered along with other international content before being viewed by citizens of the country where it was hosted. Thanks Michael From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Dear Nick, Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. Best Bertrand On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch). -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: http://meetme.so/nashton Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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") ________________________________ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.com ________________________________ ________________________________ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 12:28:20 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:28:20 +1300 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9C2A8@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121211104510.341c6eea@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear Gideon et al, Please refrain from using the IGC mailing list as a forum to pursue attacks and character assassination. This is NOT the place for it. As you can imagine the IGC consists of many busy professionals who subscribe to its Charter. In subscribing to the list, it means that it is expected that as professionals, each person has an expected understanding of the level of decorum needed. Whilst there are diverse and numerous complex sides and arguments and fierce debate, it is expected that as professionals we will engage with a certain level of decorum. If there are challenges to systems and structures then there are many appropriate mechanisms to address these. On the other hand, there may be "governance issues" which you would want to bring to the IGC's attention whether corporate governance or otherwise but I ask that you do so professionally. With kind regards, Sala As IGC Co-Coordinator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 12 12:34:32 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:34:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9C2A8@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121211104510.341c6eea@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Gideon wrote: > > It seems however that you have tried to damage the reputation of > several: > > I am sure if any of the facts contained is not true, anyone of them can sue > DCA, and DCA can defend its statement very well. BTW, the Ombudsman's > reference was specific to the complaint made to him and the arguments DCA > got with Mike Silber and that was placed in public domain and not the no > campaigns as you would like it to be. I offered the "No campaigns" as evidence of your combative attitude, not in context of the allegation you made against the 2 directors. I suppose you were also in their > meeting? There is no indication there was a meeting between the Ombudsman and the 2 directors. > > The point is that Mike is on the Board Director of ZADNA who also endorsed > UNIFORUM application and for him not to recuse himself on .africa and think > he is not conflicted is not appropriate. Just because the ICANN Ombudsman > exonerated them does not mean DCA is wrong or does not have a legitimate > complaint. That would be a wrong calculation. Ombudsman's report says: "However it is clearly apparent when the records are examined, that the 2 board members have not participated in any decision-making about .africa, and indeed there has been little discussion other than at a higher level about the program in general. It is in my view premature to consider whether there can even be apparent bias, because it is too remote to link the suggested connections with the very generic discussions which have taken place, and in addition, where the actual decisions about the applications are still some distance from being made." > > I recall in ICANN Prague in one of the meetings that discussed COI, Chris > Disppain got up in front of every body and said the unbelievable " Yes I am > conflicted and so what, what are you going to do about it". It simply > means the COIs are not being taken seriously at ICANN especially at the > Board level period. But they are being taken seriously; http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15may12-en.htm However the Ombudsman has recommended for it to be > taken seriously in the future, that is why I said the matter we brought to > the Ombudsman is still unsettled for DCA. > > I hope this helps, but it is not fair you keep misrepresenting DCA for its > stand. > Your position with our opponents from the beginning is well known I wasn't aware I had a position with them. for the record, I have no financial or other interest in any new gTLD bid! , and so > there may be no point to continue to defend our position from your views. My view, which I have maintained for some time, is that organizations involved in the collaboration, coordination and communication around CIRs do so in a civil manner. That has always been my objection to the way DCA operates. -- 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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 13:29:43 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 13:29:43 -0500 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> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <50C89DCA.7040401@itforchange.net> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2C464@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Dear Sala, "There are massive implications on openness etc." After reading this sentence, I feel like sharing the attached paper. :) Regards Diego On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:20 AM, Michael Kende < > Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com> wrote: > >> Thank you Parminder, that is very interesting, and I did not know >> that. According to the original principle described below, though there >> would not be interference in transit traffic, even if it contained content >> that violated domestic rules. But what if that content was stored in the >> country even though it was not consumed in that country? So in other >> words, if something is sent from country A to B via C via transit, there >> would not be any interference, but what if it was stored in a cache in >> country C for use by country B? >> > > If we continue with the example that Parminder raised in relation to > addressing IPR violations where the "subject" in this case the "content" is > in "transit"- this is why countries around the world at least as far as > IPRs have been pushing harmonisation of their laws. There are massive > implications on openness etc. > > Sala > >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:08 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new >> approach to Internet governance!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 07:24 PM, Michael Kende wrote:**** >> >> Hello Bertrand and Nick,**** >> >> > >> The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit >> traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was >> filtered along with other international content before being viewed by >> citizens of the country where it was hosted. **** >> >> >> Michael >> >> You may know that third party cargo in transit is being impounded in OECD >> countries for IP violation when the stuff is made on one country and headed >> for another, and has nothing to do with the impounding jurisdiction. see >> for instance, >> http://keionline.org/blogs/2009/02/03/intervention-by-brazil-at-wto-general-council-on-seizure-of-500-kilos-of-generic-medicines-by-dutch-customs-aut >> >> There have been other cases as well. I understand 'border measures' >> envisaged under ACTA also enables such in transit seizures of third party >> goods. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> Thanks**** >> >> Michael**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ >> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] >> *On Behalf Of *Bertrand de La Chapelle >> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM >> *To:* Nick Ashton-Hart >> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan >> Kurbalija; McTim >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new >> approach to Internet governance!**** >> >> **** >> >> Dear Nick, **** >> >> **** >> >> Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an >> interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that >> Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of >> "*non-tampering with transit traffic*" when it blocked access to the >> Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic >> serving the easter coast of Africa. **** >> >> **** >> >> Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably >> be part of an international/global regime. **** >> >> **** >> >> Best**** >> >> **** >> >> Bertrand**** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart >> wrote:**** >> >> Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an >> interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data.* >> *** >> >> **** >> >> It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in >> maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, >> the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open >> sea and by definition not owned by anyone.**** >> >> **** >> >> If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that >> might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, >> after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood >> principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. **** >> >> **** >> >> We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, >> when transiting any country between a source and destination in third >> countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the >> laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international >> regime. >> >> (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku >> I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential).** >> ** >> >> **** >> >> FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has >> yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very >> much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative >> branch).**** >> >> -- **** >> >> Regards,**** >> >> **** >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart**** >> >> Geneva Representative**** >> >> Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA)**** >> >> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45**** >> >> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44**** >> >> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 **** >> >> USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430**** >> >> **** >> >> *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: >> http://meetme.so/nashton***** >> >> **** >> >> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic >> mangling.**** >> >> >> On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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")**** >> >> **** >> >> >> **** >> ------------------------------ >> >> This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed >> to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. >> >> Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered >> office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number >> 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or >> visit www.analysysmason.com **** >> ------------------------------ >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed >> to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. >> >> Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered >> office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number >> 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or >> visit www.analysysmason.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 >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 12-4tkacz.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 659348 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 13:30:31 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:30:31 +1300 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9C2A8@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121211104510.341c6eea@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: As always - my views on this list are my views as an individual and not a reflection of any of my affiliations nor associations. Following the link that McTim provided, I saw that there is a Corporate Governance Report on Governance Comparisons dated April 17, 2012 which had recommendations. The Report was a brief comparison of the OECD, IBM Corporate Governance rules. The issue that Gideon raises when it comes to Corporate Governance on conflicts of interests and how they are dealt with is an important issue as it affects governance. In Governments - we see the importance of the separation of powers and the need for accountability and transparency. It would follow that one would not expect a Government Minister to be colluding with the private sector which is why there are framework in place to ensure that things like "Abuse of Office" is prevented etc or there are systems in place to ensure that there are checks and balance. For companies, conflicts of interests are managed through varying corporate governance mechanisms and for public companies or listed companies the standards are pretty high and most countries generally refer to the International Organisation of Security (IOSCO) Principles. On the issue of disclosure they have 10.3 and 10.4 on page 23, see: http://www.iosco.org/library/pubdocs/pdf/IOSCOPD154.pdf The difference with ICANN is that it is not a regulator. It is a not for profit company. It also deals with the "issuance of TLDs" which makes it a good example of chop suey. With the Second Report on Corporate Governance doing a comparison of the OECD and the IBM, I was surprised that they did not draw from the IOSCO simply because the development of the IOSCO principles were developed by various countries in the world. The OECD principles were probably only developed by its member states which leaves many of the developing countries who make up an important part of the global community out. I recognise that there is a big difference between "securities" and "gTLDs" (although some could make the argument that they share similar characteristics) but the principles behind disclosures can be useful for eg. from the IOSCO: *Disclosure rules should extend to, at least:* • the conditions applicable to an offering of securities for public sale; • the content and distribution of prospectuses or other offering documents (and, where relevant, short form profile or introductory documents); • supplementary documents prepared in the offering; • advertising in connection with the offering of securities; • information about those who have a significant interest in a listed company; • information about those who seek control of a company (discussed in greater detail below); • information material to the price or value of a listed security; • periodic reports; • shareholder voting decisions Kind Regards, Sala -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gideonrop at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 13:45:10 2012 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:45:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] Another conflict of interest at ICANN : SAD !! In-Reply-To: References: <1354286255.40200.YahooMailNeo@web164506.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <3A9A2430-92FA-4FCF-8E6B-D5B4AEE58C1D@hserus.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB9C2A8@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <20121211104510.341c6eea@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Dear Sala Ok, I understand your concern to a degree. I hope your comments will be respected by all concerned. Thanks and regards. Gideon Rop, DotConnectAfrica. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 8:28 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Gideon et al, > > Please refrain from using the IGC mailing list as a forum to pursue > attacks and character assassination. This is NOT the place for it. As you > can imagine the IGC consists of many busy professionals who subscribe to > its Charter. > > In subscribing to the list, it means that it is expected that as > professionals, each person has an expected understanding of the level of > decorum needed. Whilst there are diverse and numerous complex sides and > arguments and fierce debate, it is expected that as professionals we will > engage with a certain level of decorum. > > If there are challenges to systems and structures then there are many > appropriate mechanisms to address these. On the other hand, there may be > "governance issues" which you would want to bring to the IGC's attention > whether corporate governance or otherwise but I ask that you do so > professionally. > > With kind regards, > > Sala > > As IGC Co-Coordinator > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 12 14:04:49 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:04:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] happy returns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50C8D551.4060300@gmail.com> Does he mean like a single root? On 2012/12/12 06:45 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > One world. One Internet. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com Wed Dec 12 15:02:00 2012 From: Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com (Michael Kende) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:02:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA3093@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> ,<3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA2D8E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2CCFC@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA3093@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2E185@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> I don't this so - seems to be the opposite, in that France and Germany do not want banned content regardless of where it is hosted (they recently asked Twitter to ban some users, but I don't think Twitter has servers in those countries), while I am not sure if they would care if the server was in their country if it was not serving banned content to Germans. Michael From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:25 PM To: Michael Kende; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle; Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Subject: RE: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Michael, briefly put, isn't this what Google, Yahoo!, etc. face in China, and with different angles in France and Germany? With data-protection and right-to-be-forgotten in Spain? etc. It does make "cloud" management very complex. More lawyers than engineers. 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: Michael Kende [Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 12 de diciembre de 2012 10:26 Hasta: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle; Nick Ashton-Hart CC: Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Asunto: RE: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Thank you Alejandro, On one level, the question was triggered by IXPs, but really is more general to do with how this principle of non-tampering of transit traffic would apply when the traffic is stored in the country in some fashion even if it is not intended for that country. More broadly, it is true that at one level content and IXPs are separate, but in practical terms it is hard to separate them, as you allude. Countries are now seeing the value of IXPs to lower the cost of tromboning and latency, and to improve the internet ecosystem, and attracting content is a big part of that - likewise, content providers / CDNs will look at the presence of an IXP when deciding where to put a cache. Further, given economies of scale these IXPs become more valuable when they serve more countries in the region - hence my original question relating to content hosted in one country that is only destined for neighboring countries. With the portability of content, if one country cannot address liability concerns, then the content will simply be hosted in a neighboring country, if at all. By the way, before someone points it out, I realize that 'countries' are not essential to deploying an IXP, but increasingly countries are stepping in to help setup an IXP, both to improve their domestic ecosystem and take compete with neighbors over becoming a hub for traffic. Michael From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:43 PM To: Michael Kende; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle; Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Subject: RE: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Michael, the pitfalls of associating content distributors with IXPs become evident. The layers principle of Internet architecture helps spot it early on in IXP projects. You don't need to get fundamentalist about Internet design principles to manage this. The content distributors and the content owners realize this pretty fast. However people should be aware that OSPs and CDNs (and all other OTT, if we adopt that telco terminology) are finding renewed attraction to IXPs, and IXPs may become self-financing by way of the savings in connectivity to content if these other guys do place enough of their stuff at or close to the IXP. The implications with customs, ACTA, the emerging TPP, etc. have to be managed in advance and suitable liability exemptions will have to be built in. Also, this strains the analogy to the sea - you are talking about the equivalent of building shipping lanes to landlocked countries now. The differences between a built environment and a few zillion tons of salt water already there are highlighted. 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: Michael Kende [Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 12 de diciembre de 2012 07:54 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle; Nick Ashton-Hart CC: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Asunto: RE: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Hello Bertrand and Nick, This is a very interesting thread, as we have been doing a lot of work helping to setup IXPs in countries, and for one project we were working on in an Arab country it seemed that this principle was not commonly accepted with respect to hosted traffic. In other words, no one worried about traffic that was transiting the country, by terrestrial or submarine cables, but content providers questioned what would happen if that traffic was going to be hosted in a country where it was illegal, even if it was not meant for consumption in that country. I guess to extend the Sea metaphor this is like shipping something that is legal in the source and destination country, but not in a country where the container may be offloaded to move to a new ship. Is it illegally in that third country? The equivalent that was cited to us was that it was legal to transport alcohol across some countries where it was illegal, as long as the truck was sealed. The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was filtered along with other international content before being viewed by citizens of the country where it was hosted. Thanks Michael From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Dear Nick, Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. Best Bertrand On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > wrote: Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch). -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: http://meetme.so/nashton Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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") ________________________________ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.com ________________________________ ________________________________ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.com ________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 16:10:09 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:10:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2E185@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA2D8E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2CCFC@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA3093@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2E185@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Michael Kende wrote: > I don’t this so – seems to be the opposite, in that France and Germany do > not want banned content regardless of where it is hosted Do you not recall the Yahoo case over Nazi memorabilia in France? That was the start of the slippery slope we are currently on! -- 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 Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com Wed Dec 12 16:24:59 2012 From: Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com (Michael Kende) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:24:59 +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> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA2D8E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2CCFC@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA3093@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2E185@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2E562@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Sorry, I don't follow your comment at all - is that not another example of the point I was making which you quoted, that France seeks to ban content regardless of where it is hosted (but this does not necessarily mean they would object to hosted content if it was not accessed in France)? -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:10 PM To: Michael Kende Cc: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle; Nick Ashton-Hart; Jovan Kurbalija Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Michael Kende wrote: > I don't this so - seems to be the opposite, in that France and Germany > do not want banned content regardless of where it is hosted Do you not recall the Yahoo case over Nazi memorabilia in France? That was the start of the slippery slope we are currently on! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 nashton at ccianet.org Wed Dec 12 16:45:26 2012 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:45:26 -0200 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <8BB6A21D-97FD-43EA-A851-3CE853916B7A@ccianet.org> FWIW, all traffic is stored, at least ephemerally, whilst in transit. (I suspect this is generally known, but it may not be). On 12 Dec 2012, at 11:54, Michael Kende wrote: > Hello Bertrand and Nick, > > This is a very interesting thread, as we have been doing a lot of work helping to setup IXPs in countries, and for one project we were working on in an Arab country it seemed that this principle was not commonly accepted with respect to hosted traffic. In other words, no one worried about traffic that was transiting the country, by terrestrial or submarine cables, but content providers questioned what would happen if that traffic was going to be hosted in a country where it was illegal, even if it was not meant for consumption in that country. I guess to extend the Sea metaphor this is like shipping something that is legal in the source and destination country, but not in a country where the container may be offloaded to move to a new ship. Is it illegally in that third country? The equivalent that was cited to us was that it was legal to transport alcohol across some countries where it was illegal, as long as the truck was sealed. > > The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was filtered along with other international content before being viewed by citizens of the country where it was hosted. > > Thanks > Michael > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf OfBertrand de La Chapelle > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM > To: Nick Ashton-Hart > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim > Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! > > Dear Nick, > > Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. > > Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. > > It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. > > If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. > > We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. > > (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). > > FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch). > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Geneva Representative > Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) > Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 > > Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: http://meetme.so/nashton > > Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. > > On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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") > > > > > This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. > > Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.comor visit www.analysysmason.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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 16:45:15 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:45:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2E562@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA2D8E@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2CCFC@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA3093@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2E185@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2E562@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Michael Kende wrote: > Sorry, I don't follow your comment at all - is that not another example of > the point I was making which you quoted, that France seeks to ban content > regardless of where it is hosted (but this does not necessarily mean they > would object to hosted content if it was not accessed in France)? I was just reacting to your "in that France and Germany do not want banned content regardless of where it is hosted" In that case, IIRC, Yahoo! was forced (by judicial fiat) to remove that content from their servers worldwide precisely because French users COULD access it (even if it was not hosted on yahoo.fr). But it was long ago, and my memory is not what it once was and there were a number of rulings over a long period of time. -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Dec 12 23:25:33 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:55:33 +0530 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> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <50C89DCA.7040401@itforchange.net> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2C464@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <50C958BD.5070801@itforchange.net> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:24 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > If we continue with the example that Parminder raised in relation to > addressing IPR violations where the "subject" in this case the > "content" is in "transit"- this is why countries around the world at > least as far as IPRs have been pushing harmonisation of their laws. Sala, Harmonisation of laws on IPR, which serves powerful interests, but not on other areas - like tax accruals (see your own google tax evasion posting), global net neutrality, consumer protection vis a vis global digital companies and so on... And this is what global Internet related public policy making is all about, from which so many of us rebound instinctively ... India's CIRP proposal described its intent as follows The intent behind proposing a multilateral and multi­stakeholder mechanism is not to "control the Internet" or allow Governments to have the last word in regulating the Internet, but to make sure that the Internet is governed not unilaterally, but in an open, democratic, inclusive and participatory manner, with the participation of all stakeholders, so as to evolve /*universally acceptable, and globally harmonized policies in important areas */and pave the way for a credible, constantly evolving, stable and well­functioning Internet that plays its due role in improving the quality of peoples' lives everywhere. (emphasis added) The other way of global harmonisation, as US and OECD wants, is for these powerful countries to make policies and then arm twist others to join in.... Civil society will need to take a view on what kind of 'global harmonisation' do they want. What is your view? Unfortunately, till now most of the global civil society have generally sided with the powerful in the above regard. parminder > There are massive implications on openness etc. > > Sala > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > ] *On Behalf Of > *parminder > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:08 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a > new approach to Internet governance! > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 07:24 PM, Michael Kende wrote: > > Hello Bertrand and Nick, > > > The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering > with transit traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in > the country, even if it was filtered along with other > international content before being viewed by citizens of the > country where it was hosted. > > > Michael > > You may know that third party cargo in transit is being impounded > in OECD countries for IP violation when the stuff is made on one > country and headed for another, and has nothing to do with the > impounding jurisdiction. see for instance, > http://keionline.org/blogs/2009/02/03/intervention-by-brazil-at-wto-general-council-on-seizure-of-500-kilos-of-generic-medicines-by-dutch-customs-aut > > There have been other cases as well. I understand 'border > measures' envisaged under ACTA also enables such in transit > seizures of third party goods. > > parminder > > > > > > > Thanks > > Michael > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of > *Bertrand de La Chapelle > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM > *To:* Nick Ashton-Hart > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a > new approach to Internet governance! > > Dear Nick, > > Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an > interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe > that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging > international principle of "*non-tampering with transit traffic*" > when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but > did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of > Africa. > > Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could > probably be part of an international/global regime. > > Best > > Bertrand > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart > > wrote: > > Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks > as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open > flow of data. > > It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but > in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a > state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the > territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned > by anyone. > > If we used this construct to protect the flow of international > data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea > embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of > internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go > back to the Roman period. > > We could do much worse than an international understanding that > data, when transiting any country between a source and destination > in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or > subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject > only to an international regime. > > (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you > at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might > have potential). > > FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the > USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current > Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are > many members of the legislative branch). > > -- > > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > Geneva Representative > > Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) > > Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 > > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > > USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 > > *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: > http://meetme.so/nashton* > > Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic > mangling. > > > On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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") > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When > addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions > of business. > > Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. > Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, > UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244 > . Email enquiries at analysysmason.com > or visit > www.analysysmason.com > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When > addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions > of business. > > Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. > Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, > UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244 > . Email enquiries at analysysmason.com > or visit > www.analysysmason.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 > > > > > -- > 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 12 23:30:42 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:00:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <50C958BD.5070801@itforchange.net> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <50C89DCA.7040401@itforchange.net> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2C464@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <50C958BD.5070801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: you misspelled "fortunately" I don't have any confidence at all in the CIRP or its wording. --srs (iPad) On 13-Dec-2012, at 9:55, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:24 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> >> If we continue with the example that Parminder raised in relation to addressing IPR violations where the "subject" in this case the "content" is in "transit"- this is why countries around the world at least as far as IPRs have been pushing harmonisation of their laws. > > Sala, > Harmonisation of laws on IPR, which serves powerful interests, but not on other areas - like tax accruals (see your own google tax evasion posting), global net neutrality, consumer protection vis a vis global digital companies and so on... > > And this is what global Internet related public policy making is all about, from which so many of us rebound instinctively ... > > India's CIRP proposal described its intent as follows > > The intent behind proposing a multilateral and multi­stakeholder mechanism is not to "control the Internet" or allow Governments to have the last word in regulating the Internet, but to make sure that the Internet is governed not unilaterally, but in an open, democratic, inclusive and participatory manner, with the participation of all stakeholders, so as to evolve universally acceptable, and globally harmonized policies in important areas and pave the way for a credible, constantly evolving, stable and well­functioning Internet that plays its due role in improving the quality of peoples' lives everywhere. (emphasis added) > > The other way of global harmonisation, as US and OECD wants, is for these powerful countries to make policies and then arm twist others to join in.... > > Civil society will need to take a view on what kind of 'global harmonisation' do they want. What is your view? > > Unfortunately, till now most of the global civil society have generally sided with the powerful in the above regard. > > > parminder > >> There are massive implications on openness etc. >> >> Sala >>> >>> >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of parminder >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:08 PM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 07:24 PM, Michael Kende wrote: >>> >>> Hello Bertrand and Nick, >>> >>> >> >>> The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was filtered along with other international content before being viewed by citizens of the country where it was hosted. >>> >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> You may know that third party cargo in transit is being impounded in OECD countries for IP violation when the stuff is made on one country and headed for another, and has nothing to do with the impounding jurisdiction. see for instance, http://keionline.org/blogs/2009/02/03/intervention-by-brazil-at-wto-general-council-on-seizure-of-500-kilos-of-generic-medicines-by-dutch-customs-aut >>> >>> There have been other cases as well. I understand 'border measures' envisaged under ACTA also enables such in transit seizures of third party goods. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM >>> To: Nick Ashton-Hart >>> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Nick, >>> >>> >>> >>> Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of "non-tampering with transit traffic" when it blocked access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. >>> >>> >>> >>> Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably be part of an international/global regime. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best >>> >>> >>> >>> Bertrand >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> >>> Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. >>> >>> >>> >>> It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not owned by anyone. >>> >>> >>> >>> If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. >>> >>> >>> >>> We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, when transiting any country between a source and destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international regime. >>> >>> (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). >>> >>> >>> >>> FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative branch). >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick Ashton-Hart >>> >>> Geneva Representative >>> >>> Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) >>> >>> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 >>> >>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >>> >>> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >>> >>> USA DID: >>> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Wed Dec 12 23:33:03 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:03:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its coordinator. parminder On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > More on Bloomberg: > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > > Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out > against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the > release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. > > Source: > http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 > > > Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in > taxes) > > Posted By TelecomTV One > , > 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments > | > [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an > average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] (0) > Tags: /Google > / > /corporate > / /tax > / > /Finance > / > > As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying > corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing > income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just > 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. > > Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax > avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and > corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, > we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal > requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the > politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the > amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms > are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with > far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to > contribute to your share as well. > > Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English > Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or > “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that > means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. > > Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that > avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and > mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe > that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing > the level of available State support for the most needy) and could > be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that > Google is acting in an evil manner. > > An investigative report by Bloomberg > has > discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide > income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a > Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years > ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a > Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by > reporters from Bloomberg. > > It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas > subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income > tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in > half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to > about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. > > Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 > trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 > trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent > this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. > > Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which > pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According > to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: > > “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep > embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political > awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree > elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that > if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get cut.” > > Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered > the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely > nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. > > Advertisement > As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… > > The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 > per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, > it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg > says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects > revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to > another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. > Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the > Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the > tax haven of Bermuda. > > Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the > internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten > Things We Know to be True” page on Google > ’s website is the > following: > > “You can make money without doing evil.” > > I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything > but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to > shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of > these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no > indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but > there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. > > And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you > can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that > corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the > right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to > boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the > sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ > positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see > why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. > > Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this > complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean > ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and > Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt > will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp > practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments > can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers > to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As > Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message > that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the > many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of > recession. > > Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some > leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT > industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and > out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for all. > > _Further reading: _The Pearse Trust > blog > has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch > Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. > > > > > -- > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 23:37:57 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:37:57 +1300 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <50C958BD.5070801@itforchange.net> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <50C89DCA.7040401@itforchange.net> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2C464@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <50C958BD.5070801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:25 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:24 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > > If we continue with the example that Parminder raised in relation to > addressing IPR violations where the "subject" in this case the "content" is > in "transit"- this is why countries around the world at least as far as > IPRs have been pushing harmonisation of their laws. > > > Sala, > Harmonisation of laws on IPR, which serves powerful interests, but not on > other areas - like tax accruals (see your own google tax evasion posting), > global net neutrality, consumer protection vis a vis global digital > companies and so on... > Hi Parminder - I am aware of the dynamics and was not disagreeing with the points you raised. Even with IPRs, precedence has been set by countries who are pushing an open and free internet to move towards "unspeakable :(" things like DNS filtering and digital rights management - the fear now is that once you start - people keep pushing the boundaries, this is systemic and human nature. This is why people fight for a free and open internet. One of the challenges however is the polarisation between some commercially driven segments and governments over the taxation issues but will not get into that. To discuss harmonisation is not the solution in my view as my assessment as there is no way that parties will come together too much is at stake for them and it is in the billions of revenue and sadly for most people this is what makes the world go round. What we would be better off doing is a thorough assessment of all the layers and pointing out the dangers that highlight regulatory trends globally and also point out threats to openess and why it is in the world's interests that we continue to have an open and free internet but at the same time fulfil our core responsible citizens as good citizens or global citizens or netizens but some would argue that this is utopia and a suburb of Absurdistan. Even beyond the WCIT, stakeholders need to reflect on the "bigger picture" - meaning both civil society, private sector and the public sector - multistakeholder has to transcend getting people of diverse compositions into the same room but recognising and respecting the diverse roles that each plays so that there is real harmonisation and not a legislated one. > > And this is what global Internet related public policy making is all > about, from which so many of us rebound instinctively ... > > India's CIRP proposal described its intent as follows > > The intent behind proposing a multilateral and multi­stakeholder > mechanism is not to "control the Internet" or allow Governments to have the > last word in regulating the Internet, but to make sure that the Internet > is governed not unilaterally, but in an open, democratic, inclusive and > participatory manner, with the participation of all stakeholders, so as to > evolve *universally acceptable, and globally harmonized policies in > important areas *and pave the way for a credible, constantly evolving, > stable and well­functioning Internet that plays its due role in improving > the quality of peoples' lives everywhere. (emphasis added) > > > The other way of global harmonisation, as US and OECD wants, is for these > powerful countries to make policies and then arm twist others to join > in.... > > Civil society will need to take a view on what kind of 'global > harmonisation' do they want. What is your view? > > Unfortunately, till now most of the global civil society have generally > sided with the powerful in the above regard. > > > parminder > > There are massive implications on openness etc. > > Sala > >> >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *parminder >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:08 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new >> approach to Internet governance! >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 07:24 PM, Michael Kende wrote: >> >> Hello Bertrand and Nick, >> >> > >> The question then is whether this principle of non-tampering with transit >> traffic holds for traffic that may be stored in the country, even if it was >> filtered along with other international content before being viewed by >> citizens of the country where it was hosted. >> >> >> Michael >> >> You may know that third party cargo in transit is being impounded in OECD >> countries for IP violation when the stuff is made on one country and headed >> for another, and has nothing to do with the impounding jurisdiction. see >> for instance, >> http://keionline.org/blogs/2009/02/03/intervention-by-brazil-at-wto-general-council-on-seizure-of-500-kilos-of-generic-medicines-by-dutch-customs-aut >> >> There have been other cases as well. I understand 'border measures' >> envisaged under ACTA also enables such in transit seizures of third party >> goods. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Michael >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ >> mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] >> *On Behalf Of *Bertrand de La Chapelle >> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM >> *To:* Nick Ashton-Hart >> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Jovan >> Kurbalija; McTim >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new >> approach to Internet governance! >> >> >> >> Dear Nick, >> >> >> >> Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an >> interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that >> Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of >> "*non-tampering with transit traffic*" when it blocked access to the >> Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic >> serving the easter coast of Africa. >> >> >> >> Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably >> be part of an international/global regime. >> >> >> >> Best >> >> >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart >> wrote: >> >> Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an >> interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. >> >> >> >> It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in >> maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, >> the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open >> sea and by definition not owned by anyone. >> >> >> >> If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, that >> might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, >> after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood >> principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. >> >> >> >> We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, >> when transiting any country between a source and destination in third >> countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the >> laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international >> regime. >> >> (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku >> I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). >> >> >> >> FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has >> yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very >> much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative >> branch). >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart >> >> Geneva Representative >> >> Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) >> >> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 >> >> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >> >> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >> >> USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 >> >> >> >> *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: >> http://meetme.so/nashton* >> >> >> >> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic >> mangling. >> >> >> On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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 <%2B41%20%280%29%2022%207410435> *| 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 <%2B33%20%280%296%2011%2088%2033%2032> >> >> "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") >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed >> to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. >> >> Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered >> office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number >> 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244 <%2B44%20845%20600%205244>. Email >> enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.com >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed >> to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. >> >> Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered >> office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number >> 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244 <%2B44%20845%20600%205244>. Email >> enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 >> >> > > > -- > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Dec 12 23:40:22 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:40:22 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder wrote: > > Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! It > surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy > efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like > organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. > > Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is > anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or is > it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional > questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its > coordinator. > What does the list think? +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google As always the IGC decides > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > More on Bloomberg: > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against >> the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is almost >> impeccable with the WCIT. >> >> Source: >> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >> >> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in taxes) >> Posted By TelecomTV One >> , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >> | (0) >> Tags: *Google >> * *corporate >> * *tax * * >> Finance * >> >> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying corporation >> taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income through a “Double >> Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per cent on its overseas >> profits. Guy Daniels reports. >> >> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations have a >> duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever respective >> governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, in most countries, >> we voted the politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the >> amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms are >> available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with far less >> access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as >> well. >> >> >> >> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English Dictionary >> defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or “something which is >> harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means tax avoidance is evil, >> simple as that. >> >> >> >> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that avoiding >> tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and mind-boggling complicated >> avoidance schemes) and if you believe that depriving society of tax >> revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level of available State support for >> the most needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must >> conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. >> >> >> >> An investigative report by Bloomberg has >> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes >> in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – >> almost double its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed >> in a November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was >> discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. >> >> >> >> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas subsidiaries >> into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, thereby enabling >> it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. Bloomberg says the amount >> moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 per cent of Google’s total >> pretax profit in 2011. >> >> >> >> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent this >> financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >> >> >> >> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which pretty >> much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to Richard >> Murphy of Tax Research: >> >> >> >> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness now >> being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: >> It’s us or them. People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody >> else has to pay or services get cut.” >> >> >> >> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the US >> coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at all), it >> started to boycott the chain. >> Advertisement >> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >> >> >> >> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 per >> cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it paid UK >> corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says Google avoids tax >> by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues from ads sold in the UK, >> which then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence >> is in Bermuda. Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the tax haven >> of Bermuda. >> >> >> >> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the internet >> company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten Things We Know to >> be True” page on Google ’s >> website is the following: >> >> >> >> “You can make money without doing evil.” >> >> >> >> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but evil. >> Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders to maximise >> profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely ethical, whilst some >> are legal. There is no indication or suggestion that Google has acted >> illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >> >> >> >> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I >> don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will only >> act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their fair >> share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then they’ll >> change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the so-called >> ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured heavily in annual >> reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >> >> >> >> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this complicated >> tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean ‘mitigation’…) structure >> include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and >> all the others, who no doubt will soon be named and shamed – will continue >> their sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. If >> governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to >> customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As >> Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message that it’s >> “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the many austerity >> measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. >> >> >> >> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. >> Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do likewise. >> Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your >> website once and for all. >> >> >> >> *Further reading: *The Pearse Trust blog >> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” >> tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >> >> >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro 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 12 23:51:43 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:21:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: A strong -1 --srs (iPad) On 13-Dec-2012, at 10:10, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. >> >> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its coordinator. > > What does the list think? > +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google > -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google > > As always the IGC decides >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> More on Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. >>>> >>>> Source: http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>>> >>>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in taxes) >>>> >>>> Posted By TelecomTV One , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments | (0) >>>> Tags: Google corporate tax Finance >>>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as well. >>>> >>>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >>>> >>>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level of available State support for the most needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. >>>> >>>> An investigative report by Bloomberg has discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. >>>> >>>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >>>> >>>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >>>> >>>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >>>> >>>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get cut.” >>>> >>>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. >>>> Advertisement >>>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>>> >>>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. >>>> >>>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten Things We Know to be True” page on Google’s website is the following: >>>> >>>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>>> >>>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >>>> >>>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>>> >>>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. >>>> >>>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for all. >>>> >>>> Further reading: The Pearse Trust blog has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Thu Dec 13 00:07:13 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:07:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: *+ 1* Louis - - - On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > A strong -1 > > --srs (iPad) > > On 13-Dec-2012, at 10:10, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! >> It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy >> efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like >> organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. >> > What does the list think? > +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google > -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google > > As always the IGC decides > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 00:22:14 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:22:14 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Yes, I agree with the sentiments expressed by Parminder and Louis. Google is behaving badly in many ways, and its tax avoidance is a prime example. This being raised now is not some sort of anti-Internet conspiracy, its an expression of frustration that they are able to get away with this. But I don’t really think much will be achieved by a letter. From: Louis Pouzin (well) Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:07 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ; parminder Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes + 1 Louis - - - On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: A strong -1 --srs (iPad) On 13-Dec-2012, at 10:10, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder wrote: Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. What does the list think? +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google As always the IGC decides -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 13 00:29:03 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:59:03 +0530 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> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2B838@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <50C89DCA.7040401@itforchange.net> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C2C464@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> <50C958BD.5070801@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50C9679F.5040106@itforchange.net> On Thursday 13 December 2012 10:07 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:25 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:24 PM, Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > > One of the challenges however is the polarisation between some > commercially driven segments and governments over the taxation issues > but will not get into that. Why would we not get into that? I did not understand. The polarisation is quite understandable and structural, isnt it. You cannot expect the big business to side on paying taxes, against not paying them, can you. > To discuss harmonisation is not the solution Again, cant understand the basis of your statement. Why can there not be harmonisation of national and global law, whereby, for instance, Bermuda is not able to provide the haven it does, and google is not able to avail of it, even if Bermuda does provide. How easily we push aside a redistributional issue - of greatest significance to the less powerful - saying lets not talk about it, it is not practical and so on.... Are you saying such redistributional issues do not make to the grade of global IG issues. (which is what i really see happening mostly in global IG spaces) > in my view as my assessment as there is no way that parties will come > together too much is at stake for them and it is in the billions of > revenue and sadly for most people this is what makes the world go round. So, since business would not ever agree to higher taxes, or even paying any at all if it can manage that, you seem to be suggesting that we give up such issues?? that is where multistakeholderism collapses, like it would always when faced with an issue of redistribution and not just a system-management kind. I am shocked at the fatalism implied in 'that is what makes the world go around'... So, is that your message to those left out, and marginalised. Give up the hopes of a socially and economically just system and society, because we have multistakeholderism now, and business must agree to everything... bad luck if you dont like it, but that is what makes the world go around... and we the civil society are here to help the world go around as it in any case does go around.... > > What we would be better off doing is a thorough assessment of all the > layers and pointing out the dangers that highlight regulatory trends > globally Dangers, and nothing at all about the good possibilities from regulation, right! Is that what your politics is limited to. Ensuring proper distribution of tax accrual from global business is also a global regulatory issue - and a positive one. But you want to only look at the dangers. I well understand this model and paradigm of governance, which is why I resist it so much. Many things at WCIT do threaten people's rights, and they must be fought. But, all this that is being orchestrated at and around WCIT is also a part of a larger effort to let go of all governance or regulation that can have a re-distributional impact, or even just a positive impact on the more marginalized, which could be merely of ensuring a level playing field... Basically, a big NO to global economic and social rights. > and also point out threats to openess and why it is in the world's > interests that we continue to have an open and free internet but at > the same time fulfil our core responsible citizens as good citizens or > global citizens or netizens but some would argue that this is utopia > and a suburb of Absurdistan. > > Even beyond the WCIT, stakeholders need to reflect on the "bigger > picture" - meaning both civil society, private sector and the public > sector - multistakeholder has to transcend getting people of diverse > compositions into the same room but recognising and respecting the > diverse roles that each plays so that there is real harmonisation and > not a legislated one. There will always be need for legislation. I shudder to think of a polity where nothing can be done without full agreement of the most powerful. That is a kind of neo-feudalism. That is not how progressive change takes place... And, yes, this is not about WCIT. That would be over tomorrow. It is about what we are going to do beyond it. parminder > > And this is what global Internet related public policy making is > all about, from which so many of us rebound instinctively ... > > India's CIRP proposal described its intent as follows > > The intent behind proposing a multilateral and > multi­stakeholder mechanism is not to "control the Internet" > or allow Governments to have the last word in regulating the > Internet, but to make sure that the Internet is governed not > unilaterally, but in an open, democratic, inclusive and > participatory manner, with the participation of all > stakeholders, so as to evolve /*universally acceptable, and > globally harmonized policies in important areas */and pave the > way for a credible, constantly evolving, stable and > well­functioning Internet that plays its due role in improving > the quality of peoples' lives everywhere. (emphasis added) > > > The other way of global harmonisation, as US and OECD wants, is > for these powerful countries to make policies and then arm twist > others to join in.... > > Civil society will need to take a view on what kind of 'global > harmonisation' do they want. What is your view? > > Unfortunately, till now most of the global civil society have > generally sided with the powerful in the above regard. > > > parminder > >> There are massive implications on openness etc. >> >> Sala >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> ] *On Behalf Of >> *parminder >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:08 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... >> a new approach to Internet governance! >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 07:24 PM, Michael Kende wrote: >> >> Hello Bertrand and Nick, >> >> > >> The question then is whether this principle of >> non-tampering with transit traffic holds for traffic that >> may be stored in the country, even if it was filtered >> along with other international content before being >> viewed by citizens of the country where it was hosted. >> >> >> Michael >> >> You may know that third party cargo in transit is being >> impounded in OECD countries for IP violation when the stuff >> is made on one country and headed for another, and has >> nothing to do with the impounding jurisdiction. see for >> instance, >> http://keionline.org/blogs/2009/02/03/intervention-by-brazil-at-wto-general-council-on-seizure-of-500-kilos-of-generic-medicines-by-dutch-customs-aut >> >> There have been other cases as well. I understand 'border >> measures' envisaged under ACTA also enables such in transit >> seizures of third party goods. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Michael >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of >> *Bertrand de La Chapelle >> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 11, 2012 6:11 PM >> *To:* Nick Ashton-Hart >> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> Baruch; Jovan Kurbalija; McTim >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... >> a new approach to Internet governance! >> >> Dear Nick, >> >> Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This >> is an interesting component to explore. As I have often said, >> I believe that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit >> emerging international principle of "*non-tampering with >> transit traffic*" when it blocked access to the Internet >> during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic >> serving the easter coast of Africa. >> >> Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and >> could probably be part of an international/global regime. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart >> > wrote: >> >> Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few >> weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of >> the open flow of data. >> >> It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - >> but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered >> with a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond >> the territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition >> not owned by anyone. >> >> If we used this construct to protect the flow of >> international data, that might be a workable metaphor. The >> Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely >> simply a distillation of internationally-understood >> principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. >> >> We could do much worse than an international understanding >> that data, when transiting any country between a source and >> destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' >> the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was >> transiting, but subject only to an international regime. >> >> (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told >> you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that >> might have potential). >> >> FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that >> the USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the >> current Administration is very much in favour of doing so, >> however, as are many members of the legislative branch). >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart >> >> Geneva Representative >> >> Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) >> >> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 >> >> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >> >> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >> >> USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 >> >> *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both >> here: http://meetme.so/nashton* >> >> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse >> linguistic mangling. >> >> >> On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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") >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. >> When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and >> conditions of business. >> >> Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. >> Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B >> 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244 >> . Email >> enquiries at analysysmason.com >> or visit >> www.analysysmason.com >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. >> When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and >> conditions of business. >> >> Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. >> Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B >> 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244 >> . Email >> enquiries at analysysmason.com >> or visit >> www.analysysmason.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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 13 00:30:59 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:00:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <8F6042E8-9767-4A56-8315-D5C3BA35B35A@hserus.net> You find me one corporation that doesn't avoid tax in weird and wonderful ways. The IRS is your man, well, your organization, to nail down whatever crosses the line between avoidance and evasion. Meanwhile, can we concentrate on the governance aspects of this, please? --srs (iPad) On 13-Dec-2012, at 10:52, "Ian Peter" wrote: > Yes, I agree with the sentiments expressed by Parminder and Louis. Google is behaving badly in many ways, and its tax avoidance is a prime example. This being raised now is not some sort of anti-Internet conspiracy, its an expression of frustration that they are able to get away with this. > > But I don’t really think much will be achieved by a letter. > > > > From: Louis Pouzin (well) > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:07 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian > Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ; parminder > Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > + 1 > Louis > - - - > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> A strong -1 >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 13-Dec-2012, at 10:10, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. >>> What does the list think? >>> +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google >>> -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google >>> >>> As always the IGC decides > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 00:37:31 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:37:31 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <8F6042E8-9767-4A56-8315-D5C3BA35B35A@hserus.net> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <8F6042E8-9767-4A56-8315-D5C3BA35B35A@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > You find me one corporation that doesn't avoid tax in weird and wonderful > ways. The IRS is your man, well, your organization, to nail down whatever > crosses the line between avoidance and evasion. Meanwhile, can we > concentrate on the governance aspects of this, please? > Suresh, the issue of Accounting and Taxation in relation to the Internet Universe is part of Internet Governance > > --srs (iPad) > > On 13-Dec-2012, at 10:52, "Ian Peter" wrote: > > Yes, I agree with the sentiments expressed by Parminder and Louis. > Google is behaving badly in many ways, and its tax avoidance is a prime > example. This being raised now is not some sort of anti-Internet > conspiracy, its an expression of frustration that they are able to get away > with this. > > But I don’t really think much will be achieved by a letter. > > > > *From:* Louis Pouzin (well) > *Sent:* Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:07 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian > *Cc:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ; > parminder > *Subject:* [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > *+ 1* > Louis > - - - > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > >> A strong -1 >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 13-Dec-2012, at 10:10, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! >>> It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy >>> efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like >>> organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. >>> >> What does the list think? >> +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google >> -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google >> >> As always the IGC decides >> >> >> > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro 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 Thu Dec 13 00:44:56 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 21:44:56 -0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <8F6042E8-9767-4A56-8315-D5C3BA35B35A@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20121213054456.GA3148@hserus.net> Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [13/12/12 18:37 +1300]: >On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >wrote: > >> You find me one corporation that doesn't avoid tax in weird and wonderful >> ways. The IRS is your man, well, your organization, to nail down whatever >> crosses the line between avoidance and evasion. Meanwhile, can we >> concentrate on the governance aspects of this, please? >> >Suresh, the issue of Accounting and Taxation in relation to the Internet >Universe is part of Internet Governance Where do you draw the line? Sure, internet governance can be made to stretch a broad (and sometimes fuzzy) range of concepts. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fahd.batayneh at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 00:44:55 2012 From: fahd.batayneh at gmail.com (Fahd A. Batayneh) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:44:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: ++1 Fahd On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:40 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! >> It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy >> efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like >> organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. >> >> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is >> anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or is >> it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional >> questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its >> coordinator. >> > > What does the list think? > +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google > -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google > > As always the IGC decides > >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> >> More on Bloomberg: >> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against >>> the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is almost >>> impeccable with the WCIT. >>> >>> Source: >>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>> >>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in taxes) >>> Posted By TelecomTV One >>> , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >>> | (0) >>> Tags: *Google >>> * *corporate >>> * *tax * * >>> Finance * >>> >>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >>> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income >>> through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per cent on >>> its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>> >>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >>> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations have a >>> duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever respective >>> governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, in most countries, >>> we voted the politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the >>> amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms are >>> available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with far less >>> access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as >>> well. >>> >>> >>> >>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English Dictionary >>> defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or “something which is >>> harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means tax avoidance is evil, >>> simple as that. >>> >>> >>> >>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that avoiding >>> tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and mind-boggling complicated >>> avoidance schemes) and if you believe that depriving society of tax >>> revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level of available State support for >>> the most needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must >>> conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. >>> >>> >>> >>> An investigative report by Bloomberg has >>> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes >>> in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – >>> almost double its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed >>> in a November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was >>> discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas subsidiaries >>> into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, thereby enabling >>> it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. Bloomberg says the amount >>> moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 per cent of Google’s total >>> pretax profit in 2011. >>> >>> >>> >>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >>> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >>> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent this >>> financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >>> >>> >>> >>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which pretty >>> much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to Richard >>> Murphy of Tax Research: >>> >>> >>> >>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >>> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness now >>> being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: >>> It’s us or them. People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody >>> else has to pay or services get cut.” >>> >>> >>> >>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the US >>> coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at all), it >>> started to boycott the chain. >>> Advertisement >>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>> >>> >>> >>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 per >>> cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it paid UK >>> corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says Google avoids tax >>> by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues from ads sold in the UK, >>> which then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence >>> is in Bermuda. Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >>> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the tax haven >>> of Bermuda. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the internet >>> company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten Things We Know to >>> be True” page on Google’s >>> website is the following: >>> >>> >>> >>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but >>> evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders to >>> maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely ethical, >>> whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion that Google has >>> acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted >>> unethically. >>> >>> >>> >>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I >>> don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will only >>> act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their fair >>> share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then they’ll >>> change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the so-called >>> ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured heavily in annual >>> reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this complicated >>> tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean ‘mitigation’…) structure >>> include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and >>> all the others, who no doubt will soon be named and shamed – will continue >>> their sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. If >>> governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to >>> customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As >>> Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message that it’s >>> “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the many austerity >>> measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. >>> >>> >>> >>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. >>> Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do likewise. >>> Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your >>> website once and for all. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Further reading: *The Pearse Trust blog >>> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” >>> tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 13 00:51:21 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:21:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50C96CD9.8070108@itforchange.net> On Thursday 13 December 2012 10:52 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Yes, I agree with the sentiments expressed by Parminder and Louis. > Google is behaving badly in many ways, and its tax avoidance is a > prime example. This being raised now is not some sort of anti-Internet > conspiracy, its an expression of frustration that they are able to get > away with this. Ian, It cannot be simply dismissed as a bad behaviour. It is a global IG issue. FOr instance, EU has an agreement among member countries about e-commerce related taxes, and I think they may revisit it, or seek new agreements, in the background of recent issues that France, UK and others have raised about google's taxes. At WCIT, most developing countries were concerned about how they are not able to get some legitimate dues out of the multi billion global digital businesses, which are furthering already unbalanced North wards flows of economic value. They sought the wrong way to go about it, seeking telecom rentals from such big businesses, which by compromising net neutrality would have hurt developing countries most. However, the basic concern of not getting legitimate public dues is not misplaced. (You will see that the ITR text still has a part on fiscal taxes.) If we just dismiss this as a minor issue of wrong doing and not a global Internet governance issue, we are reinforcing the feeling that most developing country governments, and the politically involved civil society from these countries, in any case has about what generally goes for the global IG civil society. Accordingly, we can do so at the (further) cost of our credibility. > But I don’t really think much will be achieved by a letter. I am not sure what gets practically achieved by many other letters that IGC writes, other than giving a message about what we consider as important, and are ready to but our might behind. No I am not canvassing for support for a possible letter to google etc. People would support or not as per their established beliefs and convictions. But I must keep on arguing for what I think is the right and balanced progressive view that global IG civil society must take, and be seen as taking. parminder > *From:* Louis Pouzin (well) > *Sent:* Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:07 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; Suresh Ramasubramanian > > *Cc:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > ; parminder > > *Subject:* [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > *+ 1* > Louis > - - - > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > A strong -1 > > --srs (iPad) > > On 13-Dec-2012, at 10:10, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder >> > wrote: >> >> >> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its >> overseas profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to >> spend in lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep global markets >> free for its unlettered operations... Like organising >> campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. >> >> What does the list think? >> +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google >> -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google >> As always the IGC decides > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu Dec 13 00:55:37 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 05:55:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: <6FD9AA77-24A0-459A-95EA-521BE6D95CF3@post.harvard.edu> References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB970BD@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<6FD9AA77-24A0-459A-95EA-521BE6D95CF3@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA4CC6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> David, I owed you a reply here. Some subset of what Mike Gurstein in facile way characterizes as HOI not only has a vision of how to build Intenet Governance - they are voting with their sweat. They are building the mechanisms, agreements, communications, understandings, actions and discourse. These days some of that set are providing delegates at WCIT with constant feedback, technical knowledge, policy arguments, and personal networks in order to avert some of the worst-case results of that conference. Some in Dubai, some away, but that materialization of a vision of Internet Governance is actually consuming some kiloJoules and having some demonstrable, traceable effect. Guess they may be forgiven for not trying to become the world's tax-collector-spanking authority. We leave that to the real experts on this list, impressed by the fiscal knowledge and the rapid setup of an army. Please be the first in line to tap the flow of funds into the coffers. Oh, and lay aside the "no taxation without representation" line while you bleed Google white. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de David Allen [David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] Enviado el: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2012 10:51 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 I am afraid I see it differently, from my esteemed friend Dr. Pisanty. (All the while I have enjoyed the elegance of construction, in his response!) As Michael has now excerpted: > ... the "Hands off the Internet" folks don't go beyond the negative > into some positive vision/declaration of where/how they think the > Internet should be "governed" (beyond an untenable status quo) ... Which has led to stalemate, such as with both Tunis follow-ons, IGF and Enhanced Cooperation. With stalemate cropping up once again, here with Dubai. There has been repeated talk, over the years, of new global regimes, beyond states, grandly centered on multi-stakeholderism. But no reality - no practicable formulation that preserves democracy - to that talk. That is serious work. Jeremy began to suggest some thoughts forward > We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is > necessary to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers in the thread, Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution. David On Dec 9, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Mike, > > as the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli is often quoted to have said, > "it isn't even wrong." > > Your article mostly creates a hybrid of red herring, strawman and > bogeyman and misses the group, often identified in this list, which > does not say "hands off the Internet", is not acting by reflex, is > not being driven by the corporate interests you profer to dislike, > and therefore makes nuanced, rational analysis and action difficult. > > There are serious concerns about what is going on in the ITU's WCIT, > serious people trying to address them in a serious way. That they > some may find their allies uncomfortable does not fit in your text. > Your text becomes little more than a distraction. > > From such a flawed premise, little of use can be concluded. As I > said, it isn't even wrong. > > > 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: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 15:30 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? > Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 > > FWIW > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet-some-reflections-on-wcit-2012/ > > MG > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 13 01:19:48 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:49:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA4CC6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB970BD@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<6FD9AA77-24A0-459A-95EA-521BE6D95CF3@post.harvard.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA4CC6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <50C97384.7040706@itforchange.net> On Thursday 13 December 2012 11:25 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > David, > > I owed you a reply here. > > Some subset of what Mike Gurstein in facile way characterizes as HOI not only has a vision of how to build Intenet Governance - they are voting with their sweat. Alex, perhaps you may not want to use the 'sweat' analogy; you may be very surprised by what those who really 'sweat' may vote for ! > They are building the mechanisms, agreements, communications, understandings, actions and discourse. > > These days some of that set are providing delegates at WCIT with constant feedback, BTW, It seems your sweating group seems to have a lot of money for global travel unlike other (real) sweat-ers. > technical knowledge, policy arguments, and personal networks in order to avert some of the worst-case results of that conference. Some in Dubai, some away, but that materialization of a vision of Internet Governance is actually consuming some kiloJoules and having some demonstrable, traceable effect. > > Guess they may be forgiven No, they cant be forgiven for not taking up issues of global economic and social justice on board. That is what we are here for. Not to forgive them, and to remind them constantly. > for not trying to become the world's tax-collector-spanking authority. We leave that to the real experts on this list, impressed by the fiscal knowledge and the rapid setup of an army. Alas! Can hardly match the army that google and cohorts set up around WCIT... and also at other global IG spaces. After all money (and not sweat) counts! > Please be the first in line to tap the flow of funds into the coffers. Oh, and lay aside the "no taxation without representation" line while you bleed Google white. Well, This one I dont understand at all. You mean developing countries cannot tax bec they are not represented in Google, or what? Or perhaps with 'representation' you mean something else now a days - that we havent done the necessary work/ sweat?? I completely miss it. Sorry. But you can explain. parminder > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de David Allen [David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] > Enviado el: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2012 10:51 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 > > I am afraid I see it differently, from my esteemed friend Dr. > Pisanty. (All the while I have enjoyed the elegance of construction, > in his response!) > > As Michael has now excerpted: > >> ... the "Hands off the Internet" folks don't go beyond the negative >> into some positive vision/declaration of where/how they think the >> Internet should be "governed" (beyond an untenable status quo) ... > > Which has led to stalemate, such as with both Tunis follow-ons, IGF > and Enhanced Cooperation. With stalemate cropping up once again, here > with Dubai. > > There has been repeated talk, over the years, of new global regimes, > beyond states, grandly centered on multi-stakeholderism. But no > reality - no practicable formulation that preserves democracy - to > that talk. > > That is serious work. Jeremy began to suggest some thoughts forward > >> We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is >> necessary to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers > > in the thread, Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution. > > David > > On Dec 9, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> as the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli is often quoted to have said, >> "it isn't even wrong." >> >> Your article mostly creates a hybrid of red herring, strawman and >> bogeyman and misses the group, often identified in this list, which >> does not say "hands off the Internet", is not acting by reflex, is >> not being driven by the corporate interests you profer to dislike, >> and therefore makes nuanced, rational analysis and action difficult. >> >> There are serious concerns about what is going on in the ITU's WCIT, >> serious people trying to address them in a serious way. That they >> some may find their allies uncomfortable does not fit in your text. >> Your text becomes little more than a distraction. >> >> From such a flawed premise, little of use can be concluded. As I >> said, it isn't even wrong. >> >> >> 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: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 15:30 >> Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Asunto: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? >> Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 >> >> FWIW >> >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet-some-reflections-on-wcit-2012/ >> >> MG >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 01:20:12 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:20:12 +1300 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA4CC6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB970BD@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <6FD9AA77-24A0-459A-95EA-521BE6D95CF3@post.harvard.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA4CC6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan at unam.mx> wrote: > David, > > I owed you a reply here. > > Some subset of what Mike Gurstein in facile way characterizes as HOI not > only has a vision of how to build Intenet Governance - they are voting with > their sweat. They are building the mechanisms, agreements, communications, > understandings, actions and discourse. > > These days some of that set are providing delegates at WCIT with constant > feedback, technical knowledge, policy arguments, and personal networks in > order to avert some of the worst-case results of that conference. The Caribbean was the only region that I know of that literally opened the process of consultations to all stakeholders - civil society, private sector and the public sector where parties were invited to present their positions, robustly engage in debate and participate remotely. It was a privilege to be part of that process and the process was open to the world. I know that Europe also had consultations but people had to make submissions. We in the Pacific have made our submissions and done our advocacy. I was pleased to see some of the developments with the adoption of a New Resolution on “Special measures for landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) and small island developing states (SIDSs) for access to international optical fibre networks” There are many on this list who literally provide direct influence on issues related to ICT and some choose to be quiet preferring not to "herald" their contributions but preferring to work silently. Some never get to post on the list but in various international foras when we have "chance meetings" have remarked how the discussions and dialogue cause an expansion of sight not because of any one individual but because the community through the list take the time to share their views and perspectives. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 01:33:54 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:03:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: <50C97384.7040706@itforchange.net> References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB970BD@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <6FD9AA77-24A0-459A-95EA-521BE6D95CF3@post.harvard.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA4CC6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <50C97384.7040706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <05944C85-FF04-4F5F-B93F-2BB5312AE071@hserus.net> --srs (iPad) On 13-Dec-2012, at 11:49, parminder wrote: >> These days some of that set are providing delegates at WCIT with constant feedback, > BTW, It seems your sweating group seems to have a lot of money for global travel unlike other (real) sweat-ers. > Parminder, you and most other people on this list have far more travel budget than I do for conferences. My budget is zero as of the past three years. >> Guess they may be forgiven > > No, they cant be forgiven for not taking up issues of global economic and social justice on board. That is what we are here for. Not to forgive them, and to remind them constantly. Who's "we" and when did I elect you to speak for me, by the way? > Well, This one I dont understand at all. You mean developing countries cannot tax bec they are not represented in Google, or what? Or perhaps with 'representation' you mean something else now a days - that we havent done the necessary work/ sweat?? I completely miss it. Sorry. But you can explain. > In other words, this is the distinction between "stakeholder" and "steakholder" - the sort that does no particular work and has no particular expertise in an area, but demands a stake in it "just because" Let us just say I don't defend corporations that evade / avoid tax. It is up to them to fight it out in various courts and tribunals around the world, and there are plenty of income tax regulators out there who are ready and willing to send them huge claims for unpaid tax they should have been paying. And sometimes the regulators do win. But that goes on across every single organization that has a multinational presence - and can hardly be raked up here, where matters are being discussed on an entirely different plane. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 02:20:50 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 07:20:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: <50C97384.7040706@itforchange.net> References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB970BD@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<6FD9AA77-24A0-459A-95EA-521BE6D95CF3@post.harvard.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA4CC6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<50C97384.7040706@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA4E8A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Parminder, thanks for your suggestions for my choice of words. Rest assured that I'll grant them the same attention as always. I do apologize for testing irony on you and failing. I'll be subject-verb-complement, facts-only next time. I won't interfere with your endeavours to get corporations taxed. Good luck with the letter. 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: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Enviado el: jueves, 13 de diciembre de 2012 00:19 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Asunto: Re: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 On Thursday 13 December 2012 11:25 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > David, > > I owed you a reply here. > > Some subset of what Mike Gurstein in facile way characterizes as HOI not only has a vision of how to build Intenet Governance - they are voting with their sweat. Alex, perhaps you may not want to use the 'sweat' analogy; you may be very surprised by what those who really 'sweat' may vote for ! > They are building the mechanisms, agreements, communications, understandings, actions and discourse. > > These days some of that set are providing delegates at WCIT with constant feedback, BTW, It seems your sweating group seems to have a lot of money for global travel unlike other (real) sweat-ers. > technical knowledge, policy arguments, and personal networks in order to avert some of the worst-case results of that conference. Some in Dubai, some away, but that materialization of a vision of Internet Governance is actually consuming some kiloJoules and having some demonstrable, traceable effect. > > Guess they may be forgiven No, they cant be forgiven for not taking up issues of global economic and social justice on board. That is what we are here for. Not to forgive them, and to remind them constantly. > for not trying to become the world's tax-collector-spanking authority. We leave that to the real experts on this list, impressed by the fiscal knowledge and the rapid setup of an army. Alas! Can hardly match the army that google and cohorts set up around WCIT... and also at other global IG spaces. After all money (and not sweat) counts! > Please be the first in line to tap the flow of funds into the coffers. Oh, and lay aside the "no taxation without representation" line while you bleed Google white. Well, This one I dont understand at all. You mean developing countries cannot tax bec they are not represented in Google, or what? Or perhaps with 'representation' you mean something else now a days - that we havent done the necessary work/ sweat?? I completely miss it. Sorry. But you can explain. parminder > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de David Allen [David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] > Enviado el: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2012 10:51 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 > > I am afraid I see it differently, from my esteemed friend Dr. > Pisanty. (All the while I have enjoyed the elegance of construction, > in his response!) > > As Michael has now excerpted: > >> ... the "Hands off the Internet" folks don't go beyond the negative >> into some positive vision/declaration of where/how they think the >> Internet should be "governed" (beyond an untenable status quo) ... > > Which has led to stalemate, such as with both Tunis follow-ons, IGF > and Enhanced Cooperation. With stalemate cropping up once again, here > with Dubai. > > There has been repeated talk, over the years, of new global regimes, > beyond states, grandly centered on multi-stakeholderism. But no > reality - no practicable formulation that preserves democracy - to > that talk. > > That is serious work. Jeremy began to suggest some thoughts forward > >> We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is >> necessary to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers > > in the thread, Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution. > > David > > On Dec 9, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> as the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli is often quoted to have said, >> "it isn't even wrong." >> >> Your article mostly creates a hybrid of red herring, strawman and >> bogeyman and misses the group, often identified in this list, which >> does not say "hands off the Internet", is not acting by reflex, is >> not being driven by the corporate interests you profer to dislike, >> and therefore makes nuanced, rational analysis and action difficult. >> >> There are serious concerns about what is going on in the ITU's WCIT, >> serious people trying to address them in a serious way. That they >> some may find their allies uncomfortable does not fit in your text. >> Your text becomes little more than a distraction. >> >> From such a flawed premise, little of use can be concluded. As I >> said, it isn't even wrong. >> >> >> 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: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 15:30 >> Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Asunto: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? >> Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 >> >> FWIW >> >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet-some-reflections-on-wcit-2012/ >> >> MG >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Thu Dec 13 03:17:12 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:17:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA4CC6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB970BD@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<6FD9AA77-24A0-459A-95EA-521BE6D95CF3@post.harvard.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA4CC6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <046d01cdd90a$41d59870$c580c950$@gmail.com> Hmmm... Alejandro, I`m not sure what academic or disciplinary culture you are coming from but in mine we tend to read things before we comment or post content free `trust me` judgements about something. If you had bothered to read the piece you would have seen that the over-simplification of rather complex issues by the HOI folks was precisely the point of the blogpost. I went on to point out how this over-simplification seemed to be related to the specific interests of some of the most active proponents of the HOI position. I went then on to suggested that those with a rather more sophisticated understanding (presumably you and your confreres) had a responsibility to go beyond hysterical denunciations of the messenger(s) towards a positive engagement with the very real issues that were being pointed to and, which absenting a resolution, would have dire consequences for the Internet. If you found the subject of post not to your liking that doesn`t seem to be shared by the some 700 or so folks who have already downloaded it several of whom made critical but useful substantive comments. Probably worth a read if you get the time. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:56 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Allen Subject: RE: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 David, I owed you a reply here. Some subset of what Mike Gurstein in facile way characterizes as HOI not only has a vision of how to build Intenet Governance - they are voting with their sweat. They are building the mechanisms, agreements, communications, understandings, actions and discourse. These days some of that set are providing delegates at WCIT with constant feedback, technical knowledge, policy arguments, and personal networks in order to avert some of the worst-case results of that conference. Some in Dubai, some away, but that materialization of a vision of Internet Governance is actually consuming some kiloJoules and having some demonstrable, traceable effect. Guess they may be forgiven for not trying to become the world's tax-collector-spanking authority. We leave that to the real experts on this list, impressed by the fiscal knowledge and the rapid setup of an army. Please be the first in line to tap the flow of funds into the coffers. Oh, and lay aside the "no taxation without representation" line while you bleed Google white. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de David Allen [David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] Enviado el: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2012 10:51 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: Re: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 I am afraid I see it differently, from my esteemed friend Dr. Pisanty. (All the while I have enjoyed the elegance of construction, in his response!) As Michael has now excerpted: > ... the "Hands off the Internet" folks don't go beyond the negative > into some positive vision/declaration of where/how they think the > Internet should be "governed" (beyond an untenable status quo) ... Which has led to stalemate, such as with both Tunis follow-ons, IGF and Enhanced Cooperation. With stalemate cropping up once again, here with Dubai. There has been repeated talk, over the years, of new global regimes, beyond states, grandly centered on multi-stakeholderism. But no reality - no practicable formulation that preserves democracy - to that talk. That is serious work. Jeremy began to suggest some thoughts forward > We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is > necessary to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers in the thread, Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution. David On Dec 9, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Mike, > > as the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli is often quoted to have said, > "it isn't even wrong." > > Your article mostly creates a hybrid of red herring, strawman and > bogeyman and misses the group, often identified in this list, which > does not say "hands off the Internet", is not acting by reflex, is not > being driven by the corporate interests you profer to dislike, and > therefore makes nuanced, rational analysis and action difficult. > > There are serious concerns about what is going on in the ITU's WCIT, > serious people trying to address them in a serious way. That they some > may find their allies uncomfortable does not fit in your text. > Your text becomes little more than a distraction. > > From such a flawed premise, little of use can be concluded. As I said, > it isn't even wrong. > > > 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: > domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 15:30 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? > Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 > > FWIW > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet- > some-reflections-on-wcit-2012/ > > MG > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 13 03:31:47 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:01:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA4E8A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB970BD@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<6FD9AA77-24A0-459A-95EA-521BE6D95CF3@post.harvard.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA4CC6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<50C97384.7040706@itforchange.net> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA4E8A@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <50C99273.9080709@itforchange.net> On Thursday 13 December 2012 12:50 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Parminder, > > thanks for your suggestions for my choice of words. Rest assured that I'll grant them the same attention as always. > > I do apologize for testing irony on you and failing. I'll be subject-verb-complement, facts-only next time. Thanks Alex for your kind consideration. English was the third language that I learnt, and begun speaking only very late in life. I guess most of my brain was already taken by that time :). The fact is that I do often miss your ironies. I know, my fault entirely. parminder > > I won't interfere with your endeavours to get corporations taxed. Good luck with the letter. > > 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: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] > Enviado el: jueves, 13 de diciembre de 2012 00:19 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > Asunto: Re: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 > > On Thursday 13 December 2012 11:25 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >> David, >> >> I owed you a reply here. >> >> Some subset of what Mike Gurstein in facile way characterizes as HOI not only has a vision of how to build Intenet Governance - they are voting with their sweat. > Alex, perhaps you may not want to use the 'sweat' analogy; you may be > very surprised by what those who really 'sweat' may vote for ! > >> They are building the mechanisms, agreements, communications, understandings, actions and discourse. >> >> These days some of that set are providing delegates at WCIT with constant feedback, > BTW, It seems your sweating group seems to have a lot of money for > global travel unlike other (real) sweat-ers. > >> technical knowledge, policy arguments, and personal networks in order to avert some of the worst-case results of that conference. Some in Dubai, some away, but that materialization of a vision of Internet Governance is actually consuming some kiloJoules and having some demonstrable, traceable effect. >> >> Guess they may be forgiven > No, they cant be forgiven for not taking up issues of global economic > and social justice on board. That is what we are here for. Not to > forgive them, and to remind them constantly. >> for not trying to become the world's tax-collector-spanking authority. We leave that to the real experts on this list, impressed by the fiscal knowledge and the rapid setup of an army. > Alas! Can hardly match the army that google and cohorts set up around > WCIT... and also at other global IG spaces. After all money (and not > sweat) counts! >> Please be the first in line to tap the flow of funds into the coffers. Oh, and lay aside the "no taxation without representation" line while you bleed Google white. > Well, This one I dont understand at all. You mean developing countries > cannot tax bec they are not represented in Google, or what? Or perhaps > with 'representation' you mean something else now a days - that we > havent done the necessary work/ sweat?? I completely miss it. Sorry. But > you can explain. > > parminder > >> Yours, >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> ! !! !!! !!!! >> NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO >> >> >> >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO >> >> SMS +525541444475 >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> ________________________________________ >> Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de David Allen [David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] >> Enviado el: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2012 10:51 >> Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Asunto: Re: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 >> >> I am afraid I see it differently, from my esteemed friend Dr. >> Pisanty. (All the while I have enjoyed the elegance of construction, >> in his response!) >> >> As Michael has now excerpted: >> >>> ... the "Hands off the Internet" folks don't go beyond the negative >>> into some positive vision/declaration of where/how they think the >>> Internet should be "governed" (beyond an untenable status quo) ... >> Which has led to stalemate, such as with both Tunis follow-ons, IGF >> and Enhanced Cooperation. With stalemate cropping up once again, here >> with Dubai. >> >> There has been repeated talk, over the years, of new global regimes, >> beyond states, grandly centered on multi-stakeholderism. But no >> reality - no practicable formulation that preserves democracy - to >> that talk. >> >> That is serious work. Jeremy began to suggest some thoughts forward >> >>> We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is >>> necessary to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers >> in the thread, Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution. >> >> David >> >> On Dec 9, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >> >>> Mike, >>> >>> as the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli is often quoted to have said, >>> "it isn't even wrong." >>> >>> Your article mostly creates a hybrid of red herring, strawman and >>> bogeyman and misses the group, often identified in this list, which >>> does not say "hands off the Internet", is not acting by reflex, is >>> not being driven by the corporate interests you profer to dislike, >>> and therefore makes nuanced, rational analysis and action difficult. >>> >>> There are serious concerns about what is going on in the ITU's WCIT, >>> serious people trying to address them in a serious way. That they >>> some may find their allies uncomfortable does not fit in your text. >>> Your text becomes little more than a distraction. >>> >>> From such a flawed premise, little of use can be concluded. As I >>> said, it isn't even wrong. >>> >>> >>> 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: domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 15:30 >>> Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Asunto: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? >>> Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 >>> >>> FWIW >>> >>> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet-some-reflections-on-wcit-2012/ >>> >>> MG >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your 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 13 03:35:54 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:35:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: -1 write to politicians. to google would be just posturing. Adam On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! >> It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy >> efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like >> organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. >> >> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is >> anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or is >> it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional >> questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its >> coordinator. >> > > What does the list think? > +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google > -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google > > As always the IGC decides > >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> >> More on Bloomberg: >> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against >>> the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is almost >>> impeccable with the WCIT. >>> >>> Source: >>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>> >>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in taxes) >>> Posted By TelecomTV One >>> , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >>> | (0) >>> Tags: *Google >>> * *corporate >>> * *tax * * >>> Finance * >>> >>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >>> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income >>> through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per cent on >>> its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>> >>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >>> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations have a >>> duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever respective >>> governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, in most countries, >>> we voted the politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the >>> amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms are >>> available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with far less >>> access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as >>> well. >>> >>> >>> >>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English Dictionary >>> defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or “something which is >>> harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means tax avoidance is evil, >>> simple as that. >>> >>> >>> >>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that avoiding >>> tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and mind-boggling complicated >>> avoidance schemes) and if you believe that depriving society of tax >>> revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level of available State support for >>> the most needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must >>> conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. >>> >>> >>> >>> An investigative report by Bloomberg has >>> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes >>> in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – >>> almost double its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed >>> in a November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was >>> discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas subsidiaries >>> into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, thereby enabling >>> it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. Bloomberg says the amount >>> moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 per cent of Google’s total >>> pretax profit in 2011. >>> >>> >>> >>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >>> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >>> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent this >>> financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >>> >>> >>> >>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which pretty >>> much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to Richard >>> Murphy of Tax Research: >>> >>> >>> >>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >>> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness now >>> being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: >>> It’s us or them. People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody >>> else has to pay or services get cut.” >>> >>> >>> >>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the US >>> coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at all), it >>> started to boycott the chain. >>> Advertisement >>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>> >>> >>> >>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 per >>> cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it paid UK >>> corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says Google avoids tax >>> by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues from ads sold in the UK, >>> which then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence >>> is in Bermuda. Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >>> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the tax haven >>> of Bermuda. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the internet >>> company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten Things We Know to >>> be True” page on Google’s >>> website is the following: >>> >>> >>> >>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but >>> evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders to >>> maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely ethical, >>> whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion that Google has >>> acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted >>> unethically. >>> >>> >>> >>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I >>> don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will only >>> act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their fair >>> share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then they’ll >>> change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the so-called >>> ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured heavily in annual >>> reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this complicated >>> tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean ‘mitigation’…) structure >>> include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and >>> all the others, who no doubt will soon be named and shamed – will continue >>> their sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. If >>> governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to >>> customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As >>> Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message that it’s >>> “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the many austerity >>> measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. >>> >>> >>> >>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. >>> Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do likewise. >>> Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your >>> website once and for all. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Further reading: *The Pearse Trust blog >>> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” >>> tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 13 03:49:52 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:19:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50C996B0.3090205@itforchange.net> On Thursday 13 December 2012 02:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > -1 > > write to politicians. You mean we should write to governments? Good idea. Which venue you think is best to address in this regard? Remember, there is a strong, perhaps, central, element of inter-country issues here. > to google would be just posturing. You means that they would not pay heed to civil society's voice/ statement on this, and not bother to respond? If nothing else, that will be interesting to note, given the numerous close compacts with civil society that google has worked up in these last few months on many global IG issues. parminder > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder > > wrote: > > > Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas > profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in > lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for > its unlettered operations... Like organising campaigns against > ITU, German legislature, and so on. > > Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion > policy is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it > makes its profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not > go into such re-distributional questions ) It is not > rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its coordinator. > > > What does the list think? > +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google > -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google > > As always the IGC decides > > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> More on Bloomberg: >> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. >> Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: >> >> >> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign >> out against the likes of Google and other mncs - the >> timing of the release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. >> >> Source: >> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >> >> >> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it >> evades $2bn in taxes) >> >> Posted By TelecomTV One >> , >> 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >> | >> [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated >> this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an average >> of 3/5] (0) >> Tags: /Google >> / >> /corporate >> / >> /tax >> / >> /Finance >> / >> >> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid >> paying corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving >> $2bn by routing income through a “Double Irish Dutch >> Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per cent on its >> overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >> >> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject >> of tax avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that >> individuals and corporations have a duty to pay their >> fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever respective >> governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, >> in most countries, we voted the politicians in to >> office). By all means try and mitigate the amount of tax >> you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms are >> available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else >> (with far less access to expensive and clever advisors) >> has to contribute to your share as well. >> >> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford >> English Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral >> and wicked” or “something which is harmful or >> undesirable”. In my book, that means tax avoidance is >> evil, simple as that. >> >> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe >> that avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive >> and mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if >> you believe that depriving society of tax revenues is >> wrong (and so reducing the level of available State >> support for the most needy) and could be described as an >> evil act, then surely you must conclude that Google is >> acting in an evil manner. >> >> An investigative report by Bloomberg >> has >> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in >> worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion >> in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double >> its total from three years ago. The information was >> disclosed in a November filing by a Google subsidiary in >> the Netherlands, which was discovered by reporters from >> Bloomberg. >> >> It appears that Google legally routed profits from >> overseas subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a >> corporate income tax, thereby enabling it to cut its >> overall tax rate almost in half. Bloomberg says the >> amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 per >> cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >> >> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a >> staggering €1 trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on >> for a moment longer…. €1 trillion. No wonder politicians >> are now acting to try and prevent this financial loss and >> branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >> >> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax >> accountant, which pretty much sums up the feeling in >> Europe at the moment. According to Richard Murphy of Tax >> Research: >> >> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a >> deep embarrassment to governments around Europe. The >> political awareness now being created in the UK, and to a >> lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. >> People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody >> else has to pay or services get cut.” >> >> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public >> discovered the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK >> (yes, absolutely nothing at all), it started to boycott >> the chain. >> >> Advertisement >> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay >> taxes… >> >> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for >> about 11 per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it >> turned over last year, it paid UK corporation tax of less >> than $10 million. Bloomberg says Google avoids tax by >> using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues from ads >> sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to another >> Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. >> Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally >> reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. >> >> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s >> against the internet company’s guiding principles. Stated >> clearly on the “Ten Things We Know to be True” page on >> Google >> ’s >> website is the following: >> >> “You can make money without doing evil.” >> >> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is >> anything but evil. Of course you – and all companies – >> have a duty to shareholders to maximise profits. But >> there are rules. Some of these are merely ethical, whilst >> some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion that >> Google has acted illegally, but there is every suggestion >> that it has acted unethically. >> >> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of >> course you can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ >> viewpoint that corporations will only act in >> self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their >> fair share. If their customers start to boycott their >> services, then they’ll change. It happened with the >> sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate >> responsibility’ positions that all featured heavily in >> annual reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair >> tax positions. >> >> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using >> this complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I >> mean ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, >> Microsoft and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the >> others, who no doubt will soon be named and shamed – will >> continue their sharp practices until they are forced to >> make a change. If governments can’t do that through the >> legal process, then it’s up to customers to vote with >> their feet and walk away from Google services. As Richard >> Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message >> that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed >> by the many austerity measures that are in effect to drag >> us out of recession. >> >> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show >> some leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest >> of the ICT industry can do likewise. Or else remove that >> fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your >> website once and for all. >> >> _Further reading: _The Pearse Trust >> blog >> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish >> Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and >> implement it. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 03:50:36 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:50:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <049601cdd90e$ec3d1cd0$c4b75670$@gmail.com> Adam, I`m curious why you think this… I would have thought that governments are pretty much impervious to this kind of `lobbying` (jaded from experience) while corporations that have as their slogan things like `don`t be evil` might be extremely sensitive to this kind of public comment on their behaviour by Civil Society. M From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:36 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes -1 write to politicians. to google would be just posturing. Adam On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder wrote: Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its coordinator. What does the list think? +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google As always the IGC decides parminder On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: More on Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. Source: http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763 &id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in taxes) Posted By TelecomTV One , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments | (0) Tags: Google corporate tax Finance As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as well. Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level of available State support for the most needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. An investigative report by Bloomberg has discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get cut.” Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. Advertisement As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten Things We Know to be True” page on Google’s website is the following: “You can make money without doing evil.” I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for all. Further reading: The Pearse Trust blog has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Dec 13 03:55:44 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:55:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <50C996B0.3090205@itforchange.net> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C996B0.3090205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:49 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 13 December 2012 02:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > -1 > > write to politicians. > > > You mean we should write to governments? Good idea. Which venue you think > is best to address in this regard? Remember, there is a strong, perhaps, > central, element of inter-country issues here. > > Well not really as taxes are national. So I would recommend we draft a letter and send to respective ICT ministries, treasury and appropriate MPs (or equivalent.) And to the countries such as Ireland, Luxembourg, etc favored by companies like Google, Amazon eyc. > to google would be just posturing. > > > You means that they would not pay heed to civil society's voice/ statement > on this, and not bother to respond? If nothing else, that will be > interesting to note, given the numerous close compacts with civil society > that google has worked up in these last few months on many global IG issues. > > No. (disclosure, GLOCOM hosts a Google Policy Fellow) Adam > parminder > > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! >>> It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy >>> efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like >>> organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. >>> >>> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is >>> anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or is >>> it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional >>> questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its >>> coordinator. >>> >> >> What does the list think? >> +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google >> -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google >> >> As always the IGC decides >> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>> >>> More on Bloomberg: >>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against >>>> the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is almost >>>> impeccable with the WCIT. >>>> >>>> Source: >>>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>>> >>>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >>>> taxes) >>>> Posted By TelecomTV One >>>> , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >>>> | (0) >>>> Tags: *Google >>>> * *corporate >>>> * *tax * * >>>> Finance >>>> * >>>> >>>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >>>> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income >>>> through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per cent on >>>> its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>>> >>>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >>>> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations have a >>>> duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever respective >>>> governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, in most countries, >>>> we voted the politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the >>>> amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms are >>>> available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with far less >>>> access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as >>>> well. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English Dictionary >>>> defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or “something which is >>>> harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means tax avoidance is evil, >>>> simple as that. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that avoiding >>>> tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and mind-boggling complicated >>>> avoidance schemes) and if you believe that depriving society of tax >>>> revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level of available State support for >>>> the most needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must >>>> conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> An investigative report by Bloomberg has >>>> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes >>>> in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – >>>> almost double its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed >>>> in a November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was >>>> discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >>>> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, >>>> thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. Bloomberg >>>> says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 per cent of >>>> Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >>>> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >>>> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent this >>>> financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which pretty >>>> much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to Richard >>>> Murphy of Tax Research: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >>>> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness now >>>> being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: >>>> It’s us or them. People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody >>>> else has to pay or services get cut.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the US >>>> coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at all), it >>>> started to boycott the chain. >>>> Advertisement >>>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 per >>>> cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it paid UK >>>> corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says Google avoids tax >>>> by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues from ads sold in the UK, >>>> which then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence >>>> is in Bermuda. Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >>>> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the tax haven >>>> of Bermuda. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the internet >>>> company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten Things We Know to >>>> be True” page on Google’s >>>> website is the following: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but >>>> evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders to >>>> maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely ethical, >>>> whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion that Google has >>>> acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted >>>> unethically. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I >>>> don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will only >>>> act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their fair >>>> share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then they’ll >>>> change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the so-called >>>> ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured heavily in annual >>>> reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this complicated >>>> tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean ‘mitigation’…) structure >>>> include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and >>>> all the others, who no doubt will soon be named and shamed – will continue >>>> their sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. If >>>> governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to >>>> customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As >>>> Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message that it’s >>>> “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the many austerity >>>> measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. >>>> Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do likewise. >>>> Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your >>>> website once and for all. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Further reading: *The Pearse Trust blog >>>> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” >>>> tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 <%2B679%203544828> >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 <%2B679%20998%202851> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Dec 13 03:58:32 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:58:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <049601cdd90e$ec3d1cd0$c4b75670$@gmail.com> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <049601cdd90e$ec3d1cd0$c4b75670$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Anyone on the list own Google shares? What would you do if Google paid a few billions of dollars in voluntary tax and the value of your shares dropped? Adam On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Adam, > > > > I`m curious why you think this… I would have thought that governments are > pretty much impervious to this kind of `lobbying` (jaded from experience) > while corporations that have as their slogan things like `don`t be evil` > might be extremely sensitive to this kind of public comment on their > behaviour by Civil Society. > > > > M > > > > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:36 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > > > -1 > > > > write to politicians. to google would be just posturing. > > > > Adam > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! It > surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy > efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like > organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. > > Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is anti > people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or is it > that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional questions > ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its > coordinator. > > > > What does the list think? > > +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google > > -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google > > > > As always the IGC decides > > > parminder > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > More on Bloomberg: > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > > Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against the > likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is almost > impeccable with the WCIT. > > > > Source: > http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 > > > > Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in taxes) > > Posted By TelecomTV One , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments | (0) > > > Tags: Google corporate tax Finance > > As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying corporation > taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income through a “Double > Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per cent on its overseas > profits. Guy Daniels reports. > > Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax avoidance? We > at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations have a duty to pay > their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever respective governments > rule to be the legal requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the > politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the amount of tax > you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms are available. But > avoidance? That just means somebody else (with far less access to expensive > and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as well. > > > > Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English Dictionary > defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or “something which is > harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means tax avoidance is evil, > simple as that. > > > > Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that avoiding tax > is wrong (especially through aggressive and mind-boggling complicated > avoidance schemes) and if you believe that depriving society of tax revenues > is wrong (and so reducing the level of available State support for the most > needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude > that Google is acting in an evil manner. > > > > An investigative report by Bloomberg has discovered that Google avoided > about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion > in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from > three years ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a > Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by reporters from > Bloomberg. > > > > It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas subsidiaries > into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, thereby enabling it > to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. Bloomberg says the amount moved > to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax > profit in 2011. > > > > Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 trillion > a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 trillion. No > wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent this financial loss and > branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. > > > > Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which pretty much > sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to Richard Murphy of > Tax Research: > > > > “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep embarrassment > to governments around Europe. The political awareness now being created in > the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. > People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or > services get cut.” > > > > Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the US > coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at all), it > started to boycott the chain. > > Advertisement > > As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… > > > > The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 per cent > of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it paid UK > corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says Google avoids tax > by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues from ads sold in the UK, > which then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence > is in Bermuda. Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the > Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the tax haven > of Bermuda. > > > > Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the internet > company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten Things We Know to > be True” page on Google’s website is the following: > > > > “You can make money without doing evil.” > > > > I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but evil. Of > course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders to maximise > profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely ethical, whilst some > are legal. There is no indication or suggestion that Google has acted > illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. > > > > And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I don’t > buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will only act in > self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their fair share. If > their customers start to boycott their services, then they’ll change. It > happened with the sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate > responsibility’ positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I > don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. > > > > Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this complicated tax > evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean ‘mitigation’…) structure include > Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the > others, who no doubt will soon be named and shamed – will continue their > sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments can’t > do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers to vote with > their feet and walk away from Google services. As Richard Murphy said, > consumers are beginning to get the message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re > already being squeezed by the many austerity measures that are in effect to > drag us out of recession. > > > > Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. Pay > your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do likewise. Or > else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your > website once and for all. > > > > Further reading: The Pearse Trust blog has a detailed explanation of the > so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and > implement it. > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Tel: +679 3544828 > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Tel: +679 3544828 > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 04:13:22 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:13:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <049601cdd90e$ec3d1cd0$c4b75670$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <04b101cdd912$1c244470$546ccd50$@gmail.com> I don`t think we are talking about ``voluntary`` tax... Rather we are talking about the lengths that corporations go to for tax avoidance/evasion... That I would guess is somewhat discretionary i.e. management decisions and not particularly transparent to shareholders. M -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:59 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes Anyone on the list own Google shares? What would you do if Google paid a few billions of dollars in voluntary tax and the value of your shares dropped? Adam On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Adam, > > > > I`m curious why you think this… I would have thought that governments > are pretty much impervious to this kind of `lobbying` (jaded from > experience) while corporations that have as their slogan things like > `don`t be evil` might be extremely sensitive to this kind of public > comment on their behaviour by Civil Society. > > > > M > > > > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam > Peake > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:36 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > > > -1 > > > > write to politicians. to google would be just posturing. > > > > Adam > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas > profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying > and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered > operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. > > Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy > is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its > profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional questions > ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its > coordinator. > > > > What does the list think? > > +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google > > -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google > > > > As always the IGC decides > > > parminder > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > More on Bloomberg: > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in- > no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > > Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against > the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is > almost impeccable with the WCIT. > > > > Source: > http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817- > 0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 > > > > Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in > taxes) > > Posted By TelecomTV One , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments | (0) > > > Tags: Google corporate tax Finance > > As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying > corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income > through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per > cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. > > Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax > avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations > have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever > respective governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, in > most countries, we voted the politicians in to office). By all means > try and mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever > accepted mechanisms are available. But avoidance? That just means > somebody else (with far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as well. > > > > Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English Dictionary > defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or “something which is > harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means tax avoidance is evil, > simple as that. > > > > Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that avoiding > tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and mind-boggling > complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe that depriving > society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level of > available State support for the most > needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must > conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. > > > > An investigative report by Bloomberg has discovered that Google > avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting > $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double > its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed in a > November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was > discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. > > > > It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas > subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, > thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. > Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 > per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. > > > > Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 > trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 > trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent this > financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. > > > > Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which > pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to > Richard Murphy of Tax Research: > > > > “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep > embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness > now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. > People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay > or services get cut.” > > > > Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the > US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at > all), it started to boycott the chain. > > Advertisement > > As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… > > > > The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 per > cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it paid > UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says Google > avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues from ads > sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary > whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments are then sent to yet > another subsidiary in the Netherlands (with no employees, note) before > finally reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. > > > > Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the > internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten > Things We Know to be True” page on Google’s website is the following: > > > > “You can make money without doing evil.” > > > > I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but > evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders > to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely > ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion > that Google has acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. > > > > And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I > don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will > only act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their > fair share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then > they’ll change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the > so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured > heavily in annual reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. > > > > Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this complicated > tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean ‘mitigation’…) structure > include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – > and all the others, who no doubt will soon be named and shamed – will > continue their sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. > If governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up > to customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google > services. As Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the > message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by > the many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. > > > > Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. > Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do > likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” > slogan from your website once and for all. > > > > Further reading: The Pearse Trust blog has a detailed explanation of > the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t > try and implement it. > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Tel: +679 3544828 > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Tel: +679 3544828 > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Dec 13 04:22:53 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:22:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <04b101cdd912$1c244470$546ccd50$@gmail.com> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <049601cdd90e$ec3d1cd0$c4b75670$@gmail.com> <04b101cdd912$1c244470$546ccd50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Tax evasion, are you suggesting google evades paying tax be illegal means? Adam On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:13 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I don`t think we are talking about ``voluntary`` tax... Rather we are talking about the lengths that corporations go to for tax avoidance/evasion... That I would guess is somewhat discretionary i.e. management decisions and not particularly transparent to shareholders. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:59 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > Anyone on the list own Google shares? > > What would you do if Google paid a few billions of dollars in voluntary tax and the value of your shares dropped? > > Adam > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Adam, >> >> >> >> I`m curious why you think this… I would have thought that governments >> are pretty much impervious to this kind of `lobbying` (jaded from >> experience) while corporations that have as their slogan things like >> `don`t be evil` might be extremely sensitive to this kind of public >> comment on their behaviour by Civil Society. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam >> Peake >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:36 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes >> >> >> >> -1 >> >> >> >> write to politicians. to google would be just posturing. >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder >> wrote: >> >> >> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas >> profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying >> and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered >> operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. >> >> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy >> is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its >> profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional questions >> ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its >> coordinator. >> >> >> >> What does the list think? >> >> +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google >> >> -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google >> >> >> >> As always the IGC decides >> >> >> parminder >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> More on Bloomberg: >> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in- >> no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against >> the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is >> almost impeccable with the WCIT. >> >> >> >> Source: >> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817- >> 0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >> >> >> >> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >> taxes) >> >> Posted By TelecomTV One , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments | (0) >> >> >> Tags: Google corporate tax Finance >> >> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income >> through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per >> cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >> >> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations >> have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever >> respective governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, in >> most countries, we voted the politicians in to office). By all means >> try and mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever >> accepted mechanisms are available. But avoidance? That just means >> somebody else (with far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as well. >> >> >> >> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English Dictionary >> defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or “something which is >> harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means tax avoidance is evil, >> simple as that. >> >> >> >> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that avoiding >> tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and mind-boggling >> complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe that depriving >> society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level of >> available State support for the most >> needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must >> conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. >> >> >> >> An investigative report by Bloomberg has discovered that Google >> avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting >> $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double >> its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed in a >> November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was >> discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. >> >> >> >> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, >> thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. >> Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 >> per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >> >> >> >> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent this >> financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >> >> >> >> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to >> Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >> >> >> >> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness >> now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. >> People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay >> or services get cut.” >> >> >> >> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the >> US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at >> all), it started to boycott the chain. >> >> Advertisement >> >> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >> >> >> >> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 per >> cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it paid >> UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says Google >> avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues from ads >> sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary >> whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments are then sent to yet >> another subsidiary in the Netherlands (with no employees, note) before >> finally reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. >> >> >> >> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >> Things We Know to be True” page on Google’s website is the following: >> >> >> >> “You can make money without doing evil.” >> >> >> >> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but >> evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders >> to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely >> ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion >> that Google has acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >> >> >> >> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I >> don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will >> only act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their >> fair share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then >> they’ll change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the >> so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured >> heavily in annual reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >> >> >> >> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this complicated >> tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean ‘mitigation’…) structure >> include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – >> and all the others, who no doubt will soon be named and shamed – will >> continue their sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. >> If governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up >> to customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google >> services. As Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the >> message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by >> the many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. >> >> >> >> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. >> Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do >> likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” >> slogan from your website once and for all. >> >> >> >> Further reading: The Pearse Trust blog has a detailed explanation of >> the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t >> try and implement it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> P.O. Box 17862 >> >> Suva >> >> Fiji >> >> >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> P.O. Box 17862 >> >> Suva >> >> Fiji >> >> >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Dec 13 04:31:30 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 01:31:30 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: References: <1524077266.36067.1355162508669.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k12> Message-ID: On Dec 10, 2012, at 11:24 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > About 20 CS people met today with SG Toure in Dubai. He has the letter, and the main points were repeated verbally. No immediate commitments on these or real replies to specific questions on items like public participation in the May WTPF, but folks were varyingly optimistic that a dialogue has been opened and there's something to build on. > > In the meanwhile, the wider situation has evolved here. With the parties far apart on many issues and basically two days left to negotiate, small groups of government reps from xxx countries (not clear exactly who/how many) went behind closed doors at 10:30pm to see if they can pull a rabbit out of a hat (or insert your preferred metaphor) and come back to plenary tomorrow at 11 am with something for everyone to work on. So contrary to some rumors that were floating about, there's no SG text, and at the moment the likelihood of a magic compromise vs. a train wreck is pretty hard to work out. Many variables interacting, so one could paint diametrically opposed but equally plausible scenarios. > > In this stressed context, I don't think there's going to be a lot of energy devoted to responding to CS concerns about transparency and inclusion. Nevertheless, the caucus may wish to endorse the letter to be on record alongside other advocacy groups and networks, particularly with an eye to the WTPF. Which, BTW, will be held the week before the IGF consultation and MAG meeting in May—would be a good time to come to Geneva if possible. Regardless of the particular outcomes from WCIT, it might be worthwhile to folks to consider what exactly is meant by participatory multistakeholder governance, and even elaborate what some of the more obvious aspects of such processes look like for future reference. For example, solicitation of input on various proposals is one component, but equally important is providing a process for those inputs to be heard during consideration of the issues. Another point is whether the multistakeholder process requires some recording of the major tradeoffs or compromises that were made towards achieving an outcome. I believe some more formal guidance and outreach on what makes for effective multistakeholder processes would be very helpful, not only in this context but also for the various Internet institutions (such as ICANN and the RIRs) If such guidance already exists somewhere in a simple straightforward fom (and I just have overlooked it), then pointers to same would be appreciated. Thanks! /John Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not the result of a closed committee compromise and may actually be discussed on their own merits. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 04:35:08 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:35:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <049601cdd90e$ec3d1cd0$c4b75670$@gmail.com> <04b101cdd912$1c244470$546ccd50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <04cc01cdd915$24eec1e0$6ecc45a0$@gmail.com> Via Google http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google-tax-evasion http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Google-tax-evasion http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/09/is-google-avoiding-or-evading-taxes-in-the-uk/ etc.etc. M -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:23 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes Tax evasion, are you suggesting google evades paying tax be illegal means? Adam On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:13 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I don`t think we are talking about ``voluntary`` tax... Rather we are talking about the lengths that corporations go to for tax avoidance/evasion... That I would guess is somewhat discretionary i.e. management decisions and not particularly transparent to shareholders. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam > Peake > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:59 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > Anyone on the list own Google shares? > > What would you do if Google paid a few billions of dollars in voluntary tax and the value of your shares dropped? > > Adam > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Adam, >> >> >> >> I`m curious why you think this… I would have thought that governments >> are pretty much impervious to this kind of `lobbying` (jaded from >> experience) while corporations that have as their slogan things like >> `don`t be evil` might be extremely sensitive to this kind of public >> comment on their behaviour by Civil Society. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam >> Peake >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:36 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes >> >> >> >> -1 >> >> >> >> write to politicians. to google would be just posturing. >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder >> >> wrote: >> >> >> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas >> profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying >> and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered >> operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. >> >> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy >> is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its >> profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional questions >> ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its >> coordinator. >> >> >> >> What does the list think? >> >> +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google >> >> -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google >> >> >> >> As always the IGC decides >> >> >> parminder >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> More on Bloomberg: >> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in >> - no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against >> the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is >> almost impeccable with the WCIT. >> >> >> >> Source: >> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817 >> - >> 0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >> >> >> >> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >> taxes) >> >> Posted By TelecomTV One , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments | (0) >> >> >> Tags: Google corporate tax Finance >> >> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income >> through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per >> cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >> >> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations >> have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever >> respective governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, >> in most countries, we voted the politicians in to office). By all >> means try and mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, using >> whatever accepted mechanisms are available. But avoidance? That just >> means somebody else (with far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as well. >> >> >> >> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means >> tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >> >> >> >> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe that >> depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level >> of available State support for the most >> needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must >> conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. >> >> >> >> An investigative report by Bloomberg has discovered that Google >> avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by >> shifting >> $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double >> its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed in a >> November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was >> discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. >> >> >> >> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, >> thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. >> Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 >> per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >> >> >> >> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent >> this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >> >> >> >> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to >> Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >> >> >> >> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness >> now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. >> People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to >> pay or services get cut.” >> >> >> >> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the >> US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at >> all), it started to boycott the chain. >> >> Advertisement >> >> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >> >> >> >> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 >> per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it >> paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says >> Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues >> from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to another Irish >> subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments are then >> sent to yet another subsidiary in the Netherlands (with no employees, >> note) before finally reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. >> >> >> >> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >> Things We Know to be True” page on Google’s website is the following: >> >> >> >> “You can make money without doing evil.” >> >> >> >> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but >> evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders >> to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely >> ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion >> that Google has acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >> >> >> >> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I >> don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will >> only act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their >> fair share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then >> they’ll change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the >> so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured >> heavily in annual reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >> >> >> >> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and >> Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt will >> soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. >> If governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up >> to customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google >> services. As Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the >> message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by >> the many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. >> >> >> >> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. >> Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do >> likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” >> slogan from your website once and for all. >> >> >> >> Further reading: The Pearse Trust blog has a detailed explanation of >> the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t >> try and implement it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> P.O. Box 17862 >> >> Suva >> >> Fiji >> >> >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> P.O. Box 17862 >> >> Suva >> >> Fiji >> >> >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 13 04:46:08 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:16:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <04cc01cdd915$24eec1e0$6ecc45a0$@gmail.com> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <049601cdd90e$ec3d1cd0$c4b75670$@gmail.com> <04b101cdd912$1c244470$546ccd50$@gmail.com> <04cc01cdd915$24eec1e0$6ecc45a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: So now all you have to do is wait till whatever cases are filed against google in these countries are tried and a verdict is handed out. Or is this trial by media, trial by mob (aka civil society mailing list) or .. --srs (iPad) On 13-Dec-2012, at 15:05, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Via Google > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google-tax-evasion > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Google-tax-evasion > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/09/is-google-avoiding-or-evading-taxes-in-the-uk/ > > etc.etc. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:23 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > Tax evasion, are you suggesting google evades paying tax be illegal means? > > Adam > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:13 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> I don`t think we are talking about ``voluntary`` tax... Rather we are talking about the lengths that corporations go to for tax avoidance/evasion... That I would guess is somewhat discretionary i.e. management decisions and not particularly transparent to shareholders. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam >> Peake >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:59 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes >> >> Anyone on the list own Google shares? >> >> What would you do if Google paid a few billions of dollars in voluntary tax and the value of your shares dropped? >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> Adam, >>> >>> >>> >>> I`m curious why you think this… I would have thought that governments >>> are pretty much impervious to this kind of `lobbying` (jaded from >>> experience) while corporations that have as their slogan things like >>> `don`t be evil` might be extremely sensitive to this kind of public >>> comment on their behaviour by Civil Society. >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam >>> Peake >>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:36 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes >>> >>> >>> >>> -1 >>> >>> >>> >>> write to politicians. to google would be just posturing. >>> >>> >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas >>> profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying >>> and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered >>> operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. >>> >>> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy >>> is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its >>> profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional questions >>> ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its >>> coordinator. >>> >>> >>> >>> What does the list think? >>> >>> +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google >>> >>> -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google >>> >>> >>> >>> As always the IGC decides >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>> More on Bloomberg: >>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in >>> - no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against >>> the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is >>> almost impeccable with the WCIT. >>> >>> >>> >>> Source: >>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817 >>> - >>> 0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>> >>> >>> >>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >>> taxes) >>> >>> Posted By TelecomTV One , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments | (0) >>> >>> >>> Tags: Google corporate tax Finance >>> >>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >>> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income >>> through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per >>> cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>> >>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >>> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations >>> have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever >>> respective governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, >>> in most countries, we voted the politicians in to office). By all >>> means try and mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, using >>> whatever accepted mechanisms are available. But avoidance? That just >>> means somebody else (with far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >>> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >>> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means >>> tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >>> >>> >>> >>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >>> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >>> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe that >>> depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level >>> of available State support for the most >>> needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must >>> conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. >>> >>> >>> >>> An investigative report by Bloomberg has discovered that Google >>> avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by >>> shifting >>> $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double >>> its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed in a >>> November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was >>> discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >>> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, >>> thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. >>> Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 >>> per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >>> >>> >>> >>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >>> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >>> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent >>> this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >>> >>> >>> >>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >>> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to >>> Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >>> >>> >>> >>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >>> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness >>> now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. >>> People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to >>> pay or services get cut.” >>> >>> >>> >>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the >>> US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at >>> all), it started to boycott the chain. >>> >>> Advertisement >>> >>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>> >>> >>> >>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 >>> per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it >>> paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says >>> Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues >>> from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to another Irish >>> subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments are then >>> sent to yet another subsidiary in the Netherlands (with no employees, >>> note) before finally reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >>> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >>> Things We Know to be True” page on Google’s website is the following: >>> >>> >>> >>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but >>> evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders >>> to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely >>> ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion >>> that Google has acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >>> >>> >>> >>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I >>> don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will >>> only act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their >>> fair share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then >>> they’ll change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the >>> so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured >>> heavily in annual reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >>> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >>> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and >>> Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt will >>> soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. >>> If governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up >>> to customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google >>> services. As Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the >>> message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by >>> the many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. >>> >>> >>> >>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. >>> Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do >>> likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” >>> slogan from your website once and for all. >>> >>> >>> >>> Further reading: The Pearse Trust blog has a detailed explanation of >>> the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t >>> try and implement it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> >>> Suva >>> >>> Fiji >>> >>> >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> >>> Suva >>> >>> Fiji >>> >>> >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 13 05:07:57 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:37:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C996B0.3090205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50C9A8FD.3020000@itforchange.net> On Thursday 13 December 2012 02:25 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > Well not really as taxes are national. Even when the business activities are global? Not really, Adam. And since a developing country quote will perhaps hardly suffice, here is one from a EU document “E-commerce is, by its nature, a truly global process and no tax jurisdiction, acting in isolation, can resolve all the issues it raises. ... The successful administration and application of taxes will to a great extent depend on, inter alia, achieving an international consensus...” For corporate income taxes too, OECD has a model treaty, which most OECD countries follow. So, you see, we need to address an appropriate international level/ forum for the google tax avoidance problem we are facing. It surprises me no end how when the issue is of interest to the most powerful countries and businesses, global controls and norms are sought - in trade, IP, and even free expression (fronting for free digital trade)...... and in the case of economic and social issues that concern the marginalised most, even when the obvious levers of doing anything are global, we are pushed to national jurisdictions --- mostly knowing well that in the globally networked world, national jurisdictions, especially of the developing countries, have little policy power left. This is unfair. This is what developing countries and those who purport to speak for the most marginalised must resist in these global spaces. parminder > So I would recommend we draft a letter and send to respective ICT > ministries, treasury and appropriate MPs (or equivalent.) And to the > countries such as Ireland, Luxembourg, etc favored by companies like > Google, Amazon eyc. > >> to google would be just posturing. > > You means that they would not pay heed to civil society's voice/ > statement on this, and not bother to respond? If nothing else, > that will be interesting to note, given the numerous close > compacts with civil society that google has worked up in these > last few months on many global IG issues. > > > No. > > (disclosure, GLOCOM hosts a Google Policy Fellow) > > Adam > > > > parminder >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder >> > > wrote: >> >> >> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its >> overseas profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money >> to spend in lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep global >> markets free for its unlettered operations... Like >> organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and >> so on. >> >> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax >> evasion policy is anti people, and it should pays its >> taxes where it makes its profit. (Or is it that the IG >> civil society does not go into such re-distributional >> questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to >> the list, and its coordinator. >> >> >> What does the list think? >> +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google >> -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google >> >> As always the IGC decides >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. >> Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> More on Bloomberg: >>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. >>> Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media >>> campaign out against the likes of Google and other >>> mncs - the timing of the release is almost >>> impeccable with the WCIT. >>> >>> Source: >>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>> >>> >>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it >>> evades $2bn in taxes) >>> >>> Posted By TelecomTV One >>> , >>> 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >>> | >>> [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people >>> rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this >>> an average of 3/5] (0) >>> Tags: /Google >>> / >>> /corporate >>> / >>> /tax >>> / >>> /Finance >>> / >>> >>> As the net closes around the multinationals that >>> avoid paying corporation taxes, Google is accused of >>> saving $2bn by routing income through a “Double >>> Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per >>> cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>> >>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the >>> subject of tax avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe >>> that individuals and corporations have a duty to pay >>> their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever >>> respective governments rule to be the legal >>> requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted >>> the politicians in to office). By all means try and >>> mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, using >>> whatever accepted mechanisms are available. But >>> avoidance? That just means somebody else (with far >>> less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to >>> contribute to your share as well. >>> >>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford >>> English Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly >>> immoral and wicked” or “something which is harmful >>> or undesirable”. In my book, that means tax >>> avoidance is evil, simple as that. >>> >>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you >>> believe that avoiding tax is wrong (especially >>> through aggressive and mind-boggling complicated >>> avoidance schemes) and if you believe that depriving >>> society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing >>> the level of available State support for the most >>> needy) and could be described as an evil act, then >>> surely you must conclude that Google is acting in an >>> evil manner. >>> >>> An investigative report by Bloomberg >>> has >>> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in >>> worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 >>> billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – >>> almost double its total from three years ago. The >>> information was disclosed in a November filing by a >>> Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was >>> discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. >>> >>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from >>> overseas subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t >>> have a corporate income tax, thereby enabling it to >>> cut its overall tax rate almost in half. Bloomberg >>> says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to >>> about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in >>> 2011. >>> >>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a >>> staggering €1 trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling >>> on for a moment longer…. €1 trillion. No wonder >>> politicians are now acting to try and prevent this >>> financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous >>> and immoral. >>> >>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax >>> accountant, which pretty much sums up the feeling in >>> Europe at the moment. According to Richard Murphy of >>> Tax Research: >>> >>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals >>> is a deep embarrassment to governments around >>> Europe. The political awareness now being created in >>> the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, >>> is: It’s us or them. People understand that if >>> Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or >>> services get cut.” >>> >>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the >>> public discovered the US coffee giant paid zero >>> taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at all), it >>> started to boycott the chain. >>> >>> Advertisement >>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to >>> pay taxes… >>> >>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, >>> responsible for about 11 per cent of its sales. Of >>> the $4 billion it turned over last year, it paid UK >>> corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg >>> says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary >>> to collects revenues from ads sold in the UK, which >>> then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary >>> whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments are >>> then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >>> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally >>> reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. >>> >>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s >>> against the internet company’s guiding principles. >>> Stated clearly on the “Ten Things We Know to be >>> True” page on Google >>> ’s >>> website is the following: >>> >>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>> >>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax >>> is anything but evil. Of course you – and all >>> companies – have a duty to shareholders to maximise >>> profits. But there are rules. Some of these are >>> merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no >>> indication or suggestion that Google has acted >>> illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has >>> acted unethically. >>> >>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of >>> course you can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ >>> viewpoint that corporations will only act in >>> self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay >>> their fair share. If their customers start to >>> boycott their services, then they’ll change. It >>> happened with the sudden emergence of all the >>> so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that >>> all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see >>> why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>> >>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be >>> using this complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, >>> of course I mean ‘mitigation’…) structure include >>> Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle. >>> Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no >>> doubt will soon be named and shamed – will continue >>> their sharp practices until they are forced to make >>> a change. If governments can’t do that through the >>> legal process, then it’s up to customers to vote >>> with their feet and walk away from Google services. >>> As Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to >>> get the message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re >>> already being squeezed by the many austerity >>> measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. >>> >>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and >>> show some leadership. Pay your fair share. And then >>> the rest of the ICT industry can do likewise. Or >>> else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do >>> evil” slogan from your website once and for all. >>> >>> _Further reading: _The Pearse Trust >>> blog >>> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double >>> Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try >>> and implement it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 13 05:39:55 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:09:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <50C9A8FD.3020000@itforchange.net> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C996B0.3090205@itforchange.net> <50C9A8FD.3020000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50C9B07B.8000304@itforchange.net> On Thursday 13 December 2012 03:37 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Thursday 13 December 2012 02:25 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> >> Well not really as taxes are national. > > Even when the business activities are global? Not really, Adam. I mean that while tax accrual is of course national, the issue of fair accrual and distribution in case of global businesses, especially when transacted in the global cyberspace, in indeed an international issue and not just national... > And since a developing country quote will perhaps hardly suffice, here > is one from a EU document > > “E-commerce is, by its nature, a truly global process and no tax > jurisdiction, acting in isolation, can resolve all the issues it > raises. ... The successful administration and application of taxes > will to a great extent depend on, inter alia, achieving an > international consensus...” > > > For corporate income taxes too, OECD has a model treaty, which most > OECD countries follow. > > So, you see, we need to address an appropriate international level/ > forum for the google tax avoidance problem we are facing. > > It surprises me no end how when the issue is of interest to the most > powerful countries and businesses, global controls and norms are > sought - in trade, IP, and even free expression (fronting for free > digital trade)...... and in the case of economic and social issues > that concern the marginalised most, even when the obvious levers of > doing anything are global, we are pushed to national jurisdictions --- > mostly knowing well that in the globally networked world, national > jurisdictions, especially of the developing countries, have little > policy power left. This is unfair. This is what developing countries > and those who purport to speak for the most marginalised must resist > in these global spaces. > > parminder > > >> So I would recommend we draft a letter and send to respective ICT >> ministries, treasury and appropriate MPs (or equivalent.) And to the >> countries such as Ireland, Luxembourg, etc favored by companies like >> Google, Amazon eyc. >> >>> to google would be just posturing. >> >> You means that they would not pay heed to civil society's voice/ >> statement on this, and not bother to respond? If nothing else, >> that will be interesting to note, given the numerous close >> compacts with civil society that google has worked up in these >> last few months on many global IG issues. >> >> >> No. >> >> (disclosure, GLOCOM hosts a Google Policy Fellow) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> parminder >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its >>> overseas profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of >>> money to spend in lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep >>> global markets free for its unlettered operations... >>> Like organising campaigns against ITU, German >>> legislature, and so on. >>> >>> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax >>> evasion policy is anti people, and it should pays its >>> taxes where it makes its profit. (Or is it that the IG >>> civil society does not go into such re-distributional >>> questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question >>> to the list, and its coordinator. >>> >>> >>> What does the list think? >>> +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google >>> -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google >>> >>> As always the IGC decides >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. >>> Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> More on Bloomberg: >>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. >>>> Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media >>>> campaign out against the likes of Google and other >>>> mncs - the timing of the release is almost >>>> impeccable with the WCIT. >>>> >>>> Source: >>>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>>> >>>> >>>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it >>>> evades $2bn in taxes) >>>> >>>> Posted By TelecomTV One >>>> , >>>> 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >>>> | >>>> [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people >>>> rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this >>>> an average of 3/5] (0) >>>> Tags: /Google >>>> / >>>> /corporate >>>> / >>>> /tax >>>> / >>>> /Finance >>>> / >>>> >>>> As the net closes around the multinationals that >>>> avoid paying corporation taxes, Google is accused >>>> of saving $2bn by routing income through a “Double >>>> Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per >>>> cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>>> >>>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the >>>> subject of tax avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe >>>> that individuals and corporations have a duty to >>>> pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean >>>> whatever respective governments rule to be the >>>> legal requirement (after all, in most countries, we >>>> voted the politicians in to office). By all means >>>> try and mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, >>>> using whatever accepted mechanisms are available. >>>> But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with >>>> far less access to expensive and clever advisors) >>>> has to contribute to your share as well. >>>> >>>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford >>>> English Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly >>>> immoral and wicked” or “something which is harmful >>>> or undesirable”. In my book, that means tax >>>> avoidance is evil, simple as that. >>>> >>>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you >>>> believe that avoiding tax is wrong (especially >>>> through aggressive and mind-boggling complicated >>>> avoidance schemes) and if you believe that >>>> depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so >>>> reducing the level of available State support for >>>> the most needy) and could be described as an evil >>>> act, then surely you must conclude that Google is >>>> acting in an evil manner. >>>> >>>> An investigative report by Bloomberg >>>> has >>>> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in >>>> worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 >>>> billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – >>>> almost double its total from three years ago. The >>>> information was disclosed in a November filing by a >>>> Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was >>>> discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. >>>> >>>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from >>>> overseas subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t >>>> have a corporate income tax, thereby enabling it to >>>> cut its overall tax rate almost in half. Bloomberg >>>> says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to >>>> about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit >>>> in 2011. >>>> >>>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union >>>> a staggering €1 trillion a year. That’s worth >>>> dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 trillion. No >>>> wonder politicians are now acting to try and >>>> prevent this financial loss and branding such acts >>>> as scandalous and immoral. >>>> >>>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax >>>> accountant, which pretty much sums up the feeling >>>> in Europe at the moment. According to Richard >>>> Murphy of Tax Research: >>>> >>>> “The tax strategy of Google and other >>>> multinationals is a deep embarrassment to >>>> governments around Europe. The political awareness >>>> now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree >>>> elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People >>>> understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody >>>> else has to pay or services get cut.” >>>> >>>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the >>>> public discovered the US coffee giant paid zero >>>> taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at all), >>>> it started to boycott the chain. >>>> >>>> Advertisement >>>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to >>>> pay taxes… >>>> >>>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, >>>> responsible for about 11 per cent of its sales. Of >>>> the $4 billion it turned over last year, it paid UK >>>> corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg >>>> says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary >>>> to collects revenues from ads sold in the UK, which >>>> then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary >>>> whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments are >>>> then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >>>> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before >>>> finally reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. >>>> >>>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s >>>> against the internet company’s guiding principles. >>>> Stated clearly on the “Ten Things We Know to be >>>> True” page on Google >>>> ’s >>>> website is the following: >>>> >>>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>>> >>>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax >>>> is anything but evil. Of course you – and all >>>> companies – have a duty to shareholders to maximise >>>> profits. But there are rules. Some of these are >>>> merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no >>>> indication or suggestion that Google has acted >>>> illegally, but there is every suggestion that it >>>> has acted unethically. >>>> >>>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of >>>> course you can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme >>>> capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will only >>>> act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” >>>> or pay their fair share. If their customers start >>>> to boycott their services, then they’ll change. It >>>> happened with the sudden emergence of all the >>>> so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that >>>> all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see >>>> why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>>> >>>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be >>>> using this complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, >>>> of course I mean ‘mitigation’…) structure include >>>> Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle. >>>> Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no >>>> doubt will soon be named and shamed – will continue >>>> their sharp practices until they are forced to make >>>> a change. If governments can’t do that through the >>>> legal process, then it’s up to customers to vote >>>> with their feet and walk away from Google services. >>>> As Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to >>>> get the message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re >>>> already being squeezed by the many austerity >>>> measures that are in effect to drag us out of >>>> recession. >>>> >>>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and >>>> show some leadership. Pay your fair share. And then >>>> the rest of the ICT industry can do likewise. Or >>>> else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do >>>> evil” slogan from your website once and for all. >>>> >>>> _Further reading: _The Pearse Trust >>>> blog >>>> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double >>>> Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try >>>> and implement it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 06:15:55 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 06:15:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! >> It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy >> efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like >> organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. >> >> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is >> anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or is >> it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional >> questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its >> coordinator. >> > > What does the list think? > +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google > -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google > -1 They are not evading taxes, that is illegal, they are avoiding taxes, which we ( all rational beings) do to a certain extent! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Thu Dec 13 06:54:53 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:54:53 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> Dear Parm, unfortunately (again) I am unable to follow up closely on the thread. But one point intrigues me: taxes are determined by governments within their geopolitical boundaries. Why don't governments charge appropriate taxes (if any) on services such as Google's? The point is: I do not think a corporation of that size just evades taxes and keeps an eye for what may happen. The certainly know about tax legislation in the countries they have operations. What is the proper way to define a policy on this for us? frt rgds --c.a. On 12/13/2012 02:33 AM, parminder wrote: > > Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! > It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and > advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered > operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, > and so on. > > Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is > anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or > is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional > questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and > its coordinator. > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> More on Bloomberg: >> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > > wrote: >> >> >> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out >> against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the >> release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. >> >> Source: >> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >> >> >> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >> taxes) >> >> Posted By TelecomTV One >> , >> 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >> | >> [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an >> average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] (0) >> Tags: /Google >> / >> /corporate >> / /tax >> / >> /Finance >> / >> >> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing >> income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just >> 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >> >> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and >> corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, >> we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal >> requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the >> politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the >> amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms >> are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with >> far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to >> contribute to your share as well. >> >> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that >> means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >> >> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe >> that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing >> the level of available State support for the most needy) and could >> be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that >> Google is acting in an evil manner. >> >> An investigative report by Bloomberg >> has >> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide >> income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a >> Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years >> ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a >> Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by >> reporters from Bloomberg. >> >> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income >> tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in >> half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to >> about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >> >> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent >> this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >> >> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According >> to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >> >> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political >> awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree >> elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that >> if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get cut.” >> >> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered >> the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely >> nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. >> >> Advertisement >> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >> >> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 >> per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, >> it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg >> says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects >> revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to >> another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. >> Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the >> tax haven of Bermuda. >> >> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >> Things We Know to be True” page on Google >> ’s website is the >> following: >> >> “You can make money without doing evil.” >> >> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything >> but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to >> shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of >> these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no >> indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but >> there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >> >> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you >> can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that >> corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the >> right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to >> boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the >> sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ >> positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see >> why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >> >> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and >> Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt >> will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp >> practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments >> can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers >> to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As >> Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message >> that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the >> many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of >> recession. >> >> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some >> leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT >> industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and >> out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for all. >> >> _Further reading: _The Pearse Trust >> blog >> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch >> Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 06:56:00 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:56:00 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50C9C250.6020406@cafonso.ca> Sala, this is not as simple as it seems. We need to go deeper on the implications of this, as I just posted. --c.a. On 12/13/2012 02:40 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas > profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in > lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its > unlettered operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, > German legislature, and so on. > > Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy > is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its > profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such > re-distributional questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real > question to the list, and its coordinator. > > > What does the list think? > +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google > -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google > > As always the IGC decides > > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> More on Bloomberg: >> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > > wrote: >> >> >> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out >> against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the >> release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. >> >> Source: >> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >> >> >> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades >> $2bn in taxes) >> >> Posted By TelecomTV One >> , >> 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >> | >> [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this >> an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] (0) >> Tags: /Google >> / /corporate >> / >> /tax >> / >> /Finance >> / >> >> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing >> income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of >> just 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >> >> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and >> corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By >> fair, we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the >> legal requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the >> politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the >> amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted >> mechanisms are available. But avoidance? That just means >> somebody else (with far less access to expensive and clever >> advisors) has to contribute to your share as well. >> >> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that >> means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >> >> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you >> believe that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and >> so reducing the level of available State support for the most >> needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you >> must conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. >> >> An investigative report by Bloomberg >> has >> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide >> income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into >> a Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three >> years ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing >> by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was >> discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. >> >> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate >> income tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate >> almost in half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is >> equivalent to about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax >> profit in 2011. >> >> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a >> staggering €1 trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a >> moment longer…. €1 trillion. No wonder politicians are now >> acting to try and prevent this financial loss and branding >> such acts as scandalous and immoral. >> >> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, >> which pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. >> According to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >> >> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political >> awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree >> elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand >> that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or >> services get cut.” >> >> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public >> discovered the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, >> absolutely nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. >> >> Advertisement >> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >> >> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for >> about 11 per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned >> over last year, it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 >> million. Bloomberg says Google avoids tax by using an Irish >> subsidiary to collects revenues from ads sold in the UK, which >> then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary whose legal >> residence is in Bermuda. Payments are then sent to yet another >> subsidiary in the Netherlands (with no employees, note) before >> finally reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. >> >> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the >> “Ten Things We Know to be True” page on Google >> ’s website is >> the following: >> >> “You can make money without doing evil.” >> >> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is >> anything but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a >> duty to shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. >> Some of these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There >> is no indication or suggestion that Google has acted >> illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted >> unethically. >> >> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you >> can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that >> corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the >> right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start >> to boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened >> with the sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate >> responsibility’ positions that all featured heavily in annual >> reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >> >> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft >> and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no >> doubt will soon be named and shamed – will continue their >> sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. If >> governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s >> up to customers to vote with their feet and walk away from >> Google services. As Richard Murphy said, consumers are >> beginning to get the message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re >> already being squeezed by the many austerity measures that are >> in effect to drag us out of recession. >> >> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some >> leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT >> industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and >> out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and >> for all. >> >> _Further reading: _The Pearse Trust >> blog >> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish >> Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 13 07:00:05 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:30:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <2586C718-1F5E-42CB-8D97-5886D04A6EBB@hserus.net> When and where they do cross a line, there are tax authorities eager to sue to collect penalty, and there are courts to pronounce on the matter. Entirely without benefit of CS making pious statements. --srs (iPad) On 13-Dec-2012, at 17:24, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Dear Parm, unfortunately (again) I am unable to follow up closely on the thread. But one point intrigues me: taxes are determined by governments within their geopolitical boundaries. Why don't governments charge appropriate taxes (if any) on services such as Google's? > > The point is: I do not think a corporation of that size just evades taxes and keeps an eye for what may happen. The certainly know about tax legislation in the countries they have operations. > > What is the proper way to define a policy on this for us? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 12/13/2012 02:33 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! >> It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and >> advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered >> operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, >> and so on. >> >> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is >> anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or >> is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional >> questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and >> its coordinator. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> More on Bloomberg: >>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out >>> against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the >>> release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. >>> >>> Source: >>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>> >>> >>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >>> taxes) >>> >>> Posted By TelecomTV One >>> , >>> 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >>> | >>> [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an >>> average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] (0) >>> Tags: /Google >>> / >>> /corporate >>> / /tax >>> / >>> /Finance >>> / >>> >>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >>> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing >>> income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just >>> 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>> >>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >>> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and >>> corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, >>> we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal >>> requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the >>> politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the >>> amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms >>> are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with >>> far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to >>> contribute to your share as well. >>> >>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >>> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >>> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that >>> means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >>> >>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >>> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >>> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe >>> that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing >>> the level of available State support for the most needy) and could >>> be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that >>> Google is acting in an evil manner. >>> >>> An investigative report by Bloomberg >>> has >>> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide >>> income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a >>> Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years >>> ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a >>> Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by >>> reporters from Bloomberg. >>> >>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >>> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income >>> tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in >>> half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to >>> about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >>> >>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >>> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >>> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent >>> this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >>> >>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >>> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According >>> to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >>> >>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >>> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political >>> awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree >>> elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that >>> if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get cut.” >>> >>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered >>> the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely >>> nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. >>> >>> Advertisement >>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>> >>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 >>> per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, >>> it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg >>> says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects >>> revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to >>> another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. >>> Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >>> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the >>> tax haven of Bermuda. >>> >>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >>> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >>> Things We Know to be True” page on Google >>> ’s website is the >>> following: >>> >>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>> >>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything >>> but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to >>> shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of >>> these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no >>> indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but >>> there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >>> >>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you >>> can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that >>> corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the >>> right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to >>> boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the >>> sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ >>> positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see >>> why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>> >>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >>> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >>> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and >>> Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt >>> will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp >>> practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments >>> can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers >>> to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As >>> Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message >>> that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the >>> many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of >>> recession. >>> >>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some >>> leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT >>> industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and >>> out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for all. >>> >>> _Further reading: _The Pearse Trust >>> blog >>> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch >>> Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 13 07:41:48 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:11:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <50C9CD0C.6030201@itforchange.net> Dear Carlos I agree that any position that IGC takes should follow an informed discussion. I will try to contribute to it. A few points. (below) On Thursday 13 December 2012 05:24 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Dear Parm, unfortunately (again) I am unable to follow up closely on > the thread. But one point intrigues me: taxes are determined by > governments within their geopolitical boundaries. Why don't > governments charge appropriate taxes (if any) on services such as > Google's? Governments have general tax laws and structures and obviously not specific to a company. The problem is that google builds a complex web of operations and entities to make their tax liabilities move to some tax havens (in this case, Bermuda). While non networked-digital businesses also do such things, it is so much easier for networked-digital businesses like google because the transactions themselves take place in the cyberspace. Such a situation requires (1) national laws to be reformed to deal with the new situation, (2) international taxation treaties, and norms (model tax codes like OECD has) which can harmonise tax laws enough to enable countries to collect their tax dues and disable, or reduce, illegitimate tax haven systems. Point (2) becomes even more important, and perhaps central, in a globally distributed businesses like that of google which are conducted in cyberspace. I quoted an EU document in an email to Adam which makes the problem as well as the needed solution quite clear.... “E-commerce is, by its nature, a truly global process and no tax jurisdiction, acting in isolation, can resolve all the issues it raises. ... The successful administration and application of taxes will to a great extent depend on, inter alia, achieving an international consensus...” In fact EU and OECD have been working on inter-country agreements, and model tax codes, to make sure thatthe right tax goes to the right place.... Since the digital space is almost seamlessly global, and developing countries lose the greatest proportion of tax, it is only appropriate that such agreements, norms development etc is done at a global level, involving them. (This issue also figured at WCIT.) It is therefore a core IG issue that needs global resolution. Loss of tax is loss to the more marginalised people whom the state serves on priority. We cannot ignore this issue. In UK recently, when Starbuck was found to systematically avoid taxes, civil society groups boycotted Starbuck outlets and also picketed them. (This has made Starbuck made new tax commitments.) The situation is so much worse with Google, not only on the scale of tax avoidance, but only the greater globalness of the issues, because of the very globalness of the cyberspace... Why should, correspondingly, the global IG CS /not/ take action, as groups in UK did, now when cases of very huge tax avoidance by google have surfaced in so many countries... We need to also demonstrate that we are ready to take action when economic and social rights and entitlements of people are involved, and not only in case of a narrow range of civil and political rights. That is my principle contention. > > The point is: I do not think a corporation of that size just evades > taxes and keeps an eye for what may happen. The certainly know about > tax legislation in the countries they have operations. Yes, they keep a very keen eye on tax legislation and find international loopholes around them... (1) making use of their international operations (and cyberspaces based jurisdictionally fuzzy transactions) and (2) (this being the important point) /*absence of international agreements or norms in this area*/, which is new and thus challenges are new. Campaigns against any kind of global regulation, agreements, norms creation with regard to the Internet (not only at WCIT but also elsewhere) directly serves the interests and agenda of google in this regard.... It for this reason that while civil society may rightly side with google to resist the wrong kind of things that are proposed at the WCIT,/*the world watches keenly what would the CS do when similar issues and processes of global Internet governance are implicated, where by far Google is on the wrong, and money that should be spent to welfare regimes in developing countries is being, well, to use advocacy language, 'stolen' by it. */ And there is a clear connection between the two kinds of issues - Google spends money on one, and earns/saves (lots lots more) on the other..... And the overall issue about whether Internet needs any kind of democratic global governance and regulation at all or not connects the two sets of issues.... Civil society therefore needs to nuance its position, to be on the right 'public interest' side on both the sets of issues. It is for this reason important that we address this letter to Google. It will greatly raise our credibility. parminder > > What is the proper way to define a policy on this for us? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 12/13/2012 02:33 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! >> It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and >> advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered >> operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, >> and so on. >> >> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is >> anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or >> is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional >> questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and >> its coordinator. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> More on Bloomberg: >>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out >>> against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the >>> release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. >>> >>> Source: >>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>> >>> >>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >>> taxes) >>> >>> Posted By TelecomTV One >>> >>> , >>> 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >>> >>> | >>> [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an >>> average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] (0) >>> Tags: /Google >>> / >>> /corporate >>> / >>> /tax >>> / >>> /Finance >>> / >>> >>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >>> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing >>> income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just >>> 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>> >>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >>> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and >>> corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, >>> we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal >>> requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the >>> politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the >>> amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms >>> are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with >>> far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to >>> contribute to your share as well. >>> >>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >>> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >>> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that >>> means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >>> >>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >>> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >>> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe >>> that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing >>> the level of available State support for the most needy) and could >>> be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that >>> Google is acting in an evil manner. >>> >>> An investigative report by Bloomberg >>> >>> has >>> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide >>> income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a >>> Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years >>> ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a >>> Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by >>> reporters from Bloomberg. >>> >>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >>> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income >>> tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in >>> half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to >>> about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >>> >>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >>> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >>> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent >>> this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and >>> immoral. >>> >>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >>> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According >>> to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >>> >>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >>> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political >>> awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree >>> elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that >>> if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get >>> cut.” >>> >>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered >>> the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely >>> nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. >>> >>> Advertisement >>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>> >>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 >>> per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, >>> it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg >>> says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects >>> revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to >>> another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. >>> Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >>> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the >>> tax haven of Bermuda. >>> >>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >>> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >>> Things We Know to be True” page on Google >>> ’s website is the >>> following: >>> >>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>> >>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything >>> but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to >>> shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of >>> these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no >>> indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but >>> there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >>> >>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you >>> can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that >>> corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the >>> right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to >>> boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the >>> sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ >>> positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see >>> why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>> >>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >>> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >>> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and >>> Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt >>> will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp >>> practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments >>> can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers >>> to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As >>> Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message >>> that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the >>> many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of >>> recession. >>> >>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some >>> leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT >>> industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and >>> out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for >>> all. >>> >>> _Further reading: _The Pearse Trust >>> >>> blog >>> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch >>> Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 08:05:06 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:05:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <50C9CD0C.6030201@itforchange.net> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> <50C9CD0C.6030201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:41 AM, parminder wrote: > > Dear Carlos > > I agree that any position that IGC takes should follow an informed > discussion. I will try to contribute to it. > > A few points. (below) > > > On Thursday 13 December 2012 05:24 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Dear Parm, unfortunately (again) I am unable to follow up closely on the > thread. But one point intrigues me: taxes are determined by governments > within their geopolitical boundaries. Why don't governments charge > appropriate taxes (if any) on services such as Google's? > > > Governments have general tax laws and structures and obviously not specific > to a company. The problem is that google builds a complex web of operations > and entities to make their tax liabilities move to some tax havens (in this > case, Bermuda). While non networked-digital businesses also do such things, > it is so much easier for networked-digital businesses like google because > the transactions themselves take place in the cyberspace. You have zero basis in fact for making this assertion. I make transactions in cyberspace, my local hardware store makes transactions in cyberspace, Google does the same. How is it easier for Google? Do they have some special Internet banking "pipe" that we don't have? > > Such a situation requires (1) national laws to be reformed to deal with the > new situation, (2) international taxation treaties, and norms (model tax > codes like OECD has) which can harmonise tax laws enough to enable countries > to collect their tax dues and disable, or reduce, illegitimate tax haven > systems. Point (2) becomes even more important, and perhaps central, in a > globally distributed businesses like that of google which are conducted in > cyberspace. Then do 1 and 2, but don't criticize companies for doing things that are legal! -- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Thu Dec 13 08:14:38 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:14:38 -0200 Subject: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 In-Reply-To: <046d01cdd90a$41d59870$c580c950$@gmail.com> References: <01f901cdd654$757f8220$607e8660$@gmail.com> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB970BD@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<6FD9AA77-24A0-459A-95EA-521BE6D95CF3@post.harvard.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA4CC6@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <046d01cdd90a$41d59870$c580c950$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50C9D4BE.7010301@cafonso.ca> I see Michael's piece as an excellent critical fact-checking review, and I also agree with one of his main conclusions -- organized civil society, for several reasons (many of them pointed out by Michael), has had tremendous difficulty to put together in a consistent way the exact risks regarding the kernel of what we try to defend as the open Internet, deriving from it a consistent, point by point "agenda of resistance". So, some of us end up engaging in manicheist reactions (and some stupid ones, like the DDoS attack on ITU sites). This is not new, we saw this happening in the WSIS process and throughout the IGF process, particularly between Athens and Rio. One example of our difficulties is that we basically ignored the parallel WTSA process and particularly the action of ITU-T regarding standards (already in force) for controlling Internet traffic. Who did read the scary (for me, nice for telcos) Y.2770 "final" draft? This is supposed to be the handbook for telcos and governments to manipulate traffic at the link layer -- the main challenge to net neutrality we have to confront. []s fraternos --c.a. On 12/13/2012 06:17 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Hmmm... > > Alejandro, > > I`m not sure what academic or disciplinary culture you are coming from but > in mine we tend to read things before we comment or post content free `trust > me` judgements about something. > > If you had bothered to read the piece you would have seen that the > over-simplification of rather complex issues by the HOI folks was precisely > the point of the blogpost. I went on to point out how this > over-simplification seemed to be related to the specific interests of some > of the most active proponents of the HOI position. I went then on to > suggested that those with a rather more sophisticated understanding > (presumably you and your confreres) had a responsibility to go beyond > hysterical denunciations of the messenger(s) towards a positive engagement > with the very real issues that were being pointed to and, which absenting a > resolution, would have dire consequences for the Internet. > > If you found the subject of post not to your liking that doesn`t seem to be > shared by the some 700 or so folks who have already downloaded it several of > whom made critical but useful substantive comments. Probably worth a read if > you get the time. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Alejandro > Pisanty Baruch > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 6:56 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Allen > Subject: RE: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some > Reflections on WCIT 2012 > > David, > > I owed you a reply here. > > Some subset of what Mike Gurstein in facile way characterizes as HOI not > only has a vision of how to build Intenet Governance - they are voting with > their sweat. They are building the mechanisms, agreements, communications, > understandings, actions and discourse. > > These days some of that set are providing delegates at WCIT with constant > feedback, technical knowledge, policy arguments, and personal networks in > order to avert some of the worst-case results of that conference. Some in > Dubai, some away, but that materialization of a vision of Internet > Governance is actually consuming some kiloJoules and having some > demonstrable, traceable effect. > > Guess they may be forgiven for not trying to become the world's > tax-collector-spanking authority. We leave that to the real experts on this > list, impressed by the fiscal knowledge and the rapid setup of an army. > Please be the first in line to tap the flow of funds into the coffers. Oh, > and lay aside the "no taxation without representation" line while you bleed > Google white. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de David Allen > [David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] > Enviado el: lunes, 10 de diciembre de 2012 10:51 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some > Reflections on WCIT 2012 > > I am afraid I see it differently, from my esteemed friend Dr. > Pisanty. (All the while I have enjoyed the elegance of construction, in his > response!) > > As Michael has now excerpted: > >> ... the "Hands off the Internet" folks don't go beyond the negative >> into some positive vision/declaration of where/how they think the >> Internet should be "governed" (beyond an untenable status quo) ... > > > Which has led to stalemate, such as with both Tunis follow-ons, IGF and > Enhanced Cooperation. With stalemate cropping up once again, here with > Dubai. > > There has been repeated talk, over the years, of new global regimes, beyond > states, grandly centered on multi-stakeholderism. But no reality - no > practicable formulation that preserves democracy - to that talk. > > That is serious work. Jeremy began to suggest some thoughts forward > >> We all hate hierarchy, but sometimes a little bit of structure is >> necessary to provide firm enough guidance to policymakers > > > in the thread, Multi-stakeholder model, evolution and revolution. > > David > > On Dec 9, 2012, at 7:02 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> as the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli is often quoted to have said, >> "it isn't even wrong." >> >> Your article mostly creates a hybrid of red herring, strawman and >> bogeyman and misses the group, often identified in this list, which >> does not say "hands off the Internet", is not acting by reflex, is not >> being driven by the corporate interests you profer to dislike, and >> therefore makes nuanced, rational analysis and action difficult. >> >> There are serious concerns about what is going on in the ITU's WCIT, >> serious people trying to address them in a serious way. That they some >> may find their allies uncomfortable does not fit in your text. >> Your text becomes little more than a distraction. >> >> From such a flawed premise, little of use can be concluded. As I said, >> it isn't even wrong. >> >> >> 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: >> domingo, 09 de diciembre de 2012 15:30 >> Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Asunto: [governance] Blogpost: (Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? >> Some Reflections on WCIT 2012 >> >> FWIW >> >> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet- >> some-reflections-on-wcit-2012/ >> >> MG >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Thu Dec 13 08:23:37 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:23:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> <50C9CD0C.6030201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: When an industry gets subsidies, like Boeing or Airbus, it's fiscally legal, except that each one, or their govt, may sue the other for unfair competition, usually in the WTO. When Google doesn't pay taxes, it's de facto subsidies, and unfair competition towards any non US business trying to compete with Google. It's actually double subsidies. Indeed subsidies are usually paid by govt wanting to help their national industry. In Google's case it's paid by govts (read taxpayers) in non US countries. Isn't scam ? Louis - - - On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:05 PM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:41 AM, parminder > wrote: > > > > Dear Carlos > > > > I agree that any position that IGC takes should follow an informed > > discussion. I will try to contribute to it. > > > > A few points. (below) > > > > > > On Thursday 13 December 2012 05:24 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > > > Dear Parm, unfortunately (again) I am unable to follow up closely on the > > thread. But one point intrigues me: taxes are determined by governments > > within their geopolitical boundaries. Why don't governments charge > > appropriate taxes (if any) on services such as Google's? > > > > > > Governments have general tax laws and structures and obviously not > specific > > to a company. The problem is that google builds a complex web of > operations > > and entities to make their tax liabilities move to some tax havens (in > this > > case, Bermuda). While non networked-digital businesses also do such > things, > > it is so much easier for networked-digital businesses like google because > > the transactions themselves take place in the cyberspace. > > You have zero basis in fact for making this assertion. > > I make transactions in cyberspace, my local hardware store makes > transactions in cyberspace, > Google does the same. How is it easier for Google? Do they have some > special Internet banking "pipe" that we don't have? > > > > > > Such a situation requires (1) national laws to be reformed to deal with > the > > new situation, (2) international taxation treaties, and norms (model tax > > codes like OECD has) which can harmonise tax laws enough to enable > countries > > to collect their tax dues and disable, or reduce, illegitimate tax haven > > systems. Point (2) becomes even more important, and perhaps central, in a > > globally distributed businesses like that of google which are conducted > in > > cyberspace. > > Then do 1 and 2, but don't criticize companies for doing things that are > legal! > > -- > 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 08:27:33 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:27:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <2586C718-1F5E-42CB-8D97-5886D04A6EBB@hserus.net> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> <2586C718-1F5E-42CB-8D97-5886D04A6EBB@hserus.net> Message-ID: <057901cdd935$ad003b20$0700b160$@gmail.com> Suresh, Given the quite evident contempt that you feel for civil society and for those who are attempting to develop positions in the global public interest I`m wondering why you continue in this space except to function as a troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29 M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:00 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes When and where they do cross a line, there are tax authorities eager to sue to collect penalty, and there are courts to pronounce on the matter. Entirely without benefit of CS making pious statements. --srs (iPad) On 13-Dec-2012, at 17:24, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Dear Parm, unfortunately (again) I am unable to follow up closely on the thread. But one point intrigues me: taxes are determined by governments within their geopolitical boundaries. Why don't governments charge appropriate taxes (if any) on services such as Google's? > > The point is: I do not think a corporation of that size just evades taxes and keeps an eye for what may happen. The certainly know about tax legislation in the countries they have operations. > > What is the proper way to define a policy on this for us? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 12/13/2012 02:33 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! >> It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and >> advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered >> operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German >> legislature, and so on. >> >> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy >> is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its >> profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional >> questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and >> its coordinator. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> More on Bloomberg: >>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-i >>> n-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out >>> against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the >>> release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. >>> >>> Source: >>> >>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e938181 >>> 7-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>> >>> >>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >>> taxes) >>> >>> Posted By TelecomTV One >>> , >>> 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >>> | >>> [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an >>> average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] (0) >>> Tags: /Google >>> / >>> /corporate >>> / /tax >>> / >>> /Finance >>> / >>> >>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >>> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing >>> income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just >>> 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>> >>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >>> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and >>> corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, >>> we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal >>> requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the >>> politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the >>> amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms >>> are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with >>> far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to >>> contribute to your share as well. >>> >>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >>> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >>> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that >>> means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >>> >>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >>> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >>> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe >>> that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing >>> the level of available State support for the most needy) and could >>> be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that >>> Google is acting in an evil manner. >>> >>> An investigative report by Bloomberg >>> has >>> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide >>> income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a >>> Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years >>> ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a >>> Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by >>> reporters from Bloomberg. >>> >>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >>> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income >>> tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in >>> half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to >>> about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >>> >>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >>> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >>> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent >>> this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >>> >>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >>> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According >>> to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >>> >>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >>> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political >>> awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree >>> elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that >>> if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get cut.” >>> >>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered >>> the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely >>> nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. >>> >>> Advertisement >>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>> >>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 >>> per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, >>> it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg >>> says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects >>> revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to >>> another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. >>> Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >>> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the >>> tax haven of Bermuda. >>> >>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >>> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >>> Things We Know to be True” page on Google >>> ’s website is the >>> following: >>> >>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>> >>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything >>> but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to >>> shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of >>> these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no >>> indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but >>> there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >>> >>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you >>> can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that >>> corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the >>> right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to >>> boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the >>> sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ >>> positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see >>> why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>> >>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >>> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >>> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and >>> Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt >>> will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp >>> practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments >>> can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers >>> to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As >>> Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message >>> that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the >>> many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of >>> recession. >>> >>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some >>> leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT >>> industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and >>> out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for all. >>> >>> _Further reading: _The Pearse Trust >>> blog >>> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch >>> Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 08:31:19 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 08:31:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> <50C9CD0C.6030201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: > When an industry gets subsidies, like Boeing or Airbus, it's fiscally legal, > except that each one, or their govt, may sue the other for unfair > competition, usually in the WTO. > > When Google doesn't pay taxes but they do pay taxes. Just not as much as some would like. Who is to say what is fair? the IGC? , it's de facto subsidies, and unfair > competition towards any non US business trying to compete with Google. It's > actually double subsidies. Indeed subsidies are usually paid by govt wanting > to help their national industry. In Google's case it's paid by govts (read > taxpayers) in non US countries. Isn't scam ? International tax treaties allow such behavior, which we may agree is sub-optimal for a number of reasons, but it is still legal. -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 08:32:02 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:32:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <058301cdd936$4f003f10$ed00bd30$@gmail.com> Hmmm Dividends for US billionaires or funds for rape crisis centres (probably ``unfair`` comparison but so is not paying your fair share http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/12/starbucks-tax-avoidance-contr oversy Greene, a UK Uncut activist, said funding for refugees and rape crisis centres faced cuts unless companies paid their fair share of tax. HMRC estimates around £32bn was lost to tax avoidance last year. Greene said the government could easily bring in billions that could fund vital services by clamping down on tax avoidance, but was instead "making cuts that are forcing women to choose between motherhood and work, and trapping them in abusive relationships". From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:16 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Cc: parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder wrote: Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its coordinator. What does the list think? +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google -1 They are not evading taxes, that is illegal, they are avoiding taxes, which we ( all rational beings) do to a certain extent! -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 13 08:39:06 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:09:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <057901cdd935$ad003b20$0700b160$@gmail.com> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> <2586C718-1F5E-42CB-8D97-5886D04A6EBB@hserus.net> <057901cdd935$ad003b20$0700b160$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3D16AD59-D0C8-4416-83A6-C58621B24655@hserus.net> I have done my fair share of activism elsewhere (mostly on antispam laws and best practices) since at least the mid 1990s - I acknowledge that's comparatively recent, compared to several other people in this space. I still do call a spade a spade. And a trial by kangaroo court a trial by kangaroo court. So - again, what is google doing different compared to, say, any large manufacturing corporation or any other corporation with a presence spread across several countries? And what locus standi does any sort of igov based civil society have in these issues? --srs (iPad) On 13-Dec-2012, at 18:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Suresh, > > Given the quite evident contempt that you feel for civil society and for those who are attempting to develop positions in the global public interest I`m wondering why you continue in this space except to function as a troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29 > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:00 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > When and where they do cross a line, there are tax authorities eager to sue to collect penalty, and there are courts to pronounce on the matter. Entirely without benefit of CS making pious statements. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 13-Dec-2012, at 17:24, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > >> Dear Parm, unfortunately (again) I am unable to follow up closely on the thread. But one point intrigues me: taxes are determined by governments within their geopolitical boundaries. Why don't governments charge appropriate taxes (if any) on services such as Google's? >> >> The point is: I do not think a corporation of that size just evades taxes and keeps an eye for what may happen. The certainly know about tax legislation in the countries they have operations. >> >> What is the proper way to define a policy on this for us? >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 12/13/2012 02:33 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! >>> It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and >>> advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered >>> operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German >>> legislature, and so on. >>> >>> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy >>> is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its >>> profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional >>> questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and >>> its coordinator. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> More on Bloomberg: >>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-i >>>> n-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out >>>> against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the >>>> release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. >>>> >>>> Source: >>>> >>>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e938181 >>>> 7-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>>> >>>> >>>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >>>> taxes) >>>> >>>> Posted By TelecomTV One >>>> , >>>> 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >>>> | >>>> [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an >>>> average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] (0) >>>> Tags: /Google >>>> / >>>> /corporate >>>> / /tax >>>> / >>>> /Finance >>>> / >>>> >>>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >>>> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing >>>> income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just >>>> 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>>> >>>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >>>> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and >>>> corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, >>>> we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal >>>> requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the >>>> politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the >>>> amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms >>>> are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with >>>> far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to >>>> contribute to your share as well. >>>> >>>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >>>> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >>>> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that >>>> means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >>>> >>>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >>>> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >>>> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe >>>> that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing >>>> the level of available State support for the most needy) and could >>>> be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that >>>> Google is acting in an evil manner. >>>> >>>> An investigative report by Bloomberg >>>> has >>>> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide >>>> income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a >>>> Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years >>>> ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a >>>> Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by >>>> reporters from Bloomberg. >>>> >>>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >>>> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income >>>> tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in >>>> half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to >>>> about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >>>> >>>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >>>> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >>>> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent >>>> this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >>>> >>>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >>>> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According >>>> to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >>>> >>>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >>>> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political >>>> awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree >>>> elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that >>>> if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get cut.” >>>> >>>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered >>>> the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely >>>> nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. >>>> >>>> Advertisement >>>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>>> >>>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 >>>> per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, >>>> it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg >>>> says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects >>>> revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to >>>> another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. >>>> Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >>>> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the >>>> tax haven of Bermuda. >>>> >>>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >>>> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >>>> Things We Know to be True” page on Google >>>> ’s website is the >>>> following: >>>> >>>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>>> >>>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything >>>> but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to >>>> shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of >>>> these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no >>>> indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but >>>> there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >>>> >>>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you >>>> can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that >>>> corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the >>>> right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to >>>> boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the >>>> sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ >>>> positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see >>>> why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>>> >>>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >>>> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >>>> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and >>>> Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt >>>> will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp >>>> practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments >>>> can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers >>>> to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As >>>> Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message >>>> that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the >>>> many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of >>>> recession. >>>> >>>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some >>>> leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT >>>> industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and >>>> out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for all. >>>> >>>> _Further reading: _The Pearse Trust >>>> blog >>>> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch >>>> Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 13 08:40:45 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:10:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <058301cdd936$4f003f10$ed00bd30$@gmail.com> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <058301cdd936$4f003f10$ed00bd30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8963A7FF-7955-44E3-8CC5-4E23EE74FC1C@hserus.net> Oh, so if the government closes loopholes in their tax act and/or clamps down on people who are over-enthusiastic users of such loopholes, they'll immediately divert all the money they claw back to one good cause after the other? --srs (iPad) On 13-Dec-2012, at 19:02, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Hmmm… Dividends for US billionaires or funds for rape crisis centres… (probably ``unfair`` comparison but so is not paying your fair share… > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/nov/12/starbucks-tax-avoidance-controversy > > Greene, a UK Uncut activist, said funding for refugees and rape crisis centres faced cuts unless companies paid their fair share of tax. HMRC estimates around £32bn was lost to tax avoidance last year. > > Greene said the government could easily bring in billions that could fund vital services by clamping down on tax avoidance, but was instead "making cuts that are forcing women to choose between motherhood and work, and trapping them in abusive relationships". > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:16 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Cc: parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder wrote: > > Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. > > Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its coordinator. > > What does the list think? > +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google > -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google > > -1 > > They are not evading taxes, that is illegal, they are avoiding taxes, which we ( all rational beings) do to a certain extent! > > > -- > 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 13 08:42:15 2012 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 05:42:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Proposed Revised International Telecommunication Regulations Message-ID: <1355406135.64691.YahooMailNeo@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>  Dear all Here is the Draft Revised ITRs as they stand now.  http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-121203-TD-0055!!MSW-E.pdf 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: S12-WCIT12-121203-TD-0055!!MSW-E.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 226757 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 Thu Dec 13 08:43:06 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:43:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google's Schmidt 'very proud' of tax avoidance scheme Message-ID: <058e01cdd937$c8fec1a0$5afc44e0$@gmail.com> http://www.zdnet.com/uk/googles-schmidt-very-proud-of-tax-avoidance-scheme-7 000008733/ Google's Schmidt 'very proud' of tax avoidance scheme Summary: The company's chairman has defended the complex arrangement that sees its UK profits largely funnelled to Bermuda, via Ireland and the Netherlands. 'It's called capitalism,' he said in an interview on Wednesday. David Meyer By David Meyer | December 13, 2012 -- 09:32 GMT (10:32 CET) Google chairman Eric Schmidt has said he is proud of the company's tax structure, which has been heavily criticised by lawmakers around the world. Eric SchmidtEric Schmidt has defended Google's tax arrangements in the UK. Image: Stefanie Olsen/CNET News Google paid the UK tax authorities £6m for 2011 despite turning over £395m, in an arrangement that involves sending its proceeds to a Bermuda shell company via Ireland and the Netherlands. The firm was, alongside Amazon and Starbucks, one of the corporations that came in for a grilling by UK MPs last month over the issue of tax avoidance. A parliamentary committee subsequently described the complex avoidance schemes as "utterly immoral". In an interview reported by Bloomberg on Wednesday, Schmidt said the company was simply engaged in "capitalism". "I am very proud of the structure that we set up. We did it based on the incentives that the governments offered us to operate," Schmidt said. "It's called capitalism. We are proudly capitalistic. I'm not confused about this." The Independent also reported Schmidt as saying the company was only paying the British taxman what it had to. "To go back to shareholders and say, 'We looked at 200 countries but felt sorry for those British people so we want to [pay them more]', there is probably some law against doing that," he was quoted as saying. The newspaper also quoted a response from Margaret Hodge, the MP who chaired the Public Account Committee that had criticised Google. Read this Taxing times for Google as France turns up the pressure Taxing times for Google as France turns up the pressure Read more "For Eric Schmidt to say that he is 'proud' of his company's approach to paying tax is arrogant, out of touch and an insult to his customers here in the UK," Hodge said. "Ordinary people who pay their taxes unquestioningly are sick and tired of seeing hugely profitable global companies like Google use every trick in the book to get out of contributing their fair share." Google has its international headquarters in Dublin, largely because the Irish government offers generous tax breaks. This means that Google's UK proceeds go to Ireland, along with most of the profits it makes in other countries outside the US. However, in a complex process that is nominally based on intellectual property licensing, much of that cash then goes through a Dutch holding company to a Bermuda holding company, which supposedly protects Google's intellectual property. As the Public Accounts Committee noted in its report, all Google's non-US-derived profits go to Bermuda, so the company "may be depriving the USA of legitimate tax revenue as well as the UK". While testifying to the committee, Google's vice president for Northern and Central Europe, Matt Brittin, justified Google's low corporation tax payments in the UK by saying that "all of the engineering work is done in California". This came as a surprise to Google's London office, which — according to the firm's own website — is "one of Google's largest engineering operations in Europe", having been instrumental in developing "Voice Search, Local Search, Maps, TV, YouTube and core infrastructure". -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 08:57:41 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:57:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> <50C9CD0C.6030201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50C9DED5.7040807@gmail.com> On 2012/12/13 03:31 PM, McTim wrote: > but they do pay taxes. Just not as much as some would like. They do pay taxes and the line between tax avoidance and evasion is a fine one. > > Who is to say what is fair? the IGC? The tax justice network (tjn) has done some remarkable work on these kinds of matters. For example comparing corporate taxes to those paid by ordinary folk (progresssive, regressive and overall effective tax rates) that makes for some interesting reading. Yes there are comparisons that are being made, perhaps not specifically for internet governance, and that provide some insights into the treatment of "legal persons" (after Citizens United in the US this is a significant change that I hope American Exceptionalists would perhaps weigh in on) as compared to "real" persons (depending on income level). > International tax treaties allow such behavior, which we may agree is > sub-optimal for a number of reasons, but it is still legal. There are two elements here: 1) legality - this may be so; although there is less tolerance for this behaviour with Geneva bankers now increasingly becoming tax collectors for the US, Germany etc... 2) is it more precise to talk about alegality perhaps - as in not regulated, falling through stools... for example transfer pricing are legal rules that allow accompany to offset losses and gains to reduce its tax liability. This is coming under increasing scrutiny and the bounds of legality are certainly being explored and exploited. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 09:04:26 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 23:04:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <04cc01cdd915$24eec1e0$6ecc45a0$@gmail.com> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <049601cdd90e$ec3d1cd0$c4b75670$@gmail.com> <04b101cdd912$1c244470$546ccd50$@gmail.com> <04cc01cdd915$24eec1e0$6ecc45a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:35 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Via Google > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google-tax-evasion > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Google-tax-evasion > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/09/is-google-avoiding-or-evading-taxes-in-the-uk/ > "There seems to be some confusion over whether Google is dodging, avoiding or evading corporate taxation in the UK. The first answer is the most obvious: it’s not evading taxes because that is illegal, by definition. Thus we would expect to see prosecutions if it were evading tax. We’re not seeing prosecutions so we might conclude, fairly, that there is no evasion going on." good of you to agree. and: "The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes." Adam > etc.etc. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:23 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > Tax evasion, are you suggesting google evades paying tax be illegal means? > > Adam > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:13 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> I don`t think we are talking about ``voluntary`` tax... Rather we are talking about the lengths that corporations go to for tax avoidance/evasion... That I would guess is somewhat discretionary i.e. management decisions and not particularly transparent to shareholders. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam >> Peake >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:59 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes >> >> Anyone on the list own Google shares? >> >> What would you do if Google paid a few billions of dollars in voluntary tax and the value of your shares dropped? >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> Adam, >>> >>> >>> >>> I`m curious why you think this… I would have thought that governments >>> are pretty much impervious to this kind of `lobbying` (jaded from >>> experience) while corporations that have as their slogan things like >>> `don`t be evil` might be extremely sensitive to this kind of public >>> comment on their behaviour by Civil Society. >>> >>> >>> >>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam >>> Peake >>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:36 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes >>> >>> >>> >>> -1 >>> >>> >>> >>> write to politicians. to google would be just posturing. >>> >>> >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas >>> profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying >>> and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered >>> operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. >>> >>> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy >>> is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its >>> profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional questions >>> ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its >>> coordinator. >>> >>> >>> >>> What does the list think? >>> >>> +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google >>> >>> -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google >>> >>> >>> >>> As always the IGC decides >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>> More on Bloomberg: >>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in >>> - no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against >>> the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is >>> almost impeccable with the WCIT. >>> >>> >>> >>> Source: >>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817 >>> - >>> 0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>> >>> >>> >>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >>> taxes) >>> >>> Posted By TelecomTV One , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments | (0) >>> >>> >>> Tags: Google corporate tax Finance >>> >>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >>> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income >>> through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per >>> cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>> >>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >>> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations >>> have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever >>> respective governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, >>> in most countries, we voted the politicians in to office). By all >>> means try and mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, using >>> whatever accepted mechanisms are available. But avoidance? That just >>> means somebody else (with far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as well. >>> >>> >>> >>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >>> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >>> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means >>> tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >>> >>> >>> >>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >>> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >>> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe that >>> depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level >>> of available State support for the most >>> needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must >>> conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. >>> >>> >>> >>> An investigative report by Bloomberg has discovered that Google >>> avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by >>> shifting >>> $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double >>> its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed in a >>> November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was >>> discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. >>> >>> >>> >>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >>> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, >>> thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. >>> Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 >>> per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >>> >>> >>> >>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >>> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >>> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent >>> this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >>> >>> >>> >>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >>> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to >>> Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >>> >>> >>> >>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >>> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness >>> now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. >>> People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to >>> pay or services get cut.” >>> >>> >>> >>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the >>> US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at >>> all), it started to boycott the chain. >>> >>> Advertisement >>> >>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>> >>> >>> >>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 >>> per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it >>> paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says >>> Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues >>> from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to another Irish >>> subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments are then >>> sent to yet another subsidiary in the Netherlands (with no employees, >>> note) before finally reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >>> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >>> Things We Know to be True” page on Google’s website is the following: >>> >>> >>> >>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but >>> evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders >>> to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely >>> ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion >>> that Google has acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >>> >>> >>> >>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I >>> don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will >>> only act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their >>> fair share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then >>> they’ll change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the >>> so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured >>> heavily in annual reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >>> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >>> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and >>> Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt will >>> soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. >>> If governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up >>> to customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google >>> services. As Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the >>> message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by >>> the many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. >>> >>> >>> >>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. >>> Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do >>> likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” >>> slogan from your website once and for all. >>> >>> >>> >>> Further reading: The Pearse Trust blog has a detailed explanation of >>> the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t >>> try and implement it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> >>> Suva >>> >>> Fiji >>> >>> >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> >>> Suva >>> >>> Fiji >>> >>> >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Dec 13 09:08:23 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:08:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: References: <1524077266.36067.1355162508669.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k12> , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B172433@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> John, Agreed re need for 'participatory multistakeholder governance for dummies' or some more elegant title ; ) I've long been suggesting a key part of that need not be reinvented to help ICANN stay on the semi-straight and narrow, if we follow along the lines of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. The key analogies from the APA for multistakeholder processes relate to - fair administrative process. The multistakeholder participation part is not clear in a 1946 law, but hey. And I'm sure there are other exemplars from around the world, likely more recent. From wikipedia: adjudication and rulemaking. (p. 5) Agency adjudication was broken down further into two distinct phases of formal and informal adjudication. (Ibid.) Formal adjudication involve a trial-like hearing with witness testimony, a written record and a final decision. Under informal adjudication, however, agency decisions are made without formal trial-like procedures, using "inspections, conferences and negotiations" instead. (Ibid.) Because formal adjudication produces a record of proceedings and a final decision, it may be subject to judicial review. As for rulemaking resulting in agency rules and regulations, the Final Report noted that many agencies provided due process through hearings and investigations, but there was still a need for well-defined, uniform standards for agency adjudication and rulemaking procedures. 'Adjudication and rulemaking' may not be the words used by ICANN when constructing eg the gTLD process, but that's what it is. With multistakeholder participation. Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of John Curran [jcurran at istaff.org] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:31 AM To: William Drake Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? On Dec 10, 2012, at 11:24 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > About 20 CS people met today with SG Toure in Dubai. He has the letter, and the main points were repeated verbally. No immediate commitments on these or real replies to specific questions on items like public participation in the May WTPF, but folks were varyingly optimistic that a dialogue has been opened and there's something to build on. > > In the meanwhile, the wider situation has evolved here. With the parties far apart on many issues and basically two days left to negotiate, small groups of government reps from xxx countries (not clear exactly who/how many) went behind closed doors at 10:30pm to see if they can pull a rabbit out of a hat (or insert your preferred metaphor) and come back to plenary tomorrow at 11 am with something for everyone to work on. So contrary to some rumors that were floating about, there's no SG text, and at the moment the likelihood of a magic compromise vs. a train wreck is pretty hard to work out. Many variables interacting, so one could paint diametrically opposed but equally plausible scenarios. > > In this stressed context, I don't think there's going to be a lot of energy devoted to responding to CS concerns about transparency and inclusion. Nevertheless, the caucus may wish to endorse the letter to be on record alongside other advocacy groups and networks, particularly with an eye to the WTPF. Which, BTW, will be held the week before the IGF consultation and MAG meeting in May—would be a good time to come to Geneva if possible. Regardless of the particular outcomes from WCIT, it might be worthwhile to folks to consider what exactly is meant by participatory multistakeholder governance, and even elaborate what some of the more obvious aspects of such processes look like for future reference. For example, solicitation of input on various proposals is one component, but equally important is providing a process for those inputs to be heard during consideration of the issues. Another point is whether the multistakeholder process requires some recording of the major tradeoffs or compromises that were made towards achieving an outcome. I believe some more formal guidance and outreach on what makes for effective multistakeholder processes would be very helpful, not only in this context but also for the various Internet institutions (such as ICANN and the RIRs) If such guidance already exists somewhere in a simple straightforward fom (and I just have overlooked it), then pointers to same would be appreciated. Thanks! /John Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not the result of a closed committee compromise and may actually be discussed on their own merits. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 09:22:18 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:22:18 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> <50C9CD0C.6030201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50C9E49A.8020205@cafonso.ca> I think McTim does not need to take such a staunch defense of an incredibly powerful organization such as Google. On the other hand, the recent exchange shows the obvious -- big transnationals excel at "optimizing" tax obligations. My point continues to be: what should our tactics be regarding this complex issue? How to approach governments? Do they really care? etc etc frt rgds --c.a. On 12/13/2012 11:31 AM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Louis Pouzin (well) wrote: >> When an industry gets subsidies, like Boeing or Airbus, it's fiscally legal, >> except that each one, or their govt, may sue the other for unfair >> competition, usually in the WTO. >> >> When Google doesn't pay taxes > > > but they do pay taxes. Just not as much as some would like. > > Who is to say what is fair? the IGC? > > > , it's de facto subsidies, and unfair >> competition towards any non US business trying to compete with Google. It's >> actually double subsidies. Indeed subsidies are usually paid by govt wanting >> to help their national industry. In Google's case it's paid by govts (read >> taxpayers) in non US countries. Isn't scam ? > > International tax treaties allow such behavior, which we may agree is > sub-optimal for a number of reasons, but it is still legal. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 09:24:44 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:24:44 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <3D16AD59-D0C8-4416-83A6-C58621B24655@hserus.net> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> <2586C718-1F5E-42CB-8D97-5886D04A6EBB@hserus.net> <057901cdd935$ad003b20$0700b160$@gmail.com> <3D16AD59-D0C8-4416-83A6-C58621B24655@hserus.net> Message-ID: <50C9E52C.3090106@cafonso.ca> Yet another demo of mutual biting in defense or against a corporate entity which does not need our help at all :) --c.a. On 12/13/2012 11:39 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I have done my fair share of activism elsewhere (mostly on antispam laws and best practices) since at least the mid 1990s - I acknowledge that's comparatively recent, compared to several other people in this space. > > I still do call a spade a spade. And a trial by kangaroo court a trial by kangaroo court. > > So - again, what is google doing different compared to, say, any large manufacturing corporation or any other corporation with a presence spread across several countries? > > And what locus standi does any sort of igov based civil society have in these issues? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 13-Dec-2012, at 18:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Suresh, >> >> Given the quite evident contempt that you feel for civil society and for those who are attempting to develop positions in the global public interest I`m wondering why you continue in this space except to function as a troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29 >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:00 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes >> >> When and where they do cross a line, there are tax authorities eager to sue to collect penalty, and there are courts to pronounce on the matter. Entirely without benefit of CS making pious statements. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 13-Dec-2012, at 17:24, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: >> >>> Dear Parm, unfortunately (again) I am unable to follow up closely on the thread. But one point intrigues me: taxes are determined by governments within their geopolitical boundaries. Why don't governments charge appropriate taxes (if any) on services such as Google's? >>> >>> The point is: I do not think a corporation of that size just evades taxes and keeps an eye for what may happen. The certainly know about tax legislation in the countries they have operations. >>> >>> What is the proper way to define a policy on this for us? >>> >>> frt rgds >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 12/13/2012 02:33 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! >>>> It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and >>>> advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered >>>> operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German >>>> legislature, and so on. >>>> >>>> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy >>>> is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its >>>> profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional >>>> questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and >>>> its coordinator. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>> More on Bloomberg: >>>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-i >>>>> n-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out >>>>> against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the >>>>> release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. >>>>> >>>>> Source: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e938181 >>>>> 7-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >>>>> taxes) >>>>> >>>>> Posted By TelecomTV One >>>>> , >>>>> 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >>>>> | >>>>> [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an >>>>> average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] (0) >>>>> Tags: /Google >>>>> / >>>>> /corporate >>>>> / /tax >>>>> / >>>>> /Finance >>>>> / >>>>> >>>>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >>>>> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing >>>>> income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just >>>>> 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>>>> >>>>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >>>>> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and >>>>> corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, >>>>> we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal >>>>> requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the >>>>> politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the >>>>> amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms >>>>> are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with >>>>> far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to >>>>> contribute to your share as well. >>>>> >>>>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >>>>> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >>>>> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that >>>>> means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >>>>> >>>>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >>>>> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >>>>> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe >>>>> that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing >>>>> the level of available State support for the most needy) and could >>>>> be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that >>>>> Google is acting in an evil manner. >>>>> >>>>> An investigative report by Bloomberg >>>>> has >>>>> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide >>>>> income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a >>>>> Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years >>>>> ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a >>>>> Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by >>>>> reporters from Bloomberg. >>>>> >>>>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >>>>> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income >>>>> tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in >>>>> half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to >>>>> about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >>>>> >>>>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >>>>> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >>>>> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent >>>>> this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >>>>> >>>>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >>>>> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According >>>>> to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >>>>> >>>>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >>>>> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political >>>>> awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree >>>>> elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that >>>>> if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get cut.” >>>>> >>>>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered >>>>> the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely >>>>> nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. >>>>> >>>>> Advertisement >>>>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>>>> >>>>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 >>>>> per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, >>>>> it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg >>>>> says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects >>>>> revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to >>>>> another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. >>>>> Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >>>>> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the >>>>> tax haven of Bermuda. >>>>> >>>>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >>>>> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >>>>> Things We Know to be True” page on Google >>>>> ’s website is the >>>>> following: >>>>> >>>>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>>>> >>>>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything >>>>> but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to >>>>> shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of >>>>> these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no >>>>> indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but >>>>> there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >>>>> >>>>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you >>>>> can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that >>>>> corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the >>>>> right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to >>>>> boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the >>>>> sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ >>>>> positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see >>>>> why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>>>> >>>>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >>>>> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >>>>> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and >>>>> Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt >>>>> will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp >>>>> practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments >>>>> can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers >>>>> to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As >>>>> Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message >>>>> that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the >>>>> many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of >>>>> recession. >>>>> >>>>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some >>>>> leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT >>>>> industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and >>>>> out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for all. >>>>> >>>>> _Further reading: _The Pearse Trust >>>>> blog >>>>> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch >>>>> Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>> Suva >>>>> Fiji >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 08:49:18 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:49:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <50C9B07B.8000304@itforchange.net> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C996B0.3090205@itforchange.net> <50C9A8FD.3020000@itforchange.net> <50C9B07B.8000304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50C9DCDE.1010601@gmail.com> On 2012/12/13 12:39 PM, parminder wrote: > I mean that while tax accrual is of course national, the issue of fair > accrual and distribution in case of global businesses, especially when > transacted in the global cyberspace, in indeed an international issue > and not just national... Parminder, this is essentially a distribution issue - trickle up or trickle down. As McTim puts it, these games on tax that are played are legal... and with the fungibility of Intellectual Property Rights (ever wonder why DVD recorders cost way more than VCRs used to and are less available) and digital transactions ON TOP of a reckoning system that allows transfer pricing (for anything, digital or otherwise) this makes for a complex issue. But legality certainly matters. One has to add to the mix the US Congress (acting for their base, not the voters perhaps) tax holidays for repatriation of earnings sans tax, then we are talking about the issue in a more appropriate, imho, context... So looking at who benefits is important, in the context of how does the state through tax benefit/redistribute. Also important is the way common cause is made between public interest and the pursuit of profit. There is sometimes a good convergence and other times not. It depends. On 2012/12/13 01:54 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > What is the proper way to define a policy on this for us? Here there are technical issues, but also distributional ones. Those who make the free market/liberal type (at the risk of some oversimplification) arguments without taking market power/share/dominance into account seem to miss the seminal issues raised by this tax issue. On 2012/12/13 03:05 PM, McTim wrote: > but don't criticize companies for doing things that are legal! As the financial crisis shows, the problem IS what is legal. Is it fair? Is it just? Is it equitable? For civil society, and the remarkable Tax Justice Network (or UK UnCut) these are fair questions. And here we may well differ. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr Thu Dec 13 09:36:14 2012 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:36:14 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <50C9E52C.3090106@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <1355409374.6528.YahooMailClassic@web171301.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Dear Colleagues, I-Vission International (www.ivission.net ) is working on a project to develop local content in Cameroon: Digitising Cameroon laws (www.digitcamlaws.com ) DCL is an initiative developed to promote Cameroon laws and give citizens the possibility to appreciate and make suggestions to improve them through our web platform and as such we will be addressing the following needs: · The demystification and vulgarization of laws in Cameroon · Community involvement in developing promoting and enforcing laws in Cameroon We are looking for Volunteers, donors, techies and legal experts around the world to partner with us in this project. Kindly contact us by using the address below if you are interested or just pass the message through your local networks. A platform for exchange (comments, suggestions) was launched early today to get the conversation moving @ http://www.digitcamlaws.com/comments.htm  Internet users could as well: · Download laws in mp3 · Request the service of a lawyer on line · Visit our digital map for of incident reports · Submit an incident... Thanks in advance. regards, ___________________________________ Asama Abel Excel President and CEO I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué Douala Cameroon E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76 / T (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23 Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: ivission.internationl Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission ___________________________________ Asama Abel Excel President and CEO I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge BessenguéDouala Cameroon E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76 / T (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net  Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: ivission.internationlTwitter: www.twitter.com/ivission  NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission _______________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 Thu Dec 13 09:40:04 2012 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:40:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] ITU being forced to use Social Media/e-Diplomacy in damage control attempt Message-ID: Sarah Parkes (@sarahparkesitu) tweeted at 7:39 AM on Thu, Dec 13, 2012: #WCIT12-to help everyone understand the complex ins and outs of the treaty-making process, we've posted a new document: http://t.co/2xtzGilB (https://twitter.com/sarahparkesitu/status/279188716998766593) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr Thu Dec 13 09:41:38 2012 From: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr (International Ivission) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:41:38 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Local content development In-Reply-To: <1355409374.6528.YahooMailClassic@web171301.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1355409698.15337.YahooMailClassic@web171301.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Dear Colleagues, I-Vission International (www.ivission.net ) is working on a project to develop local content in Cameroon: Digitising Cameroon laws (www.digitcamlaws.com ) DCL is an initiative developed to promote Cameroon laws and give citizens the possibility to appreciate and make suggestions to improve them through our web platform and as such we will be addressing the following needs: · The demystification and vulgarization of laws in Cameroon · Community involvement in developing promoting and enforcing laws in Cameroon We are looking for Volunteers, donors, techies and legal experts around the world to partner with us in this project. Kindly contact us by using the address below if you are interested or just pass the message through your local networks. A platform for exchange (comments, suggestions) was launched early today to get the conversation moving @ http://www.digitcamlaws.com/comments.htm Internet users could as well: · Download laws in mp3 · Request the service of a lawyer on line · Visit our digital map for of incident reports · Submit an incident... Thanks in advance. regards, ___________________________________ Asama Abel Excel President and CEO I-VISSION INTERNATIONAL Box 13040 Blvd de la rep., Feu Rouge Bessengué Douala Cameroon E: ivissioninternational at yahoo.fr / excelasama at yahoo.fr : info at ivission.net T (bur): +237 33 76 55 76 / T (Mob): 99 44 43 91 / 76 14 26 23 Skype (office): i-vission (personal): excelasama Web: www.ivission.net Web album: www.flickr.com/ivission Facebook: ivission.internationl Twitter: www.twitter.com/ivission NWK: www.meetup.com/ivission _______________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 Thu Dec 13 09:46:51 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:46:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <057901cdd935$ad003b20$0700b160$@gmail.com> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> <2586C718-1F5E-42CB-8D97-5886D04A6EBB@hserus.net>,<057901cdd935$ad003b20$0700b160$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA56B3@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Mike, I find this accusation problematic. Suresh may or not haror "evident contempt [] for civil society" or just have a strong discrepancy in almost every issue with SOME of "those who are attempting to develop positions", in which case he would not be alone. I also differ from Carlos Afonso's characterization of Suresh's and McTim's (I think he also took a swipe at me) as defending Google. To be clear, the only point I think we three have made is that the tax thing is going to be productive. I'm out of that discussion as much as possible. As I wrote to Parminder a few hours ago, I won't interfere with the effort. 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: jueves, 13 de diciembre de 2012 07:27 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Suresh Ramasubramanian' Asunto: RE: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes Suresh, Given the quite evident contempt that you feel for civil society and for those who are attempting to develop positions in the global public interest I`m wondering why you continue in this space except to function as a troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29 M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 1:00 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes When and where they do cross a line, there are tax authorities eager to sue to collect penalty, and there are courts to pronounce on the matter. Entirely without benefit of CS making pious statements. --srs (iPad) On 13-Dec-2012, at 17:24, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Dear Parm, unfortunately (again) I am unable to follow up closely on the thread. But one point intrigues me: taxes are determined by governments within their geopolitical boundaries. Why don't governments charge appropriate taxes (if any) on services such as Google's? > > The point is: I do not think a corporation of that size just evades taxes and keeps an eye for what may happen. The certainly know about tax legislation in the countries they have operations. > > What is the proper way to define a policy on this for us? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 12/13/2012 02:33 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! >> It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and >> advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered >> operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German >> legislature, and so on. >> >> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy >> is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its >> profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional >> questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and >> its coordinator. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> More on Bloomberg: >>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-i >>> n-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out >>> against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the >>> release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. >>> >>> Source: >>> >>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e938181 >>> 7-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>> >>> >>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >>> taxes) >>> >>> Posted By TelecomTV One >>> , >>> 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >>> | >>> [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an >>> average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] (0) >>> Tags: /Google >>> / >>> /corporate >>> / /tax >>> / >>> /Finance >>> / >>> >>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >>> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing >>> income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just >>> 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>> >>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >>> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and >>> corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, >>> we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal >>> requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the >>> politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the >>> amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms >>> are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with >>> far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to >>> contribute to your share as well. >>> >>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >>> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >>> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that >>> means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >>> >>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >>> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >>> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe >>> that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing >>> the level of available State support for the most needy) and could >>> be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that >>> Google is acting in an evil manner. >>> >>> An investigative report by Bloomberg >>> has >>> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide >>> income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a >>> Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years >>> ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a >>> Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by >>> reporters from Bloomberg. >>> >>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >>> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income >>> tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in >>> half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to >>> about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >>> >>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >>> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >>> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent >>> this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >>> >>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >>> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According >>> to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >>> >>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >>> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political >>> awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree >>> elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that >>> if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get cut.” >>> >>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered >>> the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely >>> nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. >>> >>> Advertisement >>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>> >>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 >>> per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, >>> it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg >>> says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects >>> revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to >>> another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. >>> Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >>> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the >>> tax haven of Bermuda. >>> >>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >>> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >>> Things We Know to be True” page on Google >>> ’s website is the >>> following: >>> >>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>> >>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything >>> but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to >>> shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of >>> these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no >>> indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but >>> there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >>> >>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you >>> can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that >>> corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the >>> right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to >>> boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the >>> sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ >>> positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see >>> why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>> >>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >>> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >>> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and >>> Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt >>> will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp >>> practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments >>> can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers >>> to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As >>> Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message >>> that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the >>> many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of >>> recession. >>> >>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some >>> leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT >>> industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and >>> out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for all. >>> >>> _Further reading: _The Pearse Trust >>> blog >>> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch >>> Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 13 09:48:23 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:18:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <50C9E49A.8020205@cafonso.ca> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> <50C9CD0C.6030201@itforchange.net> <50C9E49A.8020205@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <7AF36C1F-A06D-41B6-A70D-CAF7F77C56CB@hserus.net> On 13-Dec-2012, at 19:52, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > I think McTim does not need to take such a staunch defense of an incredibly powerful organization such as Google. On the other hand, the recent exchange shows the obvious -- big transnationals excel at "optimizing" tax obligations. My point continues to be: what should our tactics be regarding this complex issue? How to approach governments? Do they really care? etc etc > There are ways to close these loopholes I expect. So - suggest workable legislation and regulation that can be used to close off "double irish" and similar methods. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 10:58:19 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:58:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] ITU being forced to use Social Media/e-Diplomacy in damage control attempt In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As far as I can see there is no ‘Sounding out the room’ mentioned in the Rules of Procedure of Conferences, Assemblies and Meetings mentioned in the ITU Basic Texts. Adam On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > > Sarah Parkes (@sarahparkesitu) tweeted at 7:39 AM on Thu, Dec 13, 2012: > > #WCIT12-to help everyone understand the complex ins and outs of the > treaty-making process, we've posted a new document: http://t.co/2xtzGilB > (https://twitter.com/sarahparkesitu/status/279188716998766593) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 13 11:21:43 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:51:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <049601cdd90e$ec3d1cd0$c4b75670$@gmail.com> <04b101cdd912$1c244470$546ccd50$@gmail.com> <04cc01cdd915$24eec1e0$6ecc45a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50CA0097.5080907@itforchange.net> Adam I am not sure in what reference are you quoting the IGC mandate. Can you pl clarify. I read from your interventions, and that of some others here, that IGC should /not/ take up an issue - however damaging it to be to the public interest - as long as a private company is within legal boundaries. Do I understand right therefore that if google, facebook or apple was to change some privacy setting in a deplorable manner, or make some very significant interference with users freedom of expression, all the while remaining within legal boundaries, we will never raise an objection; and that kind of thing would not be in our mandate? parminder On Thursday 13 December 2012 07:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:35 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Via Google >> >> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google-tax-evasion >> >> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Google-tax-evasion >> >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/09/is-google-avoiding-or-evading-taxes-in-the-uk/ >> > > "There seems to be some confusion over whether Google is dodging, > avoiding or evading corporate taxation in the UK. The first answer is > the most obvious: it’s not evading taxes because that is illegal, by > definition. Thus we would expect to see prosecutions if it were > evading tax. We’re not seeing prosecutions so we might conclude, > fairly, that there is no evasion going on." > > good of you to agree. > > and: > > "The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a > forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of > civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The > caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil > society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet > governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of > advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society > (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes." > > Adam > > > >> etc.etc. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:23 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes >> >> Tax evasion, are you suggesting google evades paying tax be illegal means? >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:13 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> I don`t think we are talking about ``voluntary`` tax... Rather we are talking about the lengths that corporations go to for tax avoidance/evasion... That I would guess is somewhat discretionary i.e. management decisions and not particularly transparent to shareholders. >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam >>> Peake >>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:59 AM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes >>> >>> Anyone on the list own Google shares? >>> >>> What would you do if Google paid a few billions of dollars in voluntary tax and the value of your shares dropped? >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> Adam, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I`m curious why you think this… I would have thought that governments >>>> are pretty much impervious to this kind of `lobbying` (jaded from >>>> experience) while corporations that have as their slogan things like >>>> `don`t be evil` might be extremely sensitive to this kind of public >>>> comment on their behaviour by Civil Society. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam >>>> Peake >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:36 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> write to politicians. to google would be just posturing. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas >>>> profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying >>>> and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered >>>> operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. >>>> >>>> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy >>>> is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its >>>> profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional questions >>>> ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its >>>> coordinator. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What does the list think? >>>> >>>> +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google >>>> >>>> -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As always the IGC decides >>>> >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>> More on Bloomberg: >>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in >>>> - no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against >>>> the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is >>>> almost impeccable with the WCIT. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Source: >>>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817 >>>> - >>>> 0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >>>> taxes) >>>> >>>> Posted By TelecomTV One , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments | (0) >>>> >>>> >>>> Tags: Google corporate tax Finance >>>> >>>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >>>> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income >>>> through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per >>>> cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>>> >>>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >>>> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations >>>> have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever >>>> respective governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, >>>> in most countries, we voted the politicians in to office). By all >>>> means try and mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, using >>>> whatever accepted mechanisms are available. But avoidance? That just >>>> means somebody else (with far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >>>> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >>>> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means >>>> tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >>>> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >>>> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe that >>>> depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level >>>> of available State support for the most >>>> needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must >>>> conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> An investigative report by Bloomberg has discovered that Google >>>> avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by >>>> shifting >>>> $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double >>>> its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed in a >>>> November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was >>>> discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >>>> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, >>>> thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. >>>> Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 >>>> per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >>>> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >>>> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent >>>> this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >>>> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to >>>> Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >>>> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness >>>> now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. >>>> People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to >>>> pay or services get cut.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the >>>> US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at >>>> all), it started to boycott the chain. >>>> >>>> Advertisement >>>> >>>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 >>>> per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it >>>> paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says >>>> Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues >>>> from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to another Irish >>>> subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments are then >>>> sent to yet another subsidiary in the Netherlands (with no employees, >>>> note) before finally reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >>>> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >>>> Things We Know to be True” page on Google’s website is the following: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but >>>> evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders >>>> to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely >>>> ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion >>>> that Google has acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I >>>> don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will >>>> only act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their >>>> fair share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then >>>> they’ll change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the >>>> so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured >>>> heavily in annual reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >>>> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >>>> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and >>>> Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt will >>>> soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. >>>> If governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up >>>> to customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google >>>> services. As Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the >>>> message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by >>>> the many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. >>>> Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do >>>> likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” >>>> slogan from your website once and for all. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Further reading: The Pearse Trust blog has a detailed explanation of >>>> the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t >>>> try and implement it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> >>>> Suva >>>> >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> >>>> Suva >>>> >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Dec 13 11:41:59 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 01:41:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <50CA0097.5080907@itforchange.net> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <049601cdd90e$ec3d1cd0$c4b75670$@gmail.com> <04b101cdd912$1c244470$546ccd50$@gmail.com> <04cc01cdd915$24eec1e0$6ecc45a0$@gmail.com> <50CA0097.5080907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder. *Internet Governance* Hope that makes things clear. Best, Adam On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:21 AM, parminder wrote: > > > Adam > > I am not sure in what reference are you quoting the IGC mandate. Can you pl > clarify. > > I read from your interventions, and that of some others here, that IGC > should not take up an issue - however damaging it to be to the public > interest - as long as a private company is within legal boundaries. Do I > understand right therefore that if google, facebook or apple was to change > some privacy setting in a deplorable manner, or make some very significant > interference with users freedom of expression, all the while remaining > within legal boundaries, we will never raise an objection; and that kind of > thing would not be in our mandate? > > parminder > > > On Thursday 13 December 2012 07:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:35 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > Via Google > > http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google-tax-evasion > > http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Google-tax-evasion > > http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/09/is-google-avoiding-or-evading-taxes-in-the-uk/ > > > "There seems to be some confusion over whether Google is dodging, > avoiding or evading corporate taxation in the UK. The first answer is > the most obvious: it’s not evading taxes because that is illegal, by > definition. Thus we would expect to see prosecutions if it were > evading tax. We’re not seeing prosecutions so we might conclude, > fairly, that there is no evasion going on." > > good of you to agree. > > and: > > "The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a > forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of > civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The > caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil > society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet > governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of > advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society > (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes." > > Adam > > > > etc.etc. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:23 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > Tax evasion, are you suggesting google evades paying tax be illegal means? > > Adam > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:13 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > I don`t think we are talking about ``voluntary`` tax... Rather we are > talking about the lengths that corporations go to for tax > avoidance/evasion... That I would guess is somewhat discretionary i.e. > management decisions and not particularly transparent to shareholders. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam > Peake > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:59 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > Anyone on the list own Google shares? > > What would you do if Google paid a few billions of dollars in voluntary tax > and the value of your shares dropped? > > Adam > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:50 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > Adam, > > > > I`m curious why you think this… I would have thought that governments > are pretty much impervious to this kind of `lobbying` (jaded from > experience) while corporations that have as their slogan things like > `don`t be evil` might be extremely sensitive to this kind of public > comment on their behaviour by Civil Society. > > > > M > > > > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam > Peake > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:36 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > > > -1 > > > > write to politicians. to google would be just posturing. > > > > Adam > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder > > wrote: > > > Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas > profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying > and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered > operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and > so on. > > Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy > is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its > profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such > re-distributional questions > ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its > coordinator. > > > > What does the list think? > > +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google > > -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google > > > > As always the IGC decides > > > parminder > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > More on Bloomberg: > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in > - no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > > Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against > the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is > almost impeccable with the WCIT. > > > > Source: > http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817 > - > 0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 > > > > Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in > taxes) > > Posted By TelecomTV One , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments | (0) > > > Tags: Google corporate tax Finance > > As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying > corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income > through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per > cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. > > Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax > avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations > have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever > respective governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, > in most countries, we voted the politicians in to office). By all > means try and mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, using > whatever accepted mechanisms are available. But avoidance? That just > means somebody else (with far less access to expensive and clever advisors) > has to contribute to your share as well. > > > > Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English > Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or > “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means > tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. > > > > Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that > avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and > mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe that > depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level > of available State support for the most > needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must > conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. > > > > An investigative report by Bloomberg has discovered that Google > avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by > shifting > $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double > its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed in a > November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was > discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. > > > > It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas > subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, > thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. > Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 > per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. > > > > Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 > trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 > trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent > this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. > > > > Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which > pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to > Richard Murphy of Tax Research: > > > > “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep > embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness > now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: > It’s us or them. > People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to > pay or services get cut.” > > > > Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the > US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at > all), it started to boycott the chain. > > Advertisement > > As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… > > > > The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 > per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it > paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says > Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues > from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to another Irish > subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments are then > sent to yet another subsidiary in the Netherlands (with no employees, > note) before finally reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. > > > > Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the > internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten > Things We Know to be True” page on Google’s website is the following: > > > > “You can make money without doing evil.” > > > > I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but > evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders > to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely > ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion > that Google has acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has > acted unethically. > > > > And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I > don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will > only act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their > fair share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then > they’ll change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the > so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured > heavily in annual reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax > positions. > > > > Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this > complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean > ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and > Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt will > soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp practices until they > are forced to make a change. > If governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up > to customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google > services. As Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the > message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by > the many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. > > > > Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. > Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do > likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” > slogan from your website once and for all. > > > > Further reading: The Pearse Trust blog has a detailed explanation of > the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t > try and implement it. > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Tel: +679 3544828 > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Tel: +679 3544828 > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 13 11:55:11 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:25:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <049601cdd90e$ec3d1cd0$c4b75670$@gmail.com> <04b101cdd912$1c244470$546ccd50$@gmail.com> <04cc01cdd915$24eec1e0$6ecc45a0$@gmail.com> <50CA0097.5080907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50CA086F.30707@itforchange.net> On Thursday 13 December 2012 10:11 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Parminder. > > *Internet Governance* > > Hope that makes things clear. I had agreed with you early in this discussion that we can address the letter to an appropriate international policy/ norm making governance venue/ forum, and asked you which one do you suggest.... And you havent answered the second part of my question, but I take it that you would never want IGC to ever get into censuring a private company's conduct.... . parminder > > Best, > > Adam > > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:21 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> Adam >> >> I am not sure in what reference are you quoting the IGC mandate. Can you pl >> clarify. >> >> I read from your interventions, and that of some others here, that IGC >> should not take up an issue - however damaging it to be to the public >> interest - as long as a private company is within legal boundaries. Do I >> understand right therefore that if google, facebook or apple was to change >> some privacy setting in a deplorable manner, or make some very significant >> interference with users freedom of expression, all the while remaining >> within legal boundaries, we will never raise an objection; and that kind of >> thing would not be in our mandate? >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Thursday 13 December 2012 07:34 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:35 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >> >> Via Google >> >> http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/11/23/0156212/australian-govt-pledges-action-on-google-tax-evasion >> >> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/Google-tax-evasion >> >> http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/08/09/is-google-avoiding-or-evading-taxes-in-the-uk/ >> >> >> "There seems to be some confusion over whether Google is dodging, >> avoiding or evading corporate taxation in the UK. The first answer is >> the most obvious: it’s not evading taxes because that is illegal, by >> definition. Thus we would expect to see prosecutions if it were >> evading tax. We’re not seeing prosecutions so we might conclude, >> fairly, that there is no evasion going on." >> >> good of you to agree. >> >> and: >> >> "The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a >> forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of >> civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The >> caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil >> society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet >> governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of >> advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society >> (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes." >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> etc.etc. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:23 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes >> >> Tax evasion, are you suggesting google evades paying tax be illegal means? >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:13 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >> >> I don`t think we are talking about ``voluntary`` tax... Rather we are >> talking about the lengths that corporations go to for tax >> avoidance/evasion... That I would guess is somewhat discretionary i.e. >> management decisions and not particularly transparent to shareholders. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam >> Peake >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:59 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes >> >> Anyone on the list own Google shares? >> >> What would you do if Google paid a few billions of dollars in voluntary tax >> and the value of your shares dropped? >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:50 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >> >> Adam, >> >> >> >> I`m curious why you think this… I would have thought that governments >> are pretty much impervious to this kind of `lobbying` (jaded from >> experience) while corporations that have as their slogan things like >> `don`t be evil` might be extremely sensitive to this kind of public >> comment on their behaviour by Civil Society. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam >> Peake >> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:36 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes >> >> >> >> -1 >> >> >> >> write to politicians. to google would be just posturing. >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder >> >> wrote: >> >> >> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas >> profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying >> and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered >> operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and >> so on. >> >> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy >> is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its >> profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such >> re-distributional questions >> ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its >> coordinator. >> >> >> >> What does the list think? >> >> +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google >> >> -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google >> >> >> >> As always the IGC decides >> >> >> parminder >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> More on Bloomberg: >> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in >> - no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against >> the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is >> almost impeccable with the WCIT. >> >> >> >> Source: >> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817 >> - >> 0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >> >> >> >> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >> taxes) >> >> Posted By TelecomTV One , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments | (0) >> >> >> Tags: Google corporate tax Finance >> >> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income >> through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per >> cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >> >> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations >> have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever >> respective governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, >> in most countries, we voted the politicians in to office). By all >> means try and mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, using >> whatever accepted mechanisms are available. But avoidance? That just >> means somebody else (with far less access to expensive and clever advisors) >> has to contribute to your share as well. >> >> >> >> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means >> tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >> >> >> >> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe that >> depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level >> of available State support for the most >> needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must >> conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. >> >> >> >> An investigative report by Bloomberg has discovered that Google >> avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by >> shifting >> $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double >> its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed in a >> November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was >> discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. >> >> >> >> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, >> thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. >> Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 >> per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >> >> >> >> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent >> this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >> >> >> >> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to >> Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >> >> >> >> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness >> now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: >> It’s us or them. >> People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to >> pay or services get cut.” >> >> >> >> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the >> US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at >> all), it started to boycott the chain. >> >> Advertisement >> >> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >> >> >> >> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 >> per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it >> paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says >> Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues >> from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to another Irish >> subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments are then >> sent to yet another subsidiary in the Netherlands (with no employees, >> note) before finally reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. >> >> >> >> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >> Things We Know to be True” page on Google’s website is the following: >> >> >> >> “You can make money without doing evil.” >> >> >> >> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but >> evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders >> to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely >> ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion >> that Google has acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has >> acted unethically. >> >> >> >> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I >> don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will >> only act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their >> fair share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then >> they’ll change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the >> so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured >> heavily in annual reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax >> positions. >> >> >> >> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and >> Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt will >> soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp practices until they >> are forced to make a change. >> If governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up >> to customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google >> services. As Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the >> message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by >> the many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. >> >> >> >> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. >> Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do >> likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” >> slogan from your website once and for all. >> >> >> >> Further reading: The Pearse Trust blog has a detailed explanation of >> the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t >> try and implement it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> P.O. Box 17862 >> >> Suva >> >> Fiji >> >> >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> P.O. Box 17862 >> >> Suva >> >> Fiji >> >> >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 11:57:14 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:57:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <50CA086F.30707@itforchange.net> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <049601cdd90e$ec3d1cd0$c4b75670$@gmail.com> <04b101cdd912$1c244470$546ccd50$@gmail.com> <04cc01cdd915$24eec1e0$6ecc45a0$@gmail.com> <50CA0097.5080907@itforchange.net> <50CA086F.30707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 11:55 AM, parminder wrote: > > And you havent answered the second part of my question, but I take it that > you would never want IGC to ever get into censuring a private company's > conduct.... . As usual, you are reading far more into other people posts than is warranted. -- 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Dec 13 13:54:15 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:54:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down Message-ID: A number of governments are refusing to sign. First article I've seen, will be many more http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-refuses-to-back-un-treaty-saying-it-endorses-restricting-the-internet/2012/12/13/ba497952-4548-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch www.williamdrake.org **************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 14:05:19 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:05:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You are there, can you comment? Many from delegations seem able to do so. Thanks, Adam On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:54 AM, William Drake wrote: > A number of governments are refusing to sign. First article I've seen, will > be many more > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-refuses-to-back-un-treaty-saying-it-endorses-restricting-the-internet/2012/12/13/ba497952-4548-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html > > > > *************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.williamdrake.org > **************************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 14:07:20 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:07:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate antitrust laws In-Reply-To: <20121213182803.GA18612@vortex.com> References: <20121213182803.GA18612@vortex.com> Message-ID: I will leave the editorialising to others... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lauren Weinstein Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:28 PM Subject: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate antitrust laws To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate antitrust laws http://j.mp/TdAByO (New York Post) "Federal regulators are expected to close a year-long probe of Google's search business without finding any antitrust violations, The Post has learned. The Federal Trade Commission is expected to announce before the end of the year that Google's search engine did not cause any consumer harm or favor its own businesses, sources close to the situation said." - - - Hoping this report from The New York Post is correct. There obviously has been no consumer harm, and the attacks on Google in this sphere have been driven by Google's competitors who just can't match the quality of Google's services on their own. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info Founder: - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info - Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com _______________________________________________ nnsquad mailing list http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad -- 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 william.drake at uzh.ch Thu Dec 13 14:14:36 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:14:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> No alas, I had to get back to Geneva on a 3am flight this morning, am skyping with CS people on the ground. vote 77 for, 33 against, 8 abstained On Dec 13, 2012, at 8:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > You are there, can you comment? Many from delegations seem able to do so. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:54 AM, William Drake wrote: >> A number of governments are refusing to sign. First article I've seen, will >> be many more >> >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-refuses-to-back-un-treaty-saying-it-endorses-restricting-the-internet/2012/12/13/ba497952-4548-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html >> >> >> >> *************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> www.williamdrake.org >> **************************************************** >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 13 14:35:00 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:35:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:14 AM, William Drake wrote: > No alas, I had to get back to Geneva on a 3am flight this morning, am skyping with CS people on the ground. > > vote 77 for, 33 against, 8 abstained > > How many member states were there, 150? 40 already off shopping (not insulting any country, but earlier Iraq mentioned a day for shopping in Dubai tomorrow would be nice -- oh the benefits of the vote.) Adam > > On Dec 13, 2012, at 8:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> You are there, can you comment? Many from delegations seem able to do so. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:54 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> A number of governments are refusing to sign. First article I've seen, will >>> be many more >>> >>> >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-refuses-to-back-un-treaty-saying-it-endorses-restricting-the-internet/2012/12/13/ba497952-4548-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html >>> >>> >>> >>> *************************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>> william.drake at uzh.ch >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> **************************************************** >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.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 13 14:36:28 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:36:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate antitrust laws In-Reply-To: References: <20121213182803.GA18612@vortex.com> Message-ID: Does the G in IGC now stand for Google? :-) Adam On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:07 AM, McTim wrote: > I will leave the editorialising to others... > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Lauren Weinstein > Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:28 PM > Subject: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did > not violate antitrust laws > To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org > > > > New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate > antitrust laws > > http://j.mp/TdAByO (New York Post) > > "Federal regulators are expected to close a year-long probe of Google's > search business without finding any antitrust violations, The Post has > learned. The Federal Trade Commission is expected to announce before > the end of the year that Google's search engine did not cause any > consumer harm or favor its own businesses, sources close to the > situation said." > > - - - > > Hoping this report from The New York Post is correct. There obviously > has been no consumer harm, and the attacks on Google in this sphere > have been driven by Google's competitors who just can't match the > quality of Google's services on their own. > > --Lauren-- > Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren > Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: > http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info Founder: > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org > - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info > - Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org > - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: > http://www.gctip.org > Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com > Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com > _______________________________________________ > nnsquad mailing list > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad > > > > -- > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 14:45:46 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:45:46 +1300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate antitrust laws In-Reply-To: References: <20121213182803.GA18612@vortex.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Does the G in IGC now stand for Google? > > :-) > > Adam > > It is entertaining to watch feathers ruffled when criticisms against Google is launched. Google is not bad - really, it is not a monster - it has done and continues to lots of great work - but the whole point of Internet Governance is to engage in discussions on issues that affect stakeholders. We are very appreciative of the wonderful things that Google has done in relation to helping Japan recover from the Tsunami through getting victims to post messages - helping out in Haiti during the earth quake. At the same time there are certain aspects of Google's operations that require discussion. The same can be said when critiquing other stakeholders within the Internet Governance and the point is not the critiquing but in the constructive dialogue of how things can be improved to impact on the average end user. > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:07 AM, McTim wrote: > > I will leave the editorialising to others... > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Lauren Weinstein > > Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:28 PM > > Subject: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google > did > > not violate antitrust laws > > To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org > > > > > > > > New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate > > antitrust laws > > > > http://j.mp/TdAByO (New York Post) > > > > "Federal regulators are expected to close a year-long probe of > Google's > > search business without finding any antitrust violations, The Post > has > > learned. The Federal Trade Commission is expected to announce before > > the end of the year that Google's search engine did not cause any > > consumer harm or favor its own businesses, sources close to the > > situation said." > > > > - - - > > > > Hoping this report from The New York Post is correct. There obviously > > has been no consumer harm, and the attacks on Google in this sphere > > have been driven by Google's competitors who just can't match the > > quality of Google's services on their own. > > > > --Lauren-- > > Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren > > Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: > > http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info Founder: > > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org > > - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info > > - Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org > > - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: > > http://www.gctip.org > > Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy > > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com > > Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: > http://vortex.com/t-lauren > > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com > > _______________________________________________ > > nnsquad mailing list > > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 sana.pryhod at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 14:56:57 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:56:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Is there the list of votes? 2012/12/13 Adam Peake : > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:14 AM, William Drake wrote: >> No alas, I had to get back to Geneva on a 3am flight this morning, am skyping with CS people on the ground. >> >> vote 77 for, 33 against, 8 abstained >> >> > > > How many member states were there, 150? 40 already off shopping (not > insulting any country, but earlier Iraq mentioned a day for shopping > in Dubai tomorrow would be nice -- oh the benefits of the vote.) > > Adam > > >> >> On Dec 13, 2012, at 8:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> You are there, can you comment? Many from delegations seem able to do so. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:54 AM, William Drake wrote: >>>> A number of governments are refusing to sign. First article I've seen, will >>>> be many more >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-refuses-to-back-un-treaty-saying-it-endorses-restricting-the-internet/2012/12/13/ba497952-4548-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *************************************************** >>>> William J. Drake >>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch >>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>> **************************************************** >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 14:59:58 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:59:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > Is there the list of votes? > show of hands (paddles) They are doing first reading now if any are interested, but they don't appear to be accepting any real changes: ">> CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. We will take note of it. Article 1 approved. Thank you. Article 2 in its entirety. Thank you. Approved. Article 3. Perhaps I will go slower here. 3.1. Thank you. Approved. 3.2. Approved. Thank you. 3.3. Approved. Thank you. 3.4. Thank you. Approved. 31A or 3.5, sorry. Approved. Thank you. 3.6. That's CLI. Approved. Thank you. 3.7. Approved. Thank you. Now to Article 4 and 4.1. Approved. Thank you. 4.2. Thank you. 4.3. So I will take A, B, C and D. Approved. Thank you. 4.4. Thank you. 4.5. Thank you. 4.6. Parguay? >> Parguay: Thank you, Chairman. I don't know if this is the time to make observations about the translation because the problem with the Spanish version we have charges being translated wrongly. It is expenses currently in the Spanish version. Thank you. >> CHAIR: Thank you. I will take note of it. Thank you for bringing it up. Thank you. 4.6. Agreed. Thank you. 4.7. Agreed. Thank you. Article 5, and 5.1. Agreed. Thank you. 5.2. Agreed. Thank you. 5.3. Agreed. Thank you. 5.4. Agreed. Thank you. Article 5A, the title with the provision. Agreed. Thank you. Article 5B, the title Egypt. >> EGYPT: Mr. Chairman, I think the robustness and network should be -- the R should be capital and the N should be capital it is a heading. " -- 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 13 15:05:06 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:05:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> Message-ID: So there is no way to know how our official delegation voted? 2012/12/13 McTim : > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Oksana Prykhodko > wrote: >> >> Is there the list of votes? > > > show of hands (paddles) > > They are doing first reading now if any are interested, but they don't > appear to be accepting any real changes: > > ">> CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. We will take note of it. Article 1 approved. > Thank you. > Article 2 in its entirety. Thank you. Approved. Article 3. Perhaps I will go > slower here. 3.1. > Thank you. Approved. 3.2. Approved. Thank you. 3.3. Approved. Thank you. > 3.4. Thank > you. Approved. > 31A or 3.5, sorry. Approved. Thank you. 3.6. That's CLI. Approved. Thank > you. 3.7. > Approved. Thank you. Now to Article 4 and 4.1. Approved. Thank you. 4.2. > Thank you. > 4.3. So I will take A, B, C and D. Approved. Thank you. 4.4. Thank you. 4.5. > Thank you. > 4.6. Parguay? >>> Parguay: Thank you, Chairman. I don't know if this is the time to make >>> observations > about the translation because the problem with the Spanish version we have > charges being > translated wrongly. It is expenses currently in the Spanish version. Thank > you. >>> CHAIR: Thank you. I will take note of it. Thank you for bringing it up. >>> Thank you. > 4.6. Agreed. Thank you. 4.7. Agreed. Thank you. Article 5, and 5.1. Agreed. > Thank you. > 5.2. Agreed. Thank you. 5.3. Agreed. Thank you. 5.4. Agreed. Thank you. > Article 5A, > the title with the provision. Agreed. Thank you. Article 5B, the title > Egypt. >>> EGYPT: Mr. Chairman, I think the robustness and network should be -- the >>> R should > be capital and the N should be capital it is a heading. " > > > -- > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 15:12:12 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:12:12 +1300 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> Message-ID: http://www.commsday.com/uncategorized/wcit-collapses-us-uk-allies-refuse-to-sign-treaty-after-africa-wins-floor-vote http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/13/net-us-telecom-treaty-scrutiny-idUSBRE8BC1AF20121213 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20717774 Some interesting links -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Thu Dec 13 15:12:24 2012 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:12:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: ,<95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> ,, Message-ID: McTimThe Iranian representative yesterday pointed out that people will approve the articles due to exhaustion. I sense the exhaustion. From: dogwallah at gmail.com Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:59:58 -0500 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; sana.pryhod at gmail.com CC: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; william.drake at uzh.ch Subject: Re: [governance] WCIT melt down On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: Is there the list of votes? show of hands (paddles) They are doing first reading now if any are interested, but they don't appear to be accepting any real changes: ">> CHAIR: Okay. Thank you. We will take note of it. Article 1 approved. Thank you. Article 2 in its entirety. Thank you. Approved. Article 3. Perhaps I will go slower here. 3.1. Thank you. Approved. 3.2. Approved. Thank you. 3.3. Approved. Thank you. 3.4. Thank you. Approved. 31A or 3.5, sorry. Approved. Thank you. 3.6. That's CLI. Approved. Thank you. 3.7. Approved. Thank you. Now to Article 4 and 4.1. Approved. Thank you. 4.2. Thank you. 4.3. So I will take A, B, C and D. Approved. Thank you. 4.4. Thank you. 4.5. Thank you. 4.6. Parguay? >> Parguay: Thank you, Chairman. I don't know if this is the time to make observations about the translation because the problem with the Spanish version we have charges being translated wrongly. It is expenses currently in the Spanish version. Thank you. >> CHAIR: Thank you. I will take note of it. Thank you for bringing it up. Thank you. 4.6. Agreed. Thank you. 4.7. Agreed. Thank you. Article 5, and 5.1. Agreed. Thank you. 5.2. Agreed. Thank you. 5.3. Agreed. Thank you. 5.4. Agreed. Thank you. Article 5A, the title with the provision. Agreed. Thank you. Article 5B, the title Egypt. >> EGYPT: Mr. Chairman, I think the robustness and network should be -- the R should be capital and the N should be capital it is a heading. " -- 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 declan at well.com Thu Dec 13 15:13:22 2012 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:13:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50CA36E2.9020109@well.com> Looks like CNET has an article up: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559034-38/u.n-summit-implodes-as-u.s-others-spurn-internet-treaty/ ...alliance of Western democracies including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada today rejected a proposed treaty over concerns it hands repressive governments too much authority over the Internet. "This conference was never meant to focus on Internet issues," said ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the Dubai summit. "The Internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social benefit during these past 24 years -- all without U.N. regulation." Delegates from the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, and the Czech Republic also said they could not sign the proposed International Telecommunication Union treaty, which is scheduled to be finished by tomorrow. Kenya's delegate appeared to take the same position, saying "we reserve our rights" to "go back home and do more consultations" before signing... -Declan On 12/13/12 10:54 AM, William Drake wrote: > A number of governments are refusing to sign. First article I've seen, > will be many more > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-refuses-to-back-un-treaty-saying-it-endorses-restricting-the-internet/2012/12/13/ba497952-4548-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html > > > > *************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.williamdrake.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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Dec 13 15:24:40 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 05:24:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <50CA36E2.9020109@well.com> References: <50CA36E2.9020109@well.com> Message-ID: Hi Declan, Kenya held a public consultation (online and face to face meeting) before WCIT, and carrying the consensus from that consultation to WCIT meant it broke with the African block opinion. So the natural thing to do is again consult on whether to sign or not. Good, it's a fine example. Adam On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Looks like CNET has an article up: > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559034-38/u.n-summit-implodes-as-u.s-others-spurn-internet-treaty/ > ...alliance of Western democracies including the United States, the United > Kingdom, and Canada today rejected a proposed treaty over concerns it hands > repressive governments too much authority over the Internet. > "This conference was never meant to focus on Internet issues," said > ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the Dubai summit. > "The Internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social benefit > during these past 24 years -- all without U.N. regulation." > Delegates from the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, and > the Czech Republic also said they could not sign the proposed International > Telecommunication Union treaty, which is scheduled to be finished by > tomorrow. Kenya's delegate appeared to take the same position, saying "we > reserve our rights" to "go back home and do more consultations" before > signing... > > -Declan > > > On 12/13/12 10:54 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >> A number of governments are refusing to sign. First article I've seen, >> will be many more >> >> >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-refuses-to-back-un-treaty-saying-it-endorses-restricting-the-internet/2012/12/13/ba497952-4548-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html >> >> >> >> *************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> www.williamdrake.org >> **************************************************** >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 sana.pryhod at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 15:31:39 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:31:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <50CA36E2.9020109@well.com> Message-ID: Any word about Ukraine( And one more question 77+33+8 =118 But there are 193 members of ITU? 2012/12/13 Adam Peake : > Hi Declan, > > Kenya held a public consultation (online and face to face meeting) > before WCIT, and carrying the consensus from that consultation to WCIT > meant it broke with the African block opinion. So the natural thing > to do is again consult on whether to sign or not. Good, it's a fine > example. > > Adam > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: >> Looks like CNET has an article up: >> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559034-38/u.n-summit-implodes-as-u.s-others-spurn-internet-treaty/ >> ...alliance of Western democracies including the United States, the United >> Kingdom, and Canada today rejected a proposed treaty over concerns it hands >> repressive governments too much authority over the Internet. >> "This conference was never meant to focus on Internet issues," said >> ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the Dubai summit. >> "The Internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social benefit >> during these past 24 years -- all without U.N. regulation." >> Delegates from the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, and >> the Czech Republic also said they could not sign the proposed International >> Telecommunication Union treaty, which is scheduled to be finished by >> tomorrow. Kenya's delegate appeared to take the same position, saying "we >> reserve our rights" to "go back home and do more consultations" before >> signing... >> >> -Declan >> >> >> On 12/13/12 10:54 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> A number of governments are refusing to sign. First article I've seen, >>> will be many more >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-refuses-to-back-un-treaty-saying-it-endorses-restricting-the-internet/2012/12/13/ba497952-4548-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html >>> >>> >>> >>> *************************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>> william.drake at uzh.ch >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> **************************************************** >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 15:39:26 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:39:26 +1300 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <50CA36E2.9020109@well.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > Any word about Ukraine( > > And one more question > 77+33+8 =118 > > But there are 193 members of ITU? > Some probably did not fly there or were too tired from the Climate Change talks or were busy with the UN Security Council meeting in North Korea - the WCIT is one of the many interesting things happening at the same time. > > > 2012/12/13 Adam Peake : > > Hi Declan, > > > > Kenya held a public consultation (online and face to face meeting) > > before WCIT, and carrying the consensus from that consultation to WCIT > > meant it broke with the African block opinion. So the natural thing > > to do is again consult on whether to sign or not. Good, it's a fine > > example. > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Declan McCullagh > wrote: > >> Looks like CNET has an article up: > >> > >> > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559034-38/u.n-summit-implodes-as-u.s-others-spurn-internet-treaty/ > >> ...alliance of Western democracies including the United States, the > United > >> Kingdom, and Canada today rejected a proposed treaty over concerns it > hands > >> repressive governments too much authority over the Internet. > >> "This conference was never meant to focus on Internet issues," said > >> ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the Dubai > summit. > >> "The Internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social > benefit > >> during these past 24 years -- all without U.N. regulation." > >> Delegates from the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, > and > >> the Czech Republic also said they could not sign the proposed > International > >> Telecommunication Union treaty, which is scheduled to be finished by > >> tomorrow. Kenya's delegate appeared to take the same position, saying > "we > >> reserve our rights" to "go back home and do more consultations" before > >> signing... > >> > >> -Declan > >> > >> > >> On 12/13/12 10:54 AM, William Drake wrote: > >>> > >>> A number of governments are refusing to sign. First article I've seen, > >>> will be many more > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-refuses-to-back-un-treaty-saying-it-endorses-restricting-the-internet/2012/12/13/ba497952-4548-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *************************************************** > >>> William J. Drake > >>> International Fellow & Lecturer > >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland > >>> william.drake at uzh.ch > >>> www.williamdrake.org > >>> **************************************************** > >>> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro 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 sana.pryhod at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 15:45:04 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:45:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <50CA36E2.9020109@well.com> Message-ID: So, is this voting legitimate? Thank you very much for all your answers to my stupid questions! 2012/12/13 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Oksana Prykhodko > wrote: >> >> Any word about Ukraine( >> >> And one more question >> 77+33+8 =118 >> >> But there are 193 members of ITU? > > > Some probably did not fly there or were too tired from the Climate Change > talks or were busy with the UN Security Council meeting in North Korea - the > WCIT is one of the many interesting things happening at the same time. >> >> >> >> 2012/12/13 Adam Peake : >> > Hi Declan, >> > >> > Kenya held a public consultation (online and face to face meeting) >> > before WCIT, and carrying the consensus from that consultation to WCIT >> > meant it broke with the African block opinion. So the natural thing >> > to do is again consult on whether to sign or not. Good, it's a fine >> > example. >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Declan McCullagh >> > wrote: >> >> Looks like CNET has an article up: >> >> >> >> >> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559034-38/u.n-summit-implodes-as-u.s-others-spurn-internet-treaty/ >> >> ...alliance of Western democracies including the United States, the >> >> United >> >> Kingdom, and Canada today rejected a proposed treaty over concerns it >> >> hands >> >> repressive governments too much authority over the Internet. >> >> "This conference was never meant to focus on Internet issues," said >> >> ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the Dubai >> >> summit. >> >> "The Internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social >> >> benefit >> >> during these past 24 years -- all without U.N. regulation." >> >> Delegates from the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, >> >> and >> >> the Czech Republic also said they could not sign the proposed >> >> International >> >> Telecommunication Union treaty, which is scheduled to be finished by >> >> tomorrow. Kenya's delegate appeared to take the same position, saying >> >> "we >> >> reserve our rights" to "go back home and do more consultations" before >> >> signing... >> >> >> >> -Declan >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12/13/12 10:54 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> >> >>> A number of governments are refusing to sign. First article I've seen, >> >>> will be many more >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-refuses-to-back-un-treaty-saying-it-endorses-restricting-the-internet/2012/12/13/ba497952-4548-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> *************************************************** >> >>> William J. Drake >> >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >> >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> >>> william.drake at uzh.ch >> >>> www.williamdrake.org >> >>> **************************************************** >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 15:49:51 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:49:51 +1300 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <50CA36E2.9020109@well.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > So, is this voting legitimate? > I am actually not sure if the voting is legitimate. > > Thank you very much for all your answers to my stupid questions! > Your questions are not stupid. They help us stay informed. > > 2012/12/13 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>: > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Oksana Prykhodko > > > wrote: > >> > >> Any word about Ukraine( > >> > >> And one more question > >> 77+33+8 =118 > >> > >> But there are 193 members of ITU? > > > > > > Some probably did not fly there or were too tired from the Climate Change > > talks or were busy with the UN Security Council meeting in North Korea - > the > > WCIT is one of the many interesting things happening at the same time. > >> > >> > >> > >> 2012/12/13 Adam Peake : > >> > Hi Declan, > >> > > >> > Kenya held a public consultation (online and face to face meeting) > >> > before WCIT, and carrying the consensus from that consultation to WCIT > >> > meant it broke with the African block opinion. So the natural thing > >> > to do is again consult on whether to sign or not. Good, it's a fine > >> > example. > >> > > >> > Adam > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Declan McCullagh > >> > wrote: > >> >> Looks like CNET has an article up: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559034-38/u.n-summit-implodes-as-u.s-others-spurn-internet-treaty/ > >> >> ...alliance of Western democracies including the United States, the > >> >> United > >> >> Kingdom, and Canada today rejected a proposed treaty over concerns it > >> >> hands > >> >> repressive governments too much authority over the Internet. > >> >> "This conference was never meant to focus on Internet issues," said > >> >> ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the Dubai > >> >> summit. > >> >> "The Internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social > >> >> benefit > >> >> during these past 24 years -- all without U.N. regulation." > >> >> Delegates from the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, > >> >> and > >> >> the Czech Republic also said they could not sign the proposed > >> >> International > >> >> Telecommunication Union treaty, which is scheduled to be finished by > >> >> tomorrow. Kenya's delegate appeared to take the same position, saying > >> >> "we > >> >> reserve our rights" to "go back home and do more consultations" > before > >> >> signing... > >> >> > >> >> -Declan > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 12/13/12 10:54 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> A number of governments are refusing to sign. First article I've > seen, > >> >>> will be many more > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-refuses-to-back-un-treaty-saying-it-endorses-restricting-the-internet/2012/12/13/ba497952-4548-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> *************************************************** > >> >>> William J. Drake > >> >>> International Fellow & Lecturer > >> >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > >> >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland > >> >>> william.drake at uzh.ch > >> >>> www.williamdrake.org > >> >>> **************************************************** > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> >> > >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> >> > >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> > To be removed from the list, visit: > >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: > >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > 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 ggithaiga at hotmail.com Thu Dec 13 15:51:57 2012 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:51:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: ,<50CA36E2.9020109@well.com>,,,,, Message-ID: Treaty making explained: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/treaties.aspx Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:49:51 +1300 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com To: sana.pryhod at gmail.com CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ajp at glocom.ac.jp; declan at well.com; william.drake at uzh.ch Subject: Re: [governance] WCIT melt down On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: So, is this voting legitimate? I am actually not sure if the voting is legitimate. Thank you very much for all your answers to my stupid questions! Your questions are not stupid. They help us stay informed. 2012/12/13 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Oksana Prykhodko > wrote: >> >> Any word about Ukraine( >> >> And one more question >> 77+33+8 =118 >> >> But there are 193 members of ITU? > > > Some probably did not fly there or were too tired from the Climate Change > talks or were busy with the UN Security Council meeting in North Korea - the > WCIT is one of the many interesting things happening at the same time. >> >> >> >> 2012/12/13 Adam Peake : >> > Hi Declan, >> > >> > Kenya held a public consultation (online and face to face meeting) >> > before WCIT, and carrying the consensus from that consultation to WCIT >> > meant it broke with the African block opinion. So the natural thing >> > to do is again consult on whether to sign or not. Good, it's a fine >> > example. >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Declan McCullagh >> > wrote: >> >> Looks like CNET has an article up: >> >> >> >> >> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559034-38/u.n-summit-implodes-as-u.s-others-spurn-internet-treaty/ >> >> ...alliance of Western democracies including the United States, the >> >> United >> >> Kingdom, and Canada today rejected a proposed treaty over concerns it >> >> hands >> >> repressive governments too much authority over the Internet. >> >> "This conference was never meant to focus on Internet issues," said >> >> ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the Dubai >> >> summit. >> >> "The Internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social >> >> benefit >> >> during these past 24 years -- all without U.N. regulation." >> >> Delegates from the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, >> >> and >> >> the Czech Republic also said they could not sign the proposed >> >> International >> >> Telecommunication Union treaty, which is scheduled to be finished by >> >> tomorrow. Kenya's delegate appeared to take the same position, saying >> >> "we >> >> reserve our rights" to "go back home and do more consultations" before >> >> signing... >> >> >> >> -Declan >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12/13/12 10:54 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >>> >> >>> A number of governments are refusing to sign. First article I've seen, >> >>> will be many more >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-refuses-to-back-un-treaty-saying-it-endorses-restricting-the-internet/2012/12/13/ba497952-4548-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> *************************************************** >> >>> William J. Drake >> >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >> >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> >>> william.drake at uzh.ch >> >>> www.williamdrake.org >> >>> **************************************************** >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka SalaP.O. Box 17862SuvaFiji Twitter: @SalanietaTSkype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828Fiji 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 sana.pryhod at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 15:54:21 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:54:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <50CA36E2.9020109@well.com> Message-ID: Thank you very much, Sala and all) Ukrainian official position was not discussed openly, a lot of our objections were ignored. Official delegation consists only of officials ot the most close (security) agencies. If we will receive confirmation that they voted for Russian propositions, we will declare them distrust. 2012/12/13 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Oksana Prykhodko > wrote: >> >> So, is this voting legitimate? > > > I am actually not sure if the voting is legitimate. >> >> >> Thank you very much for all your answers to my stupid questions! > > > Your questions are not stupid. They help us stay informed. >> >> >> 2012/12/13 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> : >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Oksana Prykhodko >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Any word about Ukraine( >> >> >> >> And one more question >> >> 77+33+8 =118 >> >> >> >> But there are 193 members of ITU? >> > >> > >> > Some probably did not fly there or were too tired from the Climate >> > Change >> > talks or were busy with the UN Security Council meeting in North Korea - >> > the >> > WCIT is one of the many interesting things happening at the same time. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2012/12/13 Adam Peake : >> >> > Hi Declan, >> >> > >> >> > Kenya held a public consultation (online and face to face meeting) >> >> > before WCIT, and carrying the consensus from that consultation to >> >> > WCIT >> >> > meant it broke with the African block opinion. So the natural thing >> >> > to do is again consult on whether to sign or not. Good, it's a fine >> >> > example. >> >> > >> >> > Adam >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:13 AM, Declan McCullagh >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> Looks like CNET has an article up: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57559034-38/u.n-summit-implodes-as-u.s-others-spurn-internet-treaty/ >> >> >> ...alliance of Western democracies including the United States, the >> >> >> United >> >> >> Kingdom, and Canada today rejected a proposed treaty over concerns >> >> >> it >> >> >> hands >> >> >> repressive governments too much authority over the Internet. >> >> >> "This conference was never meant to focus on Internet issues," said >> >> >> ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the Dubai >> >> >> summit. >> >> >> "The Internet has given the world unimaginable economic and social >> >> >> benefit >> >> >> during these past 24 years -- all without U.N. regulation." >> >> >> Delegates from the Netherlands, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, >> >> >> Poland, >> >> >> and >> >> >> the Czech Republic also said they could not sign the proposed >> >> >> International >> >> >> Telecommunication Union treaty, which is scheduled to be finished by >> >> >> tomorrow. Kenya's delegate appeared to take the same position, >> >> >> saying >> >> >> "we >> >> >> reserve our rights" to "go back home and do more consultations" >> >> >> before >> >> >> signing... >> >> >> >> >> >> -Declan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 12/13/12 10:54 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> A number of governments are refusing to sign. First article I've >> >> >>> seen, >> >> >>> will be many more >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-refuses-to-back-un-treaty-saying-it-endorses-restricting-the-internet/2012/12/13/ba497952-4548-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> *************************************************** >> >> >>> William J. Drake >> >> >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >> >> >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> >> >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> >> >>> william.drake at uzh.ch >> >> >>> www.williamdrake.org >> >> >>> **************************************************** >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> > >> >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> > >> >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> > P.O. Box 17862 >> > Suva >> > Fiji >> > >> > Twitter: @SalanietaT >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Dec 13 18:39:39 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:39:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Besides, it is a great moment to share a recently published paper by Dr. Panayotis A. *Yannakogeorgos **on INet Governance and National Security. It is a normative piece asking for the US to unilaterally "regain" control over Internet Governance. After all, according to his rationale, the US has been releasing control over the INet for things the ITU and the IGF. Unfortunately, these sort of agenda influences a lot US foreign and domestic politics.* On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < > diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> \o/ well stated Marilia. >> My concern is always related to the hand of the Leviathan: it tends to be >> the heaviest one. 2011 and the bills you mentioned shall never be >> forgotten. >> > > I agree with Marilia ... > Thank you also for your remarks Diego, the WCIT reminds of of Hobbes and > the Leviathan...:) > -- 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: yannakogeorgos.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 269245 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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Dec 13 18:47:02 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 23:47:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] What exactly was the objectionable provision/language? "These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services." caused the vote [Milton L Mueller] That's what I was afraid of. So this is a more troublesome and complex issue than it might appear. In essence, countries such as Sudan have been complaining about the ability of the US govt to impose sanctions on them for human rights violations. These sanctions mean that people in those countries - not just the government, mind you, but everyone, innocent and guilty alike - are denied access to Internet services such as Google, Sourceforge, domain name registrars such as GoDaddy, Oracle, Windows Live Messenger, etc. I can understand why there would be adamant opposition to a claim to a right to access Internet services, because it would mean that the ITRs could be used to compel Internet service providers to serve particular states, when they might choose (privately) not to. However, as a form of imposed state-state action, I am not so sanguine about protecting the ability of some governments to gang up on others using the IG regime. Suppose that the US decided to deny access to the domain name root zone resolution to, say Iran (.ir), because of its bad HR record. And make no mistake about it, the Iranian government is about as bad as it gets with respect to human rights. But would we want ICANN/the Internet governance regime to be used as a political/strategic tool in this fashion? Or suppose that ICANN decided to exclude Syria from the GAC. Certainly Syria is a criminal regime. But do we want ICANN to be a neutral meeting ground for all parties or not? Serious issues at stake here. Also, I note that the offending language "These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services" does not include the word "Internet." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 18:47:33 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 04:47:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> Message-ID: The challenge here is that for much of the developing world with national telecom regulators, there are already firewalls, filters, blocks and DPI implemented and can so for Pakistan. The WCIT/ITRs would have not suggested the other way to remove such challenges and authority. The impact of what has been decided at WCIT is indeed premature and the present only presents normative views that will surely get challenged as we move on. Civil Society will have to be vigilant beyond the WCIT/ITRs and continue to raise our voice against the mistreatment already taking place as well as to any future efforts. Even before the WCIT/ITRs, the ITU Cybercrime Initiative and the efforts of the Commonwealth CCI pose challenges to how countries interpret these agendas and attempt to design and move forward with legislation that may tread on the freedoms of citizens in developing countries. The ITRs are just one bullet point of the set of problems we face. CS be vigilant towards attempts by governments that have already put in place measures to counter or interfere FoE and HR.... ....Beyond ITRs, where are we and where do we go from here? FooDaBytes! On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:37 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On 12/13/12 2:16 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> >> Only in a twisted society lack of dialogue and understanding will be >> seen as victory and only irresponsible people celebrate failure. > > > Is another explanation that the US/UK/Japan/Australia/NZ/Sweden/etc. axis > heard plenty of "dialogue" from the China/Russia/Iran/Algeria axis and had > plenty of "understanding" about where they were coming from? > > -Declan > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 ggithaiga at hotmail.com Thu Dec 13 17:00:53 2012 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:00:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Having turned industries and governments upside down, the Internet has claimed its first organizational scalp, subjecting the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to a humiliating failure at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai earlier today. Read on: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-telecoms-a From: lmcknigh at syr.edu To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:53:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/140705 Includes nuggets of info, new at least to me. http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/140705 Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 17:45:06 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:45:06 +1100 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: +1 – well stated Marilia From: Marilia Maciel Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 9:16 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Grace Githaiga Subject: Re: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency Only in a twisted society lack of dialogue and understanding will be seen as victory and only irresponsible people celebrate failure. The bright side was that bad proposals about Internet were avoided, at least for now. The bad side is that good proposals from the ITRs seem to be lost, and the meeting proves that the rift is widening between actors. The consequence may be more attempts for national regulation in a myriad of topics, from national firewalls to SOPA, PIPA or domain name seizures from the US gov. But wait: aren't the US the ultimate freedom fighters according to .nxt? Marília On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: Having turned industries and governments upside down, the Internet has claimed its first organizational scalp, subjecting the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to a humiliating failure at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai earlier today. Read on: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-telecoms-a ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: lmcknigh at syr.edu To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:53:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/140705 Includes nuggets of info, new at least to me. http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/140705 Lee ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Dec 13 16:53:38 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:53:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?US-ASCII?Q?http=3A//www=2Emultichannel=2Ecom/techn?= =?US-ASCII?Q?ology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/140705?= Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Includes nuggets of info, new at least to me. http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/140705 Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Dec 13 17:53:32 2012 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 23:53:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8109713139486384252@unknownmsgid> It is a bit premature to draw final conclusions, especially involving such hyperbole as the quoted article contains. We will see which countries sign the Final Act in Dubai tomorrow and which do not, and what statements countries make during the ceremony. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. On 13 Dec 2012, at 23:45, Ian Peter wrote: +1 – well stated Marilia *From:* Marilia Maciel *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2012 9:16 AM *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Grace Githaiga *Subject:* Re: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency Only in a twisted society lack of dialogue and understanding will be seen as victory and only irresponsible people celebrate failure. The bright side was that bad proposals about Internet were avoided, at least for now. The bad side is that good proposals from the ITRs seem to be lost, and the meeting proves that the rift is widening between actors. The consequence may be more attempts for national regulation in a myriad of topics, from national firewalls to SOPA, PIPA or domain name seizures from the US gov. But wait: aren't the US the ultimate freedom fighters according to .nxt? Marília On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: > Having turned industries and governments upside down, the Internet has > claimed its first organizational scalp, subjecting the United Nations' > International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to a humiliating failure at the > World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai > earlier today. > > Read on: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-telecoms-a > ------------------------------ > From: lmcknigh at syr.edu > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:53:38 +0000 > Subject: [governance] > http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/140705 > > > Includes nuggets of info, new at least to me. > > > http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/140705 > > Lee > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil ------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.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 declan at well.com Thu Dec 13 18:37:14 2012 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:37:14 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> On 12/13/12 2:16 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Only in a twisted society lack of dialogue and understanding will be > seen as victory and only irresponsible people celebrate failure. Is another explanation that the US/UK/Japan/Australia/NZ/Sweden/etc. axis heard plenty of "dialogue" from the China/Russia/Iran/Algeria axis and had plenty of "understanding" about where they were coming from? -Declan -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 18:29:24 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:29:24 +1300 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > \o/ well stated Marilia. > My concern is always related to the hand of the Leviathan: it tends to be > the heaviest one. 2011 and the bills you mentioned shall never be > forgotten. > I agree with Marilia ... Thank you also for your remarks Diego, the WCIT reminds of of Hobbes and the Leviathan...:) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Dec 13 17:11:18 2012 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:11:18 -0200 Subject: [governance] WCIT country positions map Message-ID: <-6857336373564610691@unknownmsgid> Dear All, This map gives an idea of who has said, so far, that they will not sign the ITRs. http://www.ipv.sx/wcit/ Sent from one of my handheld thingies, please forgive linguistic mangling -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Dec 13 16:48:33 2012 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:48:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] WCIT-12 Country "Positions" Message-ID: For those who were asking about the captioned, this link was just circulated on another list. It seems helpful in an analysis of the issue: http://www.ipv.sx/wcit/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 18:50:15 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 23:50:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Agree with Declan here. It may be true that no new ITRs is the best available outcome. I don't agree with the idea that we are compelled to find an "agreement" when no principled basis for agreement exists. > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > > On 12/13/12 2:16 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Only in a twisted society lack of dialogue and understanding will be > > seen as victory and only irresponsible people celebrate failure. > > Is another explanation that the US/UK/Japan/Australia/NZ/Sweden/etc. > axis heard plenty of "dialogue" from the China/Russia/Iran/Algeria axis > and had plenty of "understanding" about where they were coming from? > > -Declan -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 17:16:57 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:16:57 -0200 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Only in a twisted society lack of dialogue and understanding will be seen as victory and only irresponsible people celebrate failure. The bright side was that bad proposals about Internet were avoided, at least for now. The bad side is that good proposals from the ITRs seem to be lost, and the meeting proves that the rift is widening between actors. The consequence may be more attempts for national regulation in a myriad of topics, from national firewalls to SOPA, PIPA or domain name seizures from the US gov. But wait: aren't the US the ultimate freedom fighters according to .nxt? Marília On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: > Having turned industries and governments upside down, the Internet has > claimed its first organizational scalp, subjecting the United Nations' > International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to a humiliating failure at the > World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai > earlier today. > > Read on: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-telecoms-a > ------------------------------ > From: lmcknigh at syr.edu > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:53:38 +0000 > Subject: [governance] > http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/140705 > > > Includes nuggets of info, new at least to me. > > > http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/140705 > > Lee > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Dec 13 18:25:06 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:25:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: \o/ well stated Marilia. My concern is always related to the hand of the Leviathan: it tends to be the heaviest one. 2011 and the bills you mentioned shall never be forgotten. On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Only in a twisted society lack of dialogue and understanding will be seen > as victory and only irresponsible people celebrate failure. > The bright side was that bad proposals about Internet were avoided, at > least for now. The bad side is that good proposals from the ITRs seem to be > lost, and the meeting proves that the rift is widening between actors. The > consequence may be more attempts for national regulation in a myriad of > topics, from national firewalls to SOPA, PIPA or domain name seizures from > the US gov. But wait: aren't the US the ultimate freedom fighters according > to .nxt? > > Marília > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: > >> Having turned industries and governments upside down, the Internet has >> claimed its first organizational scalp, subjecting the United Nations' >> International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to a humiliating failure at the >> World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai >> earlier today. >> >> Read on: >> http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-telecoms-a >> ------------------------------ >> From: lmcknigh at syr.edu >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:53:38 +0000 >> Subject: [governance] >> http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/140705 >> >> >> Includes nuggets of info, new at least to me. >> >> >> http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/140705 >> >> Lee >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Dec 13 17:13:33 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 22:13:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> References: ,<95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1726C0@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Just short of a 2/3rds majority in favor is not good. In the land of 'global' treaties that's way too many objections. Reservations treaties can live with; pre-emptive no's to big things like - Internet, or not....are another matter. When is a standard not a standard? When...it's not. Likewise for a not global treaty and a global net My instant geopolitical analysis, assuming final yays and nays ratio remains <2/3rds favoring in final count: no matter how tired folks are on the ground in Dubai, it ain't over. A Part III likely has to pop up again in x years to salvage anything for ITU, certainly in less than 24 years. Or we are stuck with the status quo now augmented by half-Dead on Arrival 'ITRs'. Some around current processes might find it amusing observing governments and ITU managing to.....well anyway. But it's not really that funny. Any talk re what comes next from folks on the ground? Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of William Drake [william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 2:14 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] WCIT melt down No alas, I had to get back to Geneva on a 3am flight this morning, am skyping with CS people on the ground. vote 77 for, 33 against, 8 abstained On Dec 13, 2012, at 8:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > You are there, can you comment? Many from delegations seem able to do so. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:54 AM, William Drake wrote: >> A number of governments are refusing to sign. First article I've seen, will >> be many more >> >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-refuses-to-back-un-treaty-saying-it-endorses-restricting-the-internet/2012/12/13/ba497952-4548-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html >> >> >> >> *************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> www.williamdrake.org >> **************************************************** >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 18:12:14 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:12:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:08 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > What exactly was the objectionable provision/language? > "These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services." caused the vote -- 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 amedinagomez at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 18:09:20 2012 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:09:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Parece un fulminante y bien recibido fracaso " El Internet ha dado al mundo inimaginable beneficio económico y social durante estos últimos 24 años. Todos, sin regulación de las Naciones Unidas . Nosotros francamente no podemos apoyar un Tratado UIT que es incompatible con el modelo de múltiples partes interesadas de la gobernanza de Internet ". Antonio Medina 2012/12/13 Grace Githaiga > Having turned industries and governments upside down, the Internet has > claimed its first organizational scalp, subjecting the United Nations' > International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to a humiliating failure at the > World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai > earlier today. > > Read on: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-telecoms-a > ------------------------------ > From: lmcknigh at syr.edu > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:53:38 +0000 > Subject: [governance] > http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/140705 > > > Includes nuggets of info, new at least to me. > > > http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/140705 > > Lee > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Thu Dec 13 18:08:53 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 23:08:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> What exactly was the objectionable provision/language? From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 2:15 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Subject: Re: [governance] WCIT melt down No alas, I had to get back to Geneva on a 3am flight this morning, am skyping with CS people on the ground. vote 77 for, 33 against, 8 abstained On Dec 13, 2012, at 8:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > You are there, can you comment? Many from delegations seem able to do so. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:54 AM, William Drake > wrote: >> A number of governments are refusing to sign. First article I've seen, will >> be many more >> >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-refuses-to-back-un-treaty-saying-it-endorses-restricting-the-internet/2012/12/13/ba497952-4548-11e2-8e70-e1993528222d_story.html >> >> >> >> *************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> www.williamdrake.org >> **************************************************** >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Thu Dec 13 18:50:22 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:50:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <13C67B00-85D7-408B-A234-C8AA23121334@istaff.org> On Dec 13, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Only in a twisted society lack of dialogue and understanding will be seen as victory and only irresponsible people celebrate failure. I agree, but will also observe that if the goal was improved dialogue and understanding of the issues, I cannot fathom a worse process than the one provided by the ITU at WCIT for accomplishing such. As a sector member present at the meeting, there were many occasions where more common ground may have been found, if actual forthright discussion of the underlying problems and solutions being proposed via particular text were allowed. Instead, the process was epic tragedy of closed private meetings and procedural games, with quite predictable results. FYI, /John Disclaimers: None. This email is my official multistakeholder summary of this mailing lists full consideration of this topic, as prepared under the newest Dubai "multistakeholder" definition, in which each of you can send inputs but they won't actually be considered by my decisional processes. Enjoy your participation... ;-) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 19:10:57 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:10:57 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> On Dec 13, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Agree with Declan here. It may be true that no new ITRs is the best available outcome. I don't agree with the idea that we are compelled to find an "agreement" when no principled basis for agreement exists. Fully agree. It's very unfortunate that there was some principled basis for agreement (for example, with respect to enabling mobile roaming globally, and working to a globally coordinated emergency services number) but agreement in these areas will be lost due to insistence on Internet matters in the final ITR text by some governments which is in direct conflict with insistence that no Internet reference appear in the ITRs by some other governments. In most of the Internet institutions I'm aware of (IETF, RIRs), this would result in an final ratifying the areas common agreement, and the areas of significant disagreement being left out to be discussed at a further time. Alas, this is apparently not how governments handle these situations, or at least not in the plenary in Dubai. /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Feel free to insert brackets around anything you disagree with in order to make your own version. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 19:18:49 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:18:49 -0500 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > **** > > What exactly was the objectionable provision/language?**** > > "These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States to > international telecommunication services." **** > > caused the vote**** > > ** ** > > *[Milton L Mueller] That’s what I was afraid of. * > > * * > > *So this is a more troublesome and complex issue than it might appear. In > essence, countries such as Sudan have been complaining about the ability of > the US govt to impose sanctions on them for human rights violations. These > sanctions mean that people in those countries – not just the government, > mind you, but everyone, innocent and guilty alike – are denied access to > Internet services such as Google, Sourceforge, domain name registrars such > as GoDaddy, Oracle, Windows Live Messenger, etc.* > ACK. Not good for the Internet economy there. > * * > > * * > > *I can understand why there would be adamant opposition to a claim to a > right to access Internet services, because it would mean that the ITRs > could be used to compel Internet service providers to serve particular > states, when they might choose (privately) not to. However, as a form of > imposed state-state action, I am not so sanguine about protecting the > ability of some governments to gang up on others using the IG regime. * > > * * > > *Suppose that the US decided to deny access to the domain name root zone > resolution to, say Iran (.ir), because of its bad HR record. * > How exactly would they do that? > * And make no mistake about it, the Iranian government is about as bad as > it gets with respect to human rights. But would we want ICANN/the Internet > governance regime to be used as a political/strategic tool in this fashion? > * > > * * > > *Or suppose that ICANN decided to exclude Syria from the GAC.* > * Certainly Syria is a criminal regime. But do we want ICANN to be a > neutral meeting ground for all parties or not?* > yes. Who decides who gets in the GAC? -- 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 declan at well.com Thu Dec 13 19:19:53 2012 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:19:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> Message-ID: <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> Many of you here on the list know orders or magnitude more than I do about this topic and what happened in the behind-the-scenes negotiations. But as someone who's not an insider, it seems like this was a real missed opportunity (for some of the reasons that John listed). If the ITU had kept references to the Internet out of the treaty (and meant it), they wouldn't have felt the need to add the human rights language that vexed China/Algeria/Malaysia/etc., and they would be declaring victory right now instead of wondering what just hit them. Is what happened here that the ITU et al badly misjudged the situation and tried to call a bluff -- which actually wasn't one? -Declan On 12/13/12 4:10 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 13, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Agree with Declan here. It may be true that no new ITRs is the best available outcome. I don't agree with the idea that we are compelled to find an "agreement" when no principled basis for agreement exists. > > Fully agree. It's very unfortunate that there was some principled basis for > agreement (for example, with respect to enabling mobile roaming globally, and > working to a globally coordinated emergency services number) but agreement in > these areas will be lost due to insistence on Internet matters in the final > ITR text by some governments which is in direct conflict with insistence that > no Internet reference appear in the ITRs by some other governments. > > In most of the Internet institutions I'm aware of (IETF, RIRs), this would > result in an final ratifying the areas common agreement, and the areas of > significant disagreement being left out to be discussed at a further time. > > Alas, this is apparently not how governments handle these situations, or at > least not in the plenary in Dubai. > > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. Feel free to insert brackets around anything > you disagree with in order to make your own version. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 19:28:02 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:28:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Suppose that the US decided to deny access to the domain name root zone resolution to, say Iran (.ir), because of its bad HR record. How exactly would they do that? [Milton L Mueller] They could apply the same sanctions to ICANN - which is in U.S. jurisdiction - that they apply to Oracle, MSFT, GoDaddy, etc. They could decide that ICANN was providing "services" to the sanctioned country. Certainly Syria is a criminal regime. But do we want ICANN to be a neutral meeting ground for all parties or not? yes. Who decides who gets in the GAC? [Milton L Mueller] [Milton L Mueller] ICANN bylaws. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 19:30:53 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:30:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Declan McCullagh [mailto:declan at well.com] > > If the ITU had kept references to the Internet out of the treaty (and > meant it), [Milton L Mueller] Uh, they DID keep references to the internet out of the treaty. The only references to the internet were stuffed into a non-binding plenary resolution that did not really give the ITU any actual governance authority over anything. > what happened here that the ITU et al badly misjudged the situation and > tried to call a bluff -- which actually wasn't one? > [Milton L Mueller] For an understanding of "what happened here" so forthcoming IGP blog post. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 19:52:27 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:52:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B172433@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <1524077266.36067.1355162508669.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k12> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B172433@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7D6E04D8-0334-471E-A3A1-6859D5B8D1AC@istaff.org> In addition to the APA, I also found an excellent reference over at the IEEE, regarding their standard development processes complying to the WTO/TBT Agreement "WTO Principles for International Standardization" It makes for some very interesting reading, and might make a useful gauge in evaluating and comparing various policy development processes via similar principles. FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. (While I will endeavor to review ARIN against these principles, and propose changes as needed, ultimately the community will have to determine the degree of applicability to our policy development efforts...) On Dec 13, 2012, at 6:08 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > John, > > Agreed re need for 'participatory multistakeholder governance for dummies' or some more elegant title ; ) > > I've long been suggesting a key part of that need not be reinvented to help ICANN stay on the semi-straight and narrow, if we follow along the lines of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946. > > The key analogies from the APA for multistakeholder processes relate to - fair administrative process. The multistakeholder participation part is not clear in a 1946 law, but hey. And I'm sure there are other exemplars from around the world, likely more recent. From wikipedia: > > adjudication and rulemaking. (p. 5) Agency adjudication was broken down further into two distinct phases of formal and informal adjudication. (Ibid.) Formal adjudication involve a trial-like hearing with witness testimony, a written record and a final decision. Under informal adjudication, however, agency decisions are made without formal trial-like procedures, using "inspections, conferences and negotiations" instead. (Ibid.) Because formal adjudication produces a record of proceedings and a final decision, it may be subject to judicial review. As for rulemaking resulting in agency rules and regulations, the Final Report noted that many agencies provided due process through hearings and investigations, but there was still a need for well-defined, uniform standards for agency adjudication and rulemaking procedures. > > 'Adjudication and rulemaking' may not be the words used by ICANN when constructing eg the gTLD process, but that's what it is. With multistakeholder participation. > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of John Curran [jcurran at istaff.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:31 AM > To: William Drake > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory? > > On Dec 10, 2012, at 11:24 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> About 20 CS people met today with SG Toure in Dubai. He has the letter, and the main points were repeated verbally. No immediate commitments on these or real replies to specific questions on items like public participation in the May WTPF, but folks were varyingly optimistic that a dialogue has been opened and there's something to build on. >> >> In the meanwhile, the wider situation has evolved here. With the parties far apart on many issues and basically two days left to negotiate, small groups of government reps from xxx countries (not clear exactly who/how many) went behind closed doors at 10:30pm to see if they can pull a rabbit out of a hat (or insert your preferred metaphor) and come back to plenary tomorrow at 11 am with something for everyone to work on. So contrary to some rumors that were floating about, there's no SG text, and at the moment the likelihood of a magic compromise vs. a train wreck is pretty hard to work out. Many variables interacting, so one could paint diametrically opposed but equally plausible scenarios. >> >> In this stressed context, I don't think there's going to be a lot of energy devoted to responding to CS concerns about transparency and inclusion. Nevertheless, the caucus may wish to endorse the letter to be on record alongside other advocacy groups and networks, particularly with an eye to the WTPF. Which, BTW, will be held the week before the IGF consultation and MAG meeting in May—would be a good time to come to Geneva if possible. > > Regardless of the particular outcomes from WCIT, it might be worthwhile to folks > to consider what exactly is meant by participatory multistakeholder governance, > and even elaborate what some of the more obvious aspects of such processes > look like for future reference. > > For example, solicitation of input on various proposals is one component, but > equally important is providing a process for those inputs to be heard during > consideration of the issues. Another point is whether the multistakeholder > process requires some recording of the major tradeoffs or compromises that > were made towards achieving an outcome. > > I believe some more formal guidance and outreach on what makes for effective > multistakeholder processes would be very helpful, not only in this context but > also for the various Internet institutions (such as ICANN and the RIRs) If such > guidance already exists somewhere in a simple straightforward fom (and I just > have overlooked it), then pointers to same would be appreciated. > > Thanks! > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. These views were not the result of a closed > committee compromise and may actually be discussed on their own merits. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Thu Dec 13 19:56:43 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:56:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Whew, we just dodged that bullet, hun!?... We were told WSIS was out to take over the internet... now, aren't they loving WCIT? Some may be thinking tonight it wouldn't have been a bad idea to enable IGF --not to make policy, but-- clearly to feed into some global, multistakeholder, meaningful policy-making process. I'm not sure, but could that have been a more likely way to preempt the ambitions of some old international organization whose raison d'etre was to regulate telegraph, as The Economist would remind us? Echoing some of Marillia's concerns above, I'm not sure who's winning here, though. Neither do I suggest that signing the current version of ITRs would be or would have been a victory --to whomever. The sad thing is that still many of the very governments who oppose certain language to be included in the treaty under the claim that it will provide cover to some bad (anti-freedom) governments, will also some day make arbitrary or unfair decisions about the internet (arbitrary or unfair from the standpoint of those very principles they publicly base their position on). The only option we are left with, it seems, is to support/ally with the latter governments because, more often than not, they have been on the right side of history --whatever that means. But let's make no mistake: all governments, whether reputed freedom champions or evil, reserve the right to make wrong decisions, including by the public's interest and rights, under the shadow of their sovereignty --and they will use that peculiar right, even against those public's rights, whenever it suits them and they can get away with it. The difference is: some of them just don't need the license/legitimization of a treaty to do so even beyond their borders, nor do they want to help deliver a forum where they could be publicly held to account for those actions; while some others feel their standing may be augmented by the existence of such treaty which formalizes the obligations and responsibilities of all, but most importantly in their eye, the obligations and responsibilities of the other (more powerful) players. (In any case, this latter category of governments might think, we are known to be the bad guys anyway, so no big deal if we get caught time to time.) It seems we are entering a world where treaties will become less and less possible, except on a few issues where there's already a large consensus, perhaps something like a world of minimal service diplomacy on the big (yet non lethal) issues, a diplomacy left to operate on the basis of respectability and good intentions?... Yet, it also seems to me the world will increasingly face problems that have more than two sides to them -- good and bad, winning and losing sides. Or is one of these two conditions the cause of the other? What has diplomacy to do with the internet, anyway? In case you wonder, this is not about establishing false equivalencies... We're just not in a WCIT celebratory mood. Cheers all the same! Mawaki P.S. For those who have been making a parallel between NWICO and WSIS, you may now want to try your brain on NWICO vs WCIT... some of the connections may be troubling and you might enjoy that! On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Declan McCullagh [mailto:declan at well.com] >> >> If the ITU had kept references to the Internet out of the treaty (and >> meant it), > > [Milton L Mueller] Uh, they DID keep references to the internet out of the treaty. The only references to the internet were stuffed into a non-binding plenary resolution that did not really give the ITU any actual governance authority over anything. > >> what happened here that the ITU et al badly misjudged the situation and >> tried to call a bluff -- which actually wasn't one? >> > [Milton L Mueller] For an understanding of "what happened here" so forthcoming IGP blog post. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 jcurran at istaff.org Thu Dec 13 19:57:40 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:57:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <480E019E-A771-4CBB-B6CE-57DAC838B94B@istaff.org> On Dec 13, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Declan McCullagh [mailto:declan at well.com] >> >> If the ITU had kept references to the Internet out of the treaty (and >> meant it), > > [Milton L Mueller] Uh, they DID keep references to the internet out of the treaty. The only references to the internet were stuffed into a non-binding plenary resolution that did not really give the ITU any actual governance authority over anything. Milton is correct, in that some progress was made over the last week in removing Internet-specific language from the revised ITR text... i.e. the language most hostile to the Internet was indeed dropped, but the "Internet Resolution" was added, and it directed Member States "to elaborate on their respective positions on international Internet-related technical, development and public-policy issues within the mandate of ITU at various ITU forums..." While not giving the ITU any authority, per se, it does have Member States effectively acknowledging that there are (unspecified) Internet-related public-policy issues that fall within the mandate of ITU and which will be discussed at ITU fora. FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Post-conference sleep deprivation may interfere with my reporting, and in any case, multiple perspectives should be sought before evaluating the foibles of any multi-day wordsmithing and posturing event... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 20:02:53 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:32:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate antitrust laws In-Reply-To: References: <20121213182803.GA18612@vortex.com> Message-ID: <8387AD2E-9158-4DCC-AB3D-40291BD9CB97@hserus.net> It is more like we would like to remain focused. Tax avoidance is not internet governance. Nor is this. If we all got back to discussing outcomes from this vote that got forced at Dubai, and leave google versus various regulators each to their own devices? --srs (iPad) On 14-Dec-2012, at 1:15, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Does the G in IGC now stand for Google? >> >> :-) >> >> Adam > > It is entertaining to watch feathers ruffled when criticisms against Google is launched. > > Google is not bad - really, it is not a monster - it has done and continues to lots of great work - but the whole point of Internet Governance is to engage in discussions on issues that affect stakeholders. We are very appreciative of the wonderful things that Google has done in relation to helping Japan recover from the Tsunami through getting victims to post messages - helping out in Haiti during the earth quake. At the same time there are certain aspects of Google's operations that require discussion. > > The same can be said when critiquing other stakeholders within the Internet Governance and the point is not the critiquing but in the constructive dialogue of how things can be improved to impact on the average end user. > > >> >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:07 AM, McTim wrote: >> > I will leave the editorialising to others... >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: Lauren Weinstein >> > Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:28 PM >> > Subject: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did >> > not violate antitrust laws >> > To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org >> > >> > >> > >> > New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate >> > antitrust laws >> > >> > http://j.mp/TdAByO (New York Post) >> > >> > "Federal regulators are expected to close a year-long probe of Google's >> > search business without finding any antitrust violations, The Post has >> > learned. The Federal Trade Commission is expected to announce before >> > the end of the year that Google's search engine did not cause any >> > consumer harm or favor its own businesses, sources close to the >> > situation said." >> > >> > - - - >> > >> > Hoping this report from The New York Post is correct. There obviously >> > has been no consumer harm, and the attacks on Google in this sphere >> > have been driven by Google's competitors who just can't match the >> > quality of Google's services on their own. >> > >> > --Lauren-- >> > Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren >> > Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: >> > http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info Founder: >> > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org >> > - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info >> > - Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org >> > - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: >> > http://www.gctip.org >> > Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy >> > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com >> > Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren >> > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com >> > _______________________________________________ >> > nnsquad mailing list >> > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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 >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 20:02:34 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:02:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > **** > > *Suppose that the US decided to deny access to the domain name root > zone resolution to, say Iran (.ir), because of its bad HR record. ***** > > How exactly would they do that?**** > > **** > > *[Milton L Mueller] They could apply the same sanctions to ICANN – which > is in U.S. jurisdiction – that they apply to Oracle, MSFT, GoDaddy, etc. * > > *They could decide that ICANN was providing “services” to the sanctioned > country.* > If so, there are still some root-ops who would not abide by those sanctions, no? > **** > > *Certainly Syria is a criminal regime. But do we want ICANN to be a > neutral meeting ground for all parties or not?***** > > yes. Who decides who gets in the GAC? **** > > * * > > *[Milton L Mueller] * > > *[Milton L Mueller] ICANN bylaws.* > so you are saying it's the Board? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 20:06:58 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:06:58 +1300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate antitrust laws In-Reply-To: <8387AD2E-9158-4DCC-AB3D-40291BD9CB97@hserus.net> References: <20121213182803.GA18612@vortex.com> <8387AD2E-9158-4DCC-AB3D-40291BD9CB97@hserus.net> Message-ID: > > > If we all got back to discussing outcomes from this vote that got forced > at Dubai, and leave google versus various regulators each to their own > devices? > > --srs (iPad) > Some would argue otherwise and say that this is linked to the motivations behind some of the MNCs position as they lobby and advocate at the WCIT. It is the responsibility of civil society to explore and tease out some of these motivations particularly when the interests often masquerade behind fighting for a free and open internet. Numerous posts on this thread and on the topic prior to your joining us in the IGC and I invite you to go through the archives, pour through some of the literature that abounds on the matter. For the record, this is part of Internet Governance. > > On 14-Dec-2012, at 1:15, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Does the G in IGC now stand for Google? >> >> :-) >> >> Adam >> >> > It is entertaining to watch feathers ruffled when criticisms against > Google is launched. > > Google is not bad - really, it is not a monster - it has done and > continues to lots of great work - but the whole point of Internet > Governance is to engage in discussions on issues that affect stakeholders. > We are very appreciative of the wonderful things that Google has done in > relation to helping Japan recover from the Tsunami through getting victims > to post messages - helping out in Haiti during the earth quake. At the same > time there are certain aspects of Google's operations that require > discussion. > > The same can be said when critiquing other stakeholders within the > Internet Governance and the point is not the critiquing but in the > constructive dialogue of how things can be improved to impact on the > average end user. > > > >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:07 AM, McTim wrote: >> > I will leave the editorialising to others... >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: Lauren Weinstein >> > Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:28 PM >> > Subject: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that >> Google did >> > not violate antitrust laws >> > To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org >> > >> > >> > >> > New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate >> > antitrust laws >> > >> > http://j.mp/TdAByO (New York Post) >> > >> > "Federal regulators are expected to close a year-long probe of >> Google's >> > search business without finding any antitrust violations, The Post >> has >> > learned. The Federal Trade Commission is expected to announce >> before >> > the end of the year that Google's search engine did not cause any >> > consumer harm or favor its own businesses, sources close to the >> > situation said." >> > >> > - - - >> > >> > Hoping this report from The New York Post is correct. There obviously >> > has been no consumer harm, and the attacks on Google in this sphere >> > have been driven by Google's competitors who just can't match the >> > quality of Google's services on their own. >> > >> > --Lauren-- >> > Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren >> > Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: >> > http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info Founder: >> > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org >> > - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info >> > - Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org >> > - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: >> > http://www.gctip.org >> > Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy >> > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com >> > Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: >> http://vortex.com/t-lauren >> > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com >> > _______________________________________________ >> > nnsquad mailing list >> > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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 >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 declan at well.com Thu Dec 13 20:08:22 2012 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:08:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50CA7C06.3040301@well.com> On 12/13/12 4:30 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> If the ITU had kept references to the Internet out of the treaty (and >> meant it), > [Milton L Mueller] Uh, they DID keep references to the internet out of the treaty. The only references to the internet were stuffed into a non-binding plenary resolution that did not really give the ITU any actual governance authority over anything. Right, I was typing quickly. Let me rephrase to: kept references to the Internet out of the treaty and accompanying resolutions. -Declan -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 20:20:47 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:50:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate antitrust laws In-Reply-To: References: <20121213182803.GA18612@vortex.com> <8387AD2E-9158-4DCC-AB3D-40291BD9CB97@hserus.net> Message-ID: <0587B0E9-6D53-45A1-BEAF-63A901B68E0F@hserus.net> No thank you. Most of the discussion sounds only too familiar to me from similar lists before the Athens IGF. I don't see as broad a consensus for your assertion below though. For, as Adam Peake reminded us all, it is called "Internet" governance. --srs (iPad) On 14-Dec-2012, at 6:36, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: >> >> If we all got back to discussing outcomes from this vote that got forced at Dubai, and leave google versus various regulators each to their own devices? >> >> --srs (iPad) > > Some would argue otherwise and say that this is linked to the motivations behind some of the MNCs position as they lobby and advocate at the WCIT. It is the responsibility of civil society to explore and tease out some of these motivations particularly when the interests often masquerade behind fighting for a free and open internet. Numerous posts on this thread and on the topic prior to your joining us in the IGC and I invite you to go through the archives, pour through some of the literature that abounds on the matter. For the record, this is part of Internet Governance. >> >> On 14-Dec-2012, at 1:15, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> Does the G in IGC now stand for Google? >>>> >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> Adam >>> >>> It is entertaining to watch feathers ruffled when criticisms against Google is launched. >>> >>> Google is not bad - really, it is not a monster - it has done and continues to lots of great work - but the whole point of Internet Governance is to engage in discussions on issues that affect stakeholders. We are very appreciative of the wonderful things that Google has done in relation to helping Japan recover from the Tsunami through getting victims to post messages - helping out in Haiti during the earth quake. At the same time there are certain aspects of Google's operations that require discussion. >>> >>> The same can be said when critiquing other stakeholders within the Internet Governance and the point is not the critiquing but in the constructive dialogue of how things can be improved to impact on the average end user. >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:07 AM, McTim wrote: >>>> > I will leave the editorialising to others... >>>> > >>>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> > From: Lauren Weinstein >>>> > Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:28 PM >>>> > Subject: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did >>>> > not violate antitrust laws >>>> > To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate >>>> > antitrust laws >>>> > >>>> > http://j.mp/TdAByO (New York Post) >>>> > >>>> > "Federal regulators are expected to close a year-long probe of Google's >>>> > search business without finding any antitrust violations, The Post has >>>> > learned. The Federal Trade Commission is expected to announce before >>>> > the end of the year that Google's search engine did not cause any >>>> > consumer harm or favor its own businesses, sources close to the >>>> > situation said." >>>> > >>>> > - - - >>>> > >>>> > Hoping this report from The New York Post is correct. There obviously >>>> > has been no consumer harm, and the attacks on Google in this sphere >>>> > have been driven by Google's competitors who just can't match the >>>> > quality of Google's services on their own. >>>> > >>>> > --Lauren-- >>>> > Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren >>>> > Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: >>>> > http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info Founder: >>>> > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org >>>> > - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info >>>> > - Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org >>>> > - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: >>>> > http://www.gctip.org >>>> > Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy >>>> > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com >>>> > Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren >>>> > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > nnsquad mailing list >>>> > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > 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 >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 20:23:51 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:23:51 +1300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate antitrust laws In-Reply-To: <0587B0E9-6D53-45A1-BEAF-63A901B68E0F@hserus.net> References: <20121213182803.GA18612@vortex.com> <8387AD2E-9158-4DCC-AB3D-40291BD9CB97@hserus.net> <0587B0E9-6D53-45A1-BEAF-63A901B68E0F@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > No thank you. Most of the discussion sounds only too familiar to me from > similar lists before the Athens IGF. I don't see as broad a consensus for > your assertion below though. For, as Adam Peake reminded us all, it is > called "Internet" governance. > > There is the simple thing called ignoring the thread and commenting on the ones you wish to - really - it is that simple :) > > > On 14-Dec-2012, at 6:36, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> If we all got back to discussing outcomes from this vote that got forced >> at Dubai, and leave google versus various regulators each to their own >> devices? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> > > Some would argue otherwise and say that this is linked to the motivations > behind some of the MNCs position as they lobby and advocate at the WCIT. It > is the responsibility of civil society to explore and tease out some of > these motivations particularly when the interests often masquerade behind > fighting for a free and open internet. Numerous posts on this thread and on > the topic prior to your joining us in the IGC and I invite you to go > through the archives, pour through some of the literature that abounds on > the matter. For the record, this is part of Internet Governance. > >> >> On 14-Dec-2012, at 1:15, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Does the G in IGC now stand for Google? >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >> It is entertaining to watch feathers ruffled when criticisms against >> Google is launched. >> >> Google is not bad - really, it is not a monster - it has done and >> continues to lots of great work - but the whole point of Internet >> Governance is to engage in discussions on issues that affect stakeholders. >> We are very appreciative of the wonderful things that Google has done in >> relation to helping Japan recover from the Tsunami through getting victims >> to post messages - helping out in Haiti during the earth quake. At the same >> time there are certain aspects of Google's operations that require >> discussion. >> >> The same can be said when critiquing other stakeholders within the >> Internet Governance and the point is not the critiquing but in the >> constructive dialogue of how things can be improved to impact on the >> average end user. >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:07 AM, McTim wrote: >>> > I will leave the editorialising to others... >>> > >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> > From: Lauren Weinstein >>> > Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:28 PM >>> > Subject: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that >>> Google did >>> > not violate antitrust laws >>> > To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate >>> > antitrust laws >>> > >>> > http://j.mp/TdAByO (New York Post) >>> > >>> > "Federal regulators are expected to close a year-long probe of >>> Google's >>> > search business without finding any antitrust violations, The Post >>> has >>> > learned. The Federal Trade Commission is expected to announce >>> before >>> > the end of the year that Google's search engine did not cause any >>> > consumer harm or favor its own businesses, sources close to the >>> > situation said." >>> > >>> > - - - >>> > >>> > Hoping this report from The New York Post is correct. There obviously >>> > has been no consumer harm, and the attacks on Google in this sphere >>> > have been driven by Google's competitors who just can't match the >>> > quality of Google's services on their own. >>> > >>> > --Lauren-- >>> > Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren >>> > Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: >>> > http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info Founder: >>> > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org >>> > - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info >>> > - Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org >>> > - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: >>> > http://www.gctip.org >>> > Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy >>> > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com >>> > Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: >>> http://vortex.com/t-lauren >>> > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > nnsquad mailing list >>> > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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 >>> > >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > > > > -- 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 kichango at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 20:50:10 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:50:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITRs: What if... Message-ID: I am suddenly curious to hear others' views about the following scenario: Is there any one here who thinks it would be a better process or that a better outcome could be reached if the world's telecom operators meet directly with internet connectivity and large service providers to try and define what the operating relationship of the two sectors should be (while recognizing each other as two separate business sectors) and maybe spell out what they would need governments to assist with, if anything, in order to foster affordable access and economic growth across the world? Is that in the realm of "practical possibility" at all? (It may be hard to see companies put resources in possibly lengthy negotiation process if they don't need to do that to improve their bottom line or at least retain their market.) If that were to be possible, IGF could be the place for other stakeholders to help define the qualitative benchmarks (some sort of Digital Development Goals) to guide the conference of Operators and Providers on their economic growth and social development agenda. Or do you think, I would make more sense after a good night sleep? Thanks, Mawaki -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 20:57:58 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 07:27:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate antitrust laws Message-ID: So we seem to have two distinct groups of equally vocal participants here on the list, who agree on some issues and have a broad disagreement on a set of other issues If this was the WCIT this list would have derailed ages back. That its still going strong is a tribute to the resilience of civil society and the recognition of a rather broad and at times extremely divergent set of views So Sala, in the interests of brevity, I will agree to disagree with you, and some other colleagues on this list, on this issue --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Adam Peake" , "McTim" Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate antitrust laws Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 6:53 AM On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > No thank you. Most of the discussion sounds only too familiar to me from > similar lists before the Athens IGF. I don't see as broad a consensus for > your assertion below though. For, as Adam Peake reminded us all, it is > called "Internet" governance. > > There is the simple thing called ignoring the thread and commenting on the ones you wish to - really - it is that simple :) > > > On 14-Dec-2012, at 6:36, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> If we all got back to discussing outcomes from this vote that got forced >> at Dubai, and leave google versus various regulators each to their own >> devices? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> > > Some would argue otherwise and say that this is linked to the motivations > behind some of the MNCs position as they lobby and advocate at the WCIT. It > is the responsibility of civil society to explore and tease out some of > these motivations particularly when the interests often masquerade behind > fighting for a free and open internet. Numerous posts on this thread and on > the topic prior to your joining us in the IGC and I invite you to go > through the archives, pour through some of the literature that abounds on > the matter. For the record, this is part of Internet Governance. > >> >> On 14-Dec-2012, at 1:15, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Does the G in IGC now stand for Google? >>> >>> :-) >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >> It is entertaining to watch feathers ruffled when criticisms against >> Google is launched. >> >> Google is not bad - really, it is not a monster - it has done and >> continues to lots of great work - but the whole point of Internet >> Governance is to engage in discussions on issues that affect stakeholders. >> We are very appreciative of the wonderful things that Google has done in >> relation to helping Japan recover from the Tsunami through getting victims >> to post messages - helping out in Haiti during the earth quake. At the same >> time there are certain aspects of Google's operations that require >> discussion. >> >> The same can be said when critiquing other stakeholders within the >> Internet Governance and the point is not the critiquing but in the >> constructive dialogue of how things can be improved to impact on the >> average end user. >> >> >> >>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:07 AM, McTim wrote: >>> > I will leave the editorialising to others... >>> > >>> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> > From: Lauren Weinstein >>> > Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:28 PM >>> > Subject: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that >>> Google did >>> > not violate antitrust laws >>> > To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate >>> > antitrust laws >>> > >>> > http://j.mp/TdAByO (New York Post) >>> > >>> > "Federal regulators are expected to close a year-long probe of >>> Google's >>> > search business without finding any antitrust violations, The Post >>> has >>> > learned. The Federal Trade Commission is expected to announce >>> before >>> > the end of the year that Google's search engine did not cause any >>> > consumer harm or favor its own businesses, sources close to the >>> > situation said." >>> > >>> > - - - >>> > >>> > Hoping this report from The New York Post is correct. There obviously >>> > has been no consumer harm, and the attacks on Google in this sphere >>> > have been driven by Google's competitors who just can't match the >>> > quality of Google's services on their own. >>> > >>> > --Lauren-- >>> > Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren >>> > Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: >>> > http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info Founder: >>> > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org >>> > - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info >>> > - Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org >>> > - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: >>> > http://www.gctip.org >>> > Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy >>> > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com >>> > Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: >>> http://vortex.com/t-lauren >>> > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > nnsquad mailing list >>> > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > 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 >>> > >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > > > > -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 21:06:14 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:06:14 +1300 Subject: [governance] ITRs: What if... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I am suddenly curious to hear others' views about the following scenario: > > Is there any one here who thinks it would be a better process or that > a better outcome could be reached if the world's telecom operators > meet directly with internet connectivity and large service providers > to try and define what the operating relationship of the two sectors > should be (while recognizing each other as two separate business > sectors) and maybe spell out what they would need governments to > assist with, if anything, in order to foster affordable access and > economic growth across the world? > Many would argue that the World Telecom operators are also large service providers - most Telcos and ISPs have evolved from their traditional business models. Whilst there will always be a need for "carriage" - there is an increasing strategic business models that looks at "Content". It might be worthwhile noting that there are countries in Europe, Africa and the Pacific where Government still controls some of the Telecommunications Entities which means that they have not been privatised. Aside from Telecommunications Infrastructure, there is a trend where countries are now moving to control the ccTLDs and you see that from some of the redelegations that has been happening where laws are passed to see Governments sieze control of what they perceive as a national resource. Should we worry about it? I don't think there is cause for worry, there is so many more important things that they need to worry about such as what David Conrad earlier this year pointed out to the list such as rolling out energy grids etc for the developing world. However, for countries who have national deficits and struggle with resources for capital expenditure for massive infrastructure rollout, they will always be on the lookout for sources of revenue and diverse sources of revenue. > > Is that in the realm of "practical possibility" at all? (It may be > hard to see companies put resources in possibly lengthy negotiation > process if they don't need to do that to improve their bottom line or > at least retain their market.) > > If that were to be possible, IGF could be the place for other > stakeholders to help define the qualitative benchmarks (some sort of > Digital Development Goals) to guide the conference of Operators and > Providers on their economic growth and social development agenda. > > Or do you think, I would make more sense after a good night sleep? > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 kichango at gmail.com Thu Dec 13 21:43:11 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:43:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITRs: What if... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As we have witnessed during this WCIT process, the crux of the issue is about the boundaries between telecoms and internet. Behind my question lies a challenge as to whether the actual technical and business actors (I didn't previously mean to assign 'operators' to one sector and 'providers' to the other, at their reciprocal exclusion) would be more capable of/ successful at defining and recognizing those boundaries (regardless of some of them operating in both fields, public and private alike), if they were to talk directly to each other to that effect, instead of having governments do this on their behalf -- a bit as their agents. (Some people may think there would be less politics, therefore higher likelihood of success... to simplify.) mawaki On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >> I am suddenly curious to hear others' views about the following scenario: >> >> Is there any one here who thinks it would be a better process or that >> a better outcome could be reached if the world's telecom operators >> meet directly with internet connectivity and large service providers >> to try and define what the operating relationship of the two sectors >> should be (while recognizing each other as two separate business >> sectors) and maybe spell out what they would need governments to >> assist with, if anything, in order to foster affordable access and >> economic growth across the world? > > > Many would argue that the World Telecom operators are also large service > providers - most Telcos and ISPs have evolved from their traditional > business models. Whilst there will always be a need for "carriage" - there > is an increasing strategic business models that looks at "Content". It > might be worthwhile noting that there are countries in Europe, Africa and > the Pacific where Government still controls some of the Telecommunications > Entities which means that they have not been privatised. > > Aside from Telecommunications Infrastructure, there is a trend where > countries are now moving to control the ccTLDs and you see that from some of > the redelegations that has been happening where laws are passed to see > Governments sieze control of what they perceive as a national resource. > > Should we worry about it? I don't think there is cause for worry, there is > so many more important things that they need to worry about such as what > David Conrad earlier this year pointed out to the list such as rolling out > energy grids etc for the developing world. However, for countries who have > national deficits and struggle with resources for capital expenditure for > massive infrastructure rollout, they will always be on the lookout for > sources of revenue and diverse sources of revenue. >> >> >> Is that in the realm of "practical possibility" at all? (It may be >> hard to see companies put resources in possibly lengthy negotiation >> process if they don't need to do that to improve their bottom line or >> at least retain their market.) > > > >> >> If that were to be possible, IGF could be the place for other >> stakeholders to help define the qualitative benchmarks (some sort of >> Digital Development Goals) to guide the conference of Operators and >> Providers on their economic growth and social development agenda. >> >> Or do you think, I would make more sense after a good night sleep? >> Thanks, >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 13 21:59:16 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:29:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITRs: What if... Message-ID: But they do talk to each other and subject to the usual wrangling between competitors there is usually consensus at least within a country, not to mention shared membership in industry associations --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Mawaki Chango" To: , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Subject: [governance] ITRs: What if... Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 8:13 AM As we have witnessed during this WCIT process, the crux of the issue is about the boundaries between telecoms and internet. Behind my question lies a challenge as to whether the actual technical and business actors (I didn't previously mean to assign 'operators' to one sector and 'providers' to the other, at their reciprocal exclusion) would be more capable of/ successful at defining and recognizing those boundaries (regardless of some of them operating in both fields, public and private alike), if they were to talk directly to each other to that effect, instead of having governments do this on their behalf -- a bit as their agents. (Some people may think there would be less politics, therefore higher likelihood of success... to simplify.) mawaki On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >> I am suddenly curious to hear others' views about the following scenario: >> >> Is there any one here who thinks it would be a better process or that >> a better outcome could be reached if the world's telecom operators >> meet directly with internet connectivity and large service providers >> to try and define what the operating relationship of the two sectors >> should be (while recognizing each other as two separate business >> sectors) and maybe spell out what they would need governments to >> assist with, if anything, in order to foster affordable access and >> economic growth across the world? > > > Many would argue that the World Telecom operators are also large service > providers - most Telcos and ISPs have evolved from their traditional > business models. Whilst there will always be a need for "carriage" - there > is an increasing strategic business models that looks at "Content". It > might be worthwhile noting that there are countries in Europe, Africa and > the Pacific where Government still controls some of the Telecommunications > Entities which means that they have not been privatised. > > Aside from Telecommunications Infrastructure, there is a trend where > countries are now moving to control the ccTLDs and you see that from some of > the redelegations that has been happening where laws are passed to see > Governments sieze control of what they perceive as a national resource. > > Should we worry about it? I don't think there is cause for worry, there is > so many more important things that they need to worry about such as what > David Conrad earlier this year pointed out to the list such as rolling out > energy grids etc for the developing world. However, for countries who have > national deficits and struggle with resources for capital expenditure for > massive infrastructure rollout, they will always be on the lookout for > sources of revenue and diverse sources of revenue. >> >> >> Is that in the realm of "practical possibility" at all? (It may be >> hard to see companies put resources in possibly lengthy negotiation >> process if they don't need to do that to improve their bottom line or >> at least retain their market.) > > > >> >> If that were to be possible, IGF could be the place for other >> stakeholders to help define the qualitative benchmarks (some sort of >> Digital Development Goals) to guide the conference of Operators and >> Providers on their economic growth and social development agenda. >> >> Or do you think, I would make more sense after a good night sleep? >> Thanks, >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Dec 13 22:31:45 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:31:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Iran is a member of the GAC. Trying to remember what happened in WSIS, but believe this issue generally (access of Member States to international telecommunication services) is something Cuba brings up in various forms on a regular basis. Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. Adam On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:02 AM, McTim wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >> >> Suppose that the US decided to deny access to the domain name root zone >> resolution to, say Iran (.ir), because of its bad HR record. >> >> How exactly would they do that? >> >> >> >> [Milton L Mueller] They could apply the same sanctions to ICANN – which is >> in U.S. jurisdiction – that they apply to Oracle, MSFT, GoDaddy, etc. >> >> They could decide that ICANN was providing “services” to the sanctioned >> country. > > > > > If so, there are still some root-ops who would not abide by those sanctions, > no? > > >> >> Certainly Syria is a criminal regime. But do we want ICANN to be a neutral >> meeting ground for all parties or not? >> >> yes. Who decides who gets in the GAC? >> >> >> >> [Milton L Mueller] >> >> [Milton L Mueller] ICANN bylaws. > > > so you are saying it's the Board? > > > > -- > 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 Thu Dec 13 22:37:43 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:37:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate antitrust laws In-Reply-To: References: <20121213182803.GA18612@vortex.com> Message-ID: Hi Sala. Yes, well said. But how is it Internet governance? Do you think it would be appropriate to have a session on "Google + Antitrust" at the 2013 IGF? How about "Google (and Mitt Romney) don't like paying taxes". Thought not. But you might also have seen :-) However, seriously, as co-coordinator of the caucus could you please make an attempt to keep discussions on subject. Best, Adam On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Does the G in IGC now stand for Google? >> >> :-) >> >> Adam >> > > It is entertaining to watch feathers ruffled when criticisms against Google > is launched. > > Google is not bad - really, it is not a monster - it has done and continues > to lots of great work - but the whole point of Internet Governance is to > engage in discussions on issues that affect stakeholders. We are very > appreciative of the wonderful things that Google has done in relation to > helping Japan recover from the Tsunami through getting victims to post > messages - helping out in Haiti during the earth quake. At the same time > there are certain aspects of Google's operations that require discussion. > > The same can be said when critiquing other stakeholders within the Internet > Governance and the point is not the critiquing but in the constructive > dialogue of how things can be improved to impact on the average end user. > > >> >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:07 AM, McTim wrote: >> > I will leave the editorialising to others... >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > From: Lauren Weinstein >> > Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:28 PM >> > Subject: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google >> > did >> > not violate antitrust laws >> > To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org >> > >> > >> > >> > New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate >> > antitrust laws >> > >> > http://j.mp/TdAByO (New York Post) >> > >> > "Federal regulators are expected to close a year-long probe of >> > Google's >> > search business without finding any antitrust violations, The Post >> > has >> > learned. The Federal Trade Commission is expected to announce >> > before >> > the end of the year that Google's search engine did not cause any >> > consumer harm or favor its own businesses, sources close to the >> > situation said." >> > >> > - - - >> > >> > Hoping this report from The New York Post is correct. There obviously >> > has been no consumer harm, and the attacks on Google in this sphere >> > have been driven by Google's competitors who just can't match the >> > quality of Google's services on their own. >> > >> > --Lauren-- >> > Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren >> > Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: >> > http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info Founder: >> > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org >> > - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info >> > - Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org >> > - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: >> > http://www.gctip.org >> > Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy >> > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com >> > Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: >> > http://vortex.com/t-lauren >> > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com >> > _______________________________________________ >> > nnsquad mailing list >> > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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 >> > >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From keith at internetnz.net.nz Thu Dec 13 22:48:34 2012 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:48:34 +1300 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> No Hooray for Toure then? Cheers Keith On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: > > Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. > > Adam > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 13 23:24:16 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:54:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down Message-ID: None, so kick back your feet and relax to the music of his countryman Ali farka toure --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Keith Davidson" To: Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 9:18 AM No Hooray for Toure then? Cheers Keith On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: > > Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. > > Adam > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Dec 13 23:30:20 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:30:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Keith Davidson wrote: > No Hooray for Toure then? > Not quite. No :-) I found it a bit sad when delegates were saying sorry, can't sign: Australia which had put in so much work in Dubai (Bob Horton a bit of a hero). Japan, which led a few WG and did much work in the AP regional process. What I mean is these are countries who worked at the process. It's not a matter of "USA and friends", that's just simplistic and belittling. They are countries that genuinely support multi-stakeholder models. Anyway, watching from a distance, catching transcripts and webcasts, the feeling I get is that Toure in particular missed an opportunity. His passion seems to be in bringing broadband to the world. It was in that context, I think back in early May, he first mentioned looking at new ways to fund broadband infrastructure, and that was the first time he or anyone else in WCIT context mentioned OTT players should be paying more. So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human Rights? It seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by comments and concerns (very legitimate) that some proposal had potential to harm fundamental rights. How many full sessions discussed a single line of text in the preamble, 2, 3, more? All for his own PR, he said as much, it was about the press and perception. So I wonder, if he has used the same passion and time to persuade and cajole delegates to think of ways in which the ITRs could contain high-level and lasting principles that encouraged the spread of/access to broadband across the globe, perhaps we would have had something useful and lasting. Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to become divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his comments last night poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the run-up to this conference that this conference is not about governing the internet. I repeat, that the conference did not include provisions on the internet in the treaty text." etc. Opening plenary: "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance." Sorry, that's twisting words and twisting generally. The resolutions are part of the ITRs, they can be binding on the secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder if Toure's blown his chance for a legacy. Best, Adam > Cheers > > Keith > > > On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. >> >> Adam >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 14 00:40:53 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:10:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human > Rights? It seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by comments > and concerns (very legitimate) that some proposal had potential to > harm fundamental rights. How many full sessions discussed a single > line of text in the preamble, 2, 3, more? All for his own PR, he said > as much, it was about the press and perception. So I wonder, if he has > used the same passion and time to persuade and cajole delegates to > think of ways in which the ITRs could contain high-level and lasting > principles that encouraged the spread of/access to broadband across > the globe, perhaps we would have had something useful and lasting. Adam, Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband without mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the ITRs? You know that one side was completely intent that, what come may, Internet/ broadband cannot find mention in the ITRs.... The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between two sides both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to prevent US et all from making a historical point that Internet is an unregulated space - whereby their new global domination strategy could be unrestrained. The other side was trying to prevent China/ Russia et all from changing the basic nature of the global Internet into a tightly state controlled space. The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should have included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil society, which is supposed to contribute a positive agenda, failed. That I think is the primary failure here. The 'sane public interest-oriented middle' did not get formed. And the civil society was supposed to have a big role in it. So, perhaps, we failed, more than anyone else. (Do we want to look into this failure?) A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such monumental importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the people of the world some hope.... Take any treaty or global summit process till now, whether concerning climate change, trade, traditional knowledge, etc etc........... There is always some hope built from a summit/ treaty process, and civil society is on the side of this positive hope. Mostly leading the positive hope brigade. What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was there any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas. And, I dare say, good that neither won, and the process broke down. I highly appreciate the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this case, I am not too unhappy that the treaty process kind of failed. I am not celebrating the breakdown of dialogue. I am hopeful that this breakdown will come as a positive shake-up to our collective and selective slumbers that many of us seem to be caught in, in terms of public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope is that such shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am still celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open dialogue about real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond selective hype, focussed on global public interest and not narrow partisan agendas as the WCIT process was. The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am completely unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, /what would it have succeeded at./ I am unable to form any conception of what I could have considered as WCIT success - that, one could say proudly, /it gave the world this and this/.... I will be happy if anyone here can share any such possible conception of a 'successful WCIT' (keeping within the limits in which WCIT process has been trapped for a long time now), and perhaps I can still be persuade to feel bad about this 'failure'. But right now, I am unable to do so. parminder > Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to > become divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his comments > last night poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the run-up to this > conference that this conference is not about governing the internet. I > repeat, that the conference did not include provisions on the internet > in the treaty text." etc. Opening plenary: "In preparing for this > conference, we have seen and heard many comments about ITU or the > United Nations trying to take over the Internet. Let me be very clear > one more time: WCIT is not about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is > not about Internet governance." Sorry, that's twisting words and > twisting generally. The resolutions are part of the ITRs, they can be > binding on the secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder if Toure's > blown his chance for a legacy. Best, Adam >> Cheers >> >> Keith >> >> >> On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. >>> >>> Adam >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Dec 14 00:48:27 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:18:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <10E0870B-FB8E-4ED6-960F-26E9C7E8BDC2@hserus.net> This outcome from WCIT has actually given me a lot more hope. Hope that various countries will realize that pushing these through the ITU is a non starter. I am glad to see that India voted against the ITRs too. For all the initial rubbish about CIRP, and for all DoT's initial submission that suggested the contrary. --srs (iPad) On 14-Dec-2012, at 11:10, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human Rights? It seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by comments and concerns (very legitimate) that some proposal had potential to harm fundamental rights. How many full sessions discussed a single line of text in the preamble, 2, 3, more? All for his own PR, he said as much, it was about the press and perception. So I wonder, if he has used the same passion and time to persuade and cajole delegates to think of ways in which the ITRs could contain high-level and lasting principles that encouraged the spread of/access to broadband across the globe, perhaps we would have had something useful and lasting. > > Adam, > > Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband without mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the ITRs? You know that one side was completely intent that, what come may, Internet/ broadband cannot find mention in the ITRs.... > > The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between two sides both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to prevent US et all from making a historical point that Internet is an unregulated space - whereby their new global domination strategy could be unrestrained. The other side was trying to prevent China/ Russia et all from changing the basic nature of the global Internet into a tightly state controlled space. > > The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should have included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil society, which is supposed to contribute a positive agenda, failed. That I think is the primary failure here. The 'sane public interest-oriented middle' did not get formed. And the civil society was supposed to have a big role in it. So, perhaps, we failed, more than anyone else. (Do we want to look into this failure?) > > A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such monumental importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the people of the world some hope.... Take any treaty or global summit process till now, whether concerning climate change, trade, traditional knowledge, etc etc........... There is always some hope built from a summit/ treaty process, and civil society is on the side of this positive hope. Mostly leading the positive hope brigade. > > What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was there any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas. And, I dare say, good that neither won, and the process broke down. I highly appreciate the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this case, I am not too unhappy that the treaty process kind of failed. I am not celebrating the breakdown of dialogue. I am hopeful that this breakdown will come as a positive shake-up to our collective and selective slumbers that many of us seem to be caught in, in terms of public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope is that such shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am still celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open dialogue about real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond selective hype, focussed on global public interest and not narrow partisan agendas as the WCIT process was. > > The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am completely unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, what would it have succeeded at. I am unable to form any conception of what I could have considered as WCIT success - that, one could say proudly, it gave the world this and this.... I will be happy if anyone here can share any such possible conception of a 'successful WCIT' (keeping within the limits in which WCIT process has been trapped for a long time now), and perhaps I can still be persuade to feel bad about this 'failure'. But right now, I am unable to do so. > > > parminder > > >> Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to become divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his comments last night poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the run-up to this conference that this conference is not about governing the internet. I repeat, that the conference did not include provisions on the internet in the treaty text." etc. Opening plenary: "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance." Sorry, that's twisting words and twisting generally. The resolutions are part of the ITRs, they can be binding on the secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder if Toure's blown his chance for a legacy. Best, Adam >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> >>> On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 kichango at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 00:58:06 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:58:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] ITRs: What if... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh I'm sure they talk to each others, passing contracts, forming joint-ventures and even partnerships, etc. I guess it's another business altogether to have to set or agree on rules with peers you don't get to chose (as you would with, say, a contract). I quickly have to add, though, that the case of industry associations you rightly mention is interesting. The exemplar that comes to mind is IETF --as a "private" standard-setting entity (and by private, I mean non-governmental as well as non-corporational but based on individual capacity, ideally). So the question is this: is there still any legitimate role for treaty organizations, and for treaties, in any technology-driven field? Or suffices to set technical standards the IETF way (note that even within ITU technical standards are highly shaped by industry participants but the process is certainly different) and send the old sovereigns to their backyard for policy-making and whatever else they want to do at home with those technical standards? Will we (all stakeholders) be able to agree on a clear mechanism or set of principles to determine what may/should belong in a treaty and what may/should be left to business and other private actors? Or maybe none of that is needed, and we'll just have to gauge support and opposition on case by case basis, which will not necessarily spare us more debacles such as this WCIT12. Just asking... Mawaki On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > But they do talk to each other and subject to the usual wrangling between > competitors there is usually consensus at least within a country, not to > mention shared membership in industry associations > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Mawaki Chango" > To: , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > > Subject: [governance] ITRs: What if... > Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 8:13 AM > > > As we have witnessed during this WCIT process, the crux of the issue > is about the boundaries between telecoms and internet. Behind my > question lies a challenge as to whether the actual technical and > business actors (I didn't previously mean to assign 'operators' to one > sector and 'providers' to the other, at their reciprocal exclusion) > would be more capable of/ successful at defining and recognizing those > boundaries (regardless of some of them operating in both fields, > public and private alike), if they were to talk directly to each other > to that effect, instead of having governments do this on their behalf > -- a bit as their agents. (Some people may think there would be less > politics, therefore higher likelihood of success... to simplify.) > > mawaki > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>> >>> I am suddenly curious to hear others' views about the following scenario: >>> >>> Is there any one here who thinks it would be a better process or that >>> a better outcome could be reached if the world's telecom operators >>> meet directly with internet connectivity and large service providers >>> to try and define what the operating relationship of the two sectors >>> should be (while recognizing each other as two separate business >>> sectors) and maybe spell out what they would need governments to >>> assist with, if anything, in order to foster affordable access and >>> economic growth across the world? >> >> >> Many would argue that the World Telecom operators are also large service >> providers - most Telcos and ISPs have evolved from their traditional >> business models. Whilst there will always be a need for "carriage" - there >> is an increasing strategic business models that looks at "Content". It >> might be worthwhile noting that there are countries in Europe, Africa and >> the Pacific where Government still controls some of the Telecommunications >> Entities which means that they have not been privatised. >> >> Aside from Telecommunications Infrastructure, there is a trend where >> countries are now moving to control the ccTLDs and you see that from some >> of >> the redelegations that has been happening where laws are passed to see >> Governments sieze control of what they perceive as a national resource. >> >> Should we worry about it? I don't think there is cause for worry, there is >> so many more important things that they need to worry about such as what >> David Conrad earlier this year pointed out to the list such as rolling out >> energy grids etc for the developing world. However, for countries who have >> national deficits and struggle with resources for capital expenditure for >> massive infrastructure rollout, they will always be on the lookout for >> sources of revenue and diverse sources of revenue. >>> >>> >>> Is that in the realm of "practical possibility" at all? (It may be >>> hard to see companies put resources in possibly lengthy negotiation >>> process if they don't need to do that to improve their bottom line or >>> at least retain their market.) >> >> >> >>> >>> If that were to be possible, IGF could be the place for other >>> stakeholders to help define the qualitative benchmarks (some sort of >>> Digital Development Goals) to guide the conference of Operators and >>> Providers on their economic growth and social development agenda. >>> >>> Or do you think, I would make more sense after a good night sleep? >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 01:08:50 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:38:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] ITRs: What if... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <790D4314-54A8-48B4-9F9E-4C8D240A4181@hserus.net> In industry associations that focus on best practices (like MAAWG for ISP security and spam) there are codes of best practice that you agree to. While they are not binding in that you are required to adopt them entirely, gross violations of that code of practice would render your organization ineligible to be a member of MAAWG, for example. This is consensus based and rather different from binding treaties, but it is the best that the industry can come up with. --srs (iPad) On 14-Dec-2012, at 11:28, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Oh I'm sure they talk to each others, passing contracts, forming > joint-ventures and even partnerships, etc. I guess it's another > business altogether to have to set or agree on rules with peers you > don't get to chose (as you would with, say, a contract). I quickly > have to add, though, that the case of industry associations you > rightly mention is interesting. The exemplar that comes to mind is > IETF --as a "private" standard-setting entity (and by private, I mean > non-governmental as well as non-corporational but based on individual > capacity, ideally). So the question is this: is there still any > legitimate role for treaty organizations, and for treaties, in any > technology-driven field? Or suffices to set technical standards the > IETF way (note that even within ITU technical standards are highly > shaped by industry participants but the process is certainly > different) and send the old sovereigns to their backyard for > policy-making and whatever else they want to do at home with those > technical standards? Will we (all stakeholders) be able to agree on a > clear mechanism or set of principles to determine what may/should > belong in a treaty and what may/should be left to business and other > private actors? Or maybe none of that is needed, and we'll just have > to gauge support and opposition on case by case basis, which will not > necessarily spare us more debacles such as this WCIT12. Just asking... > > Mawaki > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> But they do talk to each other and subject to the usual wrangling between >> competitors there is usually consensus at least within a country, not to >> mention shared membership in industry associations >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Mawaki Chango" >> To: , "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" >> >> Subject: [governance] ITRs: What if... >> Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 8:13 AM >> >> >> As we have witnessed during this WCIT process, the crux of the issue >> is about the boundaries between telecoms and internet. Behind my >> question lies a challenge as to whether the actual technical and >> business actors (I didn't previously mean to assign 'operators' to one >> sector and 'providers' to the other, at their reciprocal exclusion) >> would be more capable of/ successful at defining and recognizing those >> boundaries (regardless of some of them operating in both fields, >> public and private alike), if they were to talk directly to each other >> to that effect, instead of having governments do this on their behalf >> -- a bit as their agents. (Some people may think there would be less >> politics, therefore higher likelihood of success... to simplify.) >> >> mawaki >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:06 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >>>> >>>> I am suddenly curious to hear others' views about the following scenario: >>>> >>>> Is there any one here who thinks it would be a better process or that >>>> a better outcome could be reached if the world's telecom operators >>>> meet directly with internet connectivity and large service providers >>>> to try and define what the operating relationship of the two sectors >>>> should be (while recognizing each other as two separate business >>>> sectors) and maybe spell out what they would need governments to >>>> assist with, if anything, in order to foster affordable access and >>>> economic growth across the world? >>> >>> >>> Many would argue that the World Telecom operators are also large service >>> providers - most Telcos and ISPs have evolved from their traditional >>> business models. Whilst there will always be a need for "carriage" - there >>> is an increasing strategic business models that looks at "Content". It >>> might be worthwhile noting that there are countries in Europe, Africa and >>> the Pacific where Government still controls some of the Telecommunications >>> Entities which means that they have not been privatised. >>> >>> Aside from Telecommunications Infrastructure, there is a trend where >>> countries are now moving to control the ccTLDs and you see that from some >>> of >>> the redelegations that has been happening where laws are passed to see >>> Governments sieze control of what they perceive as a national resource. >>> >>> Should we worry about it? I don't think there is cause for worry, there is >>> so many more important things that they need to worry about such as what >>> David Conrad earlier this year pointed out to the list such as rolling out >>> energy grids etc for the developing world. However, for countries who have >>> national deficits and struggle with resources for capital expenditure for >>> massive infrastructure rollout, they will always be on the lookout for >>> sources of revenue and diverse sources of revenue. >>>> >>>> >>>> Is that in the realm of "practical possibility" at all? (It may be >>>> hard to see companies put resources in possibly lengthy negotiation >>>> process if they don't need to do that to improve their bottom line or >>>> at least retain their market.) >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> If that were to be possible, IGF could be the place for other >>>> stakeholders to help define the qualitative benchmarks (some sort of >>>> Digital Development Goals) to guide the conference of Operators and >>>> Providers on their economic growth and social development agenda. >>>> >>>> Or do you think, I would make more sense after a good night sleep? >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Mawaki >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 01:15:52 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:15:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <10E0870B-FB8E-4ED6-960F-26E9C7E8BDC2@hserus.net> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <10E0870B-FB8E-4ED6-960F-26E9C7E8BDC2@hserus.net> Message-ID: More countries that say they won'y sign or have to go back and have further national consultation, the stronger the multi-stakeholder model looks. But a wasted opportunity all the same. Adam On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > This outcome from WCIT has actually given me a lot more hope. Hope that > various countries will realize that pushing these through the ITU is a non > starter. > > I am glad to see that India voted against the ITRs too. For all the initial > rubbish about CIRP, and for all DoT's initial submission that suggested the > contrary. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 14-Dec-2012, at 11:10, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human Rights? It > seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by comments and concerns (very > legitimate) that some proposal had potential to harm fundamental rights. How > many full sessions discussed a single line of text in the preamble, 2, 3, > more? All for his own PR, he said as much, it was about the press and > perception. So I wonder, if he has used the same passion and time to > persuade and cajole delegates to think of ways in which the ITRs could > contain high-level and lasting principles that encouraged the spread > of/access to broadband across the globe, perhaps we would have had something > useful and lasting. > > > Adam, > > Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband without > mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the ITRs? You know > that one side was completely intent that, what come may, Internet/ broadband > cannot find mention in the ITRs.... > > The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between two sides > both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to prevent US et all > from making a historical point that Internet is an unregulated space - > whereby their new global domination strategy could be unrestrained. The > other side was trying to prevent China/ Russia et all from changing the > basic nature of the global Internet into a tightly state controlled space. > > The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should have > included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil society, which > is supposed to contribute a positive agenda, failed. That I think is the > primary failure here. The 'sane public interest-oriented middle' did not get > formed. And the civil society was supposed to have a big role in it. So, > perhaps, we failed, more than anyone else. (Do we want to look into this > failure?) > > A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such monumental > importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the people of the world some > hope.... Take any treaty or global summit process till now, whether > concerning climate change, trade, traditional knowledge, etc etc........... > There is always some hope built from a summit/ treaty process, and civil > society is on the side of this positive hope. Mostly leading the positive > hope brigade. > > What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was there > any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas. And, I dare > say, good that neither won, and the process broke down. I highly appreciate > the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this case, I am not too unhappy > that the treaty process kind of failed. I am not celebrating the breakdown > of dialogue. I am hopeful that this breakdown will come as a positive > shake-up to our collective and selective slumbers that many of us seem to be > caught in, in terms of public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope > is that such shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am > still celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open dialogue about > real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond selective hype, focussed on > global public interest and not narrow partisan agendas as the WCIT process > was. > > The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am completely > unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, what would it have > succeeded at. I am unable to form any conception of what I could have > considered as WCIT success - that, one could say proudly, it gave the world > this and this.... I will be happy if anyone here can share any such possible > conception of a 'successful WCIT' (keeping within the limits in which WCIT > process has been trapped for a long time now), and perhaps I can still be > persuade to feel bad about this 'failure'. But right now, I am unable to do > so. > > > parminder > > > Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to become > divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his comments last night > poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the run-up to this conference that > this conference is not about governing the internet. I repeat, that the > conference did not include provisions on the internet in the treaty text." > etc. Opening plenary: "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and > heard many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the > Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about taking over > the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance." Sorry, that's > twisting words and twisting generally. The resolutions are part of the ITRs, > they can be binding on the secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder if > Toure's blown his chance for a legacy. Best, Adam > > Cheers > > Keith > > > On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: > > Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. > > Adam > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.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 nb at bollow.ch Fri Dec 14 01:50:52 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 07:50:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate antitrust laws In-Reply-To: References: <20121213182803.GA18612@vortex.com> Message-ID: <20121214075052.0dd06d9e@quill.bollow.ch> Adam Peake wrote: > But how is it Internet governance? I would suggest that one of the big challenges that we're facing in Internet governance discussions is that the number of policy topics is increasing which are somehow becoming part of Internet governance, because (1) as a direct result of what happens on the Internet, these topics have evolved from primarily national to being global concerns; (2) they are deeply relevant to what as per the 2012 IGF's theme should be the objective of Internet governance: Sustainable human, economic and social development; (3) in the absence of global coordination, it is not unlikely for unwise national governmental/legislative action regarding these topics to happen which can potentially have a profound negative impact on how the Internet can be used in the concerned country or countries or even globally. I would suggest that specifically in regard to the big global Internet advertising businesses (which as part of their strategy for being able to sell advertising provide what for a very large percentage of Internet users are key elements in their experience of using the Internet), * antitrust laws or the lack of effective antitrust laws * taxation rules and tax-paying (or tax evasion) practices (as discussed in another thread) are now also becoming such topics. Personally I would prefer to be able to keep Internet governance limited to a relatively small number of topics, but I don't think that that can reasonably be done. > Do you think it would be appropriate to have a session on "Google + > Antitrust" at the 2013 IGF? I don't think that it would be appropriate to single out Google or any other company in IGF session or workshop themes, but I do think that a workshop would be interesting that would explore the challenges to antitrust principles which are posed by today's big global providers of software and internet based services and by the reality that in their areas of activity, network effects make it very hard for effective competition to be sustained in the long run. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 14 02:00:46 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:30:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <10E0870B-FB8E-4ED6-960F-26E9C7E8BDC2@hserus.net> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <10E0870B-FB8E-4ED6-960F-26E9C7E8BDC2@hserus.net> Message-ID: <50CACE9E.3060002@itforchange.net> On Friday 14 December 2012 11:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > This outcome from WCIT has actually given me a lot more hope. Hope > that various countries will realize that pushing these through the ITU > is a non starter. > > I am glad to see that India voted against the ITRs too. A falsehood... > For all the initial rubbish about CIRP, and for all DoT's initial > submission that suggested the contrary. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 14-Dec-2012, at 11:10, parminder > wrote: > >> >> On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> > >>> So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human >>> Rights? It seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by comments >>> and concerns (very legitimate) that some proposal had potential to >>> harm fundamental rights. How many full sessions discussed a single >>> line of text in the preamble, 2, 3, more? All for his own PR, he >>> said as much, it was about the press and perception. So I wonder, if >>> he has used the same passion and time to persuade and cajole >>> delegates to think of ways in which the ITRs could contain >>> high-level and lasting principles that encouraged the spread >>> of/access to broadband across the globe, perhaps we would have had >>> something useful and lasting. >> >> Adam, >> >> Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband >> without mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the >> ITRs? You know that one side was completely intent that, what come >> may, Internet/ broadband cannot find mention in the ITRs.... >> >> The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between >> two sides both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to >> prevent US et all from making a historical point that Internet is an >> unregulated space - whereby their new global domination strategy >> could be unrestrained. The other side was trying to prevent China/ >> Russia et all from changing the basic nature of the global Internet >> into a tightly state controlled space. >> >> The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should >> have included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil >> society, which is supposed to contribute a positive agenda, failed. >> That I think is the primary failure here. The 'sane public >> interest-oriented middle' did not get formed. And the civil society >> was supposed to have a big role in it. So, perhaps, we failed, more >> than anyone else. (Do we want to look into this failure?) >> >> A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such monumental >> importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the people of the >> world some hope.... Take any treaty or global summit process till >> now, whether concerning climate change, trade, traditional knowledge, >> etc etc........... There is always some hope built from a summit/ >> treaty process, and civil society is on the side of this positive >> hope. Mostly leading the positive hope brigade. >> >> What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was >> there any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas. >> And, I dare say, good that neither won, and the process broke down. I >> highly appreciate the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this case, >> I am not too unhappy that the treaty process kind of failed. I am not >> celebrating the breakdown of dialogue. I am hopeful that this >> breakdown will come as a positive shake-up to our collective and >> selective slumbers that many of us seem to be caught in, in terms of >> public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope is that such >> shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am still >> celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open dialogue about >> real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond selective hype, >> focussed on global public interest and not narrow partisan agendas as >> the WCIT process was. >> >> The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am >> completely unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, /what >> would it have succeeded at./ I am unable to form any conception of >> what I could have considered as WCIT success - that, one could say >> proudly, /it gave the world this and this/.... I will be happy if >> anyone here can share any such possible conception of a 'successful >> WCIT' (keeping within the limits in which WCIT process has been >> trapped for a long time now), and perhaps I can still be persuade to >> feel bad about this 'failure'. But right now, I am unable to do so. >> >> >> parminder >> >> >>> Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to >>> become divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his >>> comments last night poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the >>> run-up to this conference that this conference is not about >>> governing the internet. I repeat, that the conference did not >>> include provisions on the internet in the treaty text." etc. Opening >>> plenary: "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard >>> many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over >>> the Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about >>> taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet >>> governance." Sorry, that's twisting words and twisting generally. >>> The resolutions are part of the ITRs, they can be binding on the >>> secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder if Toure's blown his chance >>> for a legacy. Best, Adam >>>> Cheers >>>> >>>> Keith >>>> >>>> >>>> On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Dec 14 02:08:58 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:08:58 +0900 Subject: [governance] document 66 declaration and reservations Message-ID: http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-C-0066!!MSW-E.pdf Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 02:17:33 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:17:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] document 66 declaration and reservations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Adam, Thank you very much! At last first mentioning of Ukraine! 2012/12/14 Adam Peake : > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-C-0066!!MSW-E.pdf > > Adam > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Dec 14 02:38:36 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:08:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <50CACE9E.3060002@itforchange.net> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <10E0870B-FB8E-4ED6-960F-26E9C7E8BDC2@hserus.net> <50CACE9E.3060002@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <815ED32D-D827-45DA-8AEE-429DEB323ABD@hserus.net> you can sue various newspapers for lying then here's one to start with, with statements from the DoT that are remarkably divergent from their earlier position. http://www.livemint.com/Industry/3gtX8BWmMEaIfNyCfFI7xL/UN-group-gives-nod-for-greater-Internet-oversight.html --srs (iPad) On 14-Dec-2012, at 12:30, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 14 December 2012 11:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> This outcome from WCIT has actually given me a lot more hope. Hope that various countries will realize that pushing these through the ITU is a non starter. >> >> I am glad to see that India voted against the ITRs too. > > A falsehood... > > >> For all the initial rubbish about CIRP, and for all DoT's initial submission that suggested the contrary. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 14-Dec-2012, at 11:10, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >> >>>> So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human Rights? It seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by comments and concerns (very legitimate) that some proposal had potential to harm fundamental rights. How many full sessions discussed a single line of text in the preamble, 2, 3, more? All for his own PR, he said as much, it was about the press and perception. So I wonder, if he has used the same passion and time to persuade and cajole delegates to think of ways in which the ITRs could contain high-level and lasting principles that encouraged the spread of/access to broadband across the globe, perhaps we would have had something useful and lasting. >>> >>> Adam, >>> >>> Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband without mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the ITRs? You know that one side was completely intent that, what come may, Internet/ broadband cannot find mention in the ITRs.... >>> >>> The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between two sides both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to prevent US et all from making a historical point that Internet is an unregulated space - whereby their new global domination strategy could be unrestrained. The other side was trying to prevent China/ Russia et all from changing the basic nature of the global Internet into a tightly state controlled space. >>> >>> The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should have included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil society, which is supposed to contribute a positive agenda, failed. That I think is the primary failure here. The 'sane public interest-oriented middle' did not get formed. And the civil society was supposed to have a big role in it. So, perhaps, we failed, more than anyone else. (Do we want to look into this failure?) >>> >>> A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such monumental importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the people of the world some hope.... Take any treaty or global summit process till now, whether concerning climate change, trade, traditional knowledge, etc etc........... There is always some hope built from a summit/ treaty process, and civil society is on the side of this positive hope. Mostly leading the positive hope brigade. >>> >>> What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was there any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas. And, I dare say, good that neither won, and the process broke down. I highly appreciate the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this case, I am not too unhappy that the treaty process kind of failed. I am not celebrating the breakdown of dialogue. I am hopeful that this breakdown will come as a positive shake-up to our collective and selective slumbers that many of us seem to be caught in, in terms of public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope is that such shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am still celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open dialogue about real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond selective hype, focussed on global public interest and not narrow partisan agendas as the WCIT process was. >>> >>> The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am completely unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, what would it have succeeded at. I am unable to form any conception of what I could have considered as WCIT success - that, one could say proudly, it gave the world this and this.... I will be happy if anyone here can share any such possible conception of a 'successful WCIT' (keeping within the limits in which WCIT process has been trapped for a long time now), and perhaps I can still be persuade to feel bad about this 'failure'. But right now, I am unable to do so. >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>>> Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to become divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his comments last night poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the run-up to this conference that this conference is not about governing the internet. I repeat, that the conference did not include provisions on the internet in the treaty text." etc. Opening plenary: "In preparing for this conference, we have seen and heard many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take over the Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance." Sorry, that's twisting words and twisting generally. The resolutions are part of the ITRs, they can be binding on the secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder if Toure's blown his chance for a legacy. Best, Adam >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Keith >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>> Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 14 03:05:15 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:35:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <815ED32D-D827-45DA-8AEE-429DEB323ABD@hserus.net> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <10E0870B-FB8E-4ED6-960F-26E9C7E8BDC2@hserus.net> <50CACE9E.3060002@itforchange.net> <815ED32D-D827-45DA-8AEE-429DEB323ABD@hserus.net> Message-ID: <50CADDBB.7040901@itforchange.net> my information is specific to the voting that took place yesterday, India was among 77 that voted for... On Friday 14 December 2012 01:08 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > you can sue various newspapers for lying then > > here's one to start with, with statements from the DoT that are > remarkably divergent from their earlier position. > > http://www.livemint.com/Industry/3gtX8BWmMEaIfNyCfFI7xL/UN-group-gives-nod-for-greater-Internet-oversight.html > > --srs (iPad) > > On 14-Dec-2012, at 12:30, parminder > wrote: > >> >> On Friday 14 December 2012 11:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> This outcome from WCIT has actually given me a lot more hope. Hope >>> that various countries will realize that pushing these through the >>> ITU is a non starter. >>> >>> I am glad to see that India voted against the ITRs too. >> >> A falsehood... >> >> >>> For all the initial rubbish about CIRP, and for all DoT's initial >>> submission that suggested the contrary. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 14-Dec-2012, at 11:10, parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human >>>>> Rights? It seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by >>>>> comments and concerns (very legitimate) that some proposal had >>>>> potential to harm fundamental rights. How many full sessions >>>>> discussed a single line of text in the preamble, 2, 3, more? All >>>>> for his own PR, he said as much, it was about the press and >>>>> perception. So I wonder, if he has used the same passion and time >>>>> to persuade and cajole delegates to think of ways in which the >>>>> ITRs could contain high-level and lasting principles that >>>>> encouraged the spread of/access to broadband across the globe, >>>>> perhaps we would have had something useful and lasting. >>>> >>>> Adam, >>>> >>>> Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband >>>> without mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the >>>> ITRs? You know that one side was completely intent that, what come >>>> may, Internet/ broadband cannot find mention in the ITRs.... >>>> >>>> The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between >>>> two sides both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to >>>> prevent US et all from making a historical point that Internet is >>>> an unregulated space - whereby their new global domination strategy >>>> could be unrestrained. The other side was trying to prevent China/ >>>> Russia et all from changing the basic nature of the global Internet >>>> into a tightly state controlled space. >>>> >>>> The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should >>>> have included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil >>>> society, which is supposed to contribute a positive agenda, >>>> failed. That I think is the primary failure here. The 'sane public >>>> interest-oriented middle' did not get formed. And the civil society >>>> was supposed to have a big role in it. So, perhaps, we failed, more >>>> than anyone else. (Do we want to look into this failure?) >>>> >>>> A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such >>>> monumental importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the >>>> people of the world some hope.... Take any treaty or global summit >>>> process till now, whether concerning climate change, trade, >>>> traditional knowledge, etc etc........... There is always some hope >>>> built from a summit/ treaty process, and civil society is on the >>>> side of this positive hope. Mostly leading the positive hope brigade. >>>> >>>> What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was >>>> there any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas. >>>> And, I dare say, good that neither won, and the process broke down. >>>> I highly appreciate the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this >>>> case, I am not too unhappy that the treaty process kind of failed. >>>> I am not celebrating the breakdown of dialogue. I am hopeful that >>>> this breakdown will come as a positive shake-up to our collective >>>> and selective slumbers that many of us seem to be caught in, in >>>> terms of public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope is >>>> that such shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am >>>> still celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open >>>> dialogue about real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond >>>> selective hype, focussed on global public interest and not narrow >>>> partisan agendas as the WCIT process was. >>>> >>>> The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am >>>> completely unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, >>>> /what would it have succeeded at./ I am unable to form any >>>> conception of what I could have considered as WCIT success - that, >>>> one could say proudly, /it gave the world this and this/.... I will >>>> be happy if anyone here can share any such possible conception of a >>>> 'successful WCIT' (keeping within the limits in which WCIT process >>>> has been trapped for a long time now), and perhaps I can still be >>>> persuade to feel bad about this 'failure'. But right now, I am >>>> unable to do so. >>>> >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>>> Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to >>>>> become divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his >>>>> comments last night poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the >>>>> run-up to this conference that this conference is not about >>>>> governing the internet. I repeat, that the conference did not >>>>> include provisions on the internet in the treaty text." etc. >>>>> Opening plenary: "In preparing for this conference, we have seen >>>>> and heard many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to >>>>> take over the Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT >>>>> is not about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about >>>>> Internet governance." Sorry, that's twisting words and twisting >>>>> generally. The resolutions are part of the ITRs, they can be >>>>> binding on the secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder if Toure's >>>>> blown his chance for a legacy. Best, Adam >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> >>>>>> Keith >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>>> Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Fri Dec 14 03:09:21 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:09:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] document 66 declaration and reservations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50CEC897-EAD5-46F2-869B-66FD8E9D30D9@uzh.ch> Sweden and Russia present a nice contrast…. On Dec 14, 2012, at 8:08 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-C-0066!!MSW-E.pdf > > Adam > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Dec 14 03:23:21 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:23:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: There is a lot of good stuff in the new ITRs. A lot of countries did genuine negotiation and got to good provisions on things like emergency services, landlocked countries, IXPs. Some of the worst things were avoided, like national IP networks, national control of IP addressing and naming and national control of routing. But some problems persisted: provisions on security that went beyond robustness - what is that but content, on spam that includes analysis of content as its basis, and resolutions that give the ITU marching orders on Internet governance. Basically enough was left in that was pernicious for the Internet that I agree that it is good that these issues prevented many governments from signing. I expect over time some countries will sign when the spotlight is off them. And some might even consider signing in the future if the Plenipot fixes some of the broken aspects (no inside knowledge, just guessing). This story is not over by a long shot. Personally it was an exiting glimpse into the Cold War for the Internet and I am so glad I got to be there and hope to keep participating in it. The main thing I think for civil society is to make sure we are there for the next acts. I think we could have done a lot as participants who could have brought the voice of sanity to the discussion. I think it might have helped if they had bothered to include our contributions in their discussions. We have many differences of viewpoint, but we talk together more than they could ever imagine doing. Our points of view have much greater nuance and reaction to the obverse than do the fixed national positions. Not only do we need to be there, they need to have us there. I suggest that as much as analyze the content of the ITRs and the circus that was Dubai, we figure out how to fix this. Because it is only with our involvement that this will get fixed. A large part of that fix, involves the IGF as a place that can give credible inputs to the operational Internet Governance entities, and multistakeholder enhanced cooperation. Next acts: WSIS-10 Review , WTPF and IGF-13. We have lots of work to do. Isn't it exciting! 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 03:55:12 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (bdelachapelle at gmail.com) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:55:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] document 66 declaration and reservations In-Reply-To: <50CEC897-EAD5-46F2-869B-66FD8E9D30D9@uzh.ch> References: <50CEC897-EAD5-46F2-869B-66FD8E9D30D9@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <6D108DB1-BF6D-4AE9-8C34-E5D345B94A17@gmail.com> Almost a summary of the whole debate. B. Sent from my iPad On 14 déc. 2012, at 09:09, William Drake wrote: > Sweden and Russia present a nice contrast…. > > > On Dec 14, 2012, at 8:08 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> http://files.wcitleaks.org/public/S12-WCIT12-C-0066!!MSW-E.pdf >> >> Adam >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 avri at ella.com Fri Dec 14 04:20:03 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:20:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <522BF456-20B3-400B-89E9-70C0A85752BC@ella.com> Hi, I was told that my reference to IP networks below was confusing. What they probably are is national internets. I was just hesitant to give them the title 'internets' since some people don't differentiate between the Internet - the global interconnection of IP networks according to specific principles and governance regimes, and an internet - the connection of several IP networks under a varying set of principles and governance structures. Multiple internets may, or may not ,be consistent with and to the Interent to varying degrees. avri On 14 Dec 2012, at 09:23, Avri Doria wrote: > > There is a lot of good stuff in the new ITRs. > > A lot of countries did genuine negotiation and got to good provisions on things like emergency services, landlocked countries, IXPs. > > Some of the worst things were avoided, like national IP networks, national control of IP addressing and naming and national control of routing. > > But some problems persisted: provisions on security that went beyond robustness - what is that but content, on spam that includes analysis of content as its basis, and resolutions that give the ITU marching orders on Internet governance. Basically enough was left in that was pernicious for the Internet that I agree that it is good that these issues prevented many governments from signing. > > I expect over time some countries will sign when the spotlight is off them. And some might even consider signing in the future if the Plenipot fixes some of the broken aspects (no inside knowledge, just guessing). This story is not over by a long shot. > > Personally it was an exiting glimpse into the Cold War for the Internet and I am so glad I got to be there and hope to keep participating in it. > > The main thing I think for civil society is to make sure we are there for the next acts. I think we could have done a lot as participants who could have brought the voice of sanity to the discussion. I think it might have helped if they had bothered to include our contributions in their discussions. We have many differences of viewpoint, but we talk together more than they could ever imagine doing. Our points of view have much greater nuance and reaction to the obverse than do the fixed national positions. Not only do we need to be there, they need to have us there. > > I suggest that as much as analyze the content of the ITRs and the circus that was Dubai, we figure out how to fix this. Because it is only with our involvement that this will get fixed. A large part of that fix, involves the IGF as a place that can give credible inputs to the operational Internet Governance entities, and multistakeholder enhanced cooperation. > > Next acts: WSIS-10 Review , WTPF and IGF-13. > We have lots of work to do. > Isn't it exciting! > > avri > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 avri at ella.com Fri Dec 14 05:15:10 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:15:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <522BF456-20B3-400B-89E9-70C0A85752BC@ella.com> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <522BF456-20B3-400B-89E9-70C0A85752BC@ella.com> Message-ID: <03842814-D656-49F7-9686-813C31614BC6@ella.com> Hi, Yep, i think it corresponds to your lumpy theory. Though i did not think you were thinking along national lines. But yes, these would be national lumps. inso far as i understand both models. As I say this did not get ingrained into the ITRs, but I think the hints are there and I do not expect the urge to pass. avri On 14 Dec 2012, at 10:20, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I was told that my reference to IP networks below was confusing. > > What they probably are is national internets. > > I was just hesitant to give them the title 'internets' since some people don't differentiate between the Internet - the global interconnection of IP networks according to specific principles and governance regimes, and an internet - the connection of several IP networks under a varying set of principles and governance structures. Multiple internets may, or may not ,be consistent with and to the Interent to varying degrees. > > avri > > > > On 14 Dec 2012, at 09:23, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> There is a lot of good stuff in the new ITRs. >> >> A lot of countries did genuine negotiation and got to good provisions on things like emergency services, landlocked countries, IXPs. >> >> Some of the worst things were avoided, like national IP networks, national control of IP addressing and naming and national control of routing. >> >> But some problems persisted: provisions on security that went beyond robustness - what is that but content, on spam that includes analysis of content as its basis, and resolutions that give the ITU marching orders on Internet governance. Basically enough was left in that was pernicious for the Internet that I agree that it is good that these issues prevented many governments from signing. >> >> I expect over time some countries will sign when the spotlight is off them. And some might even consider signing in the future if the Plenipot fixes some of the broken aspects (no inside knowledge, just guessing). This story is not over by a long shot. >> >> Personally it was an exiting glimpse into the Cold War for the Internet and I am so glad I got to be there and hope to keep participating in it. >> >> The main thing I think for civil society is to make sure we are there for the next acts. I think we could have done a lot as participants who could have brought the voice of sanity to the discussion. I think it might have helped if they had bothered to include our contributions in their discussions. We have many differences of viewpoint, but we talk together more than they could ever imagine doing. Our points of view have much greater nuance and reaction to the obverse than do the fixed national positions. Not only do we need to be there, they need to have us there. >> >> I suggest that as much as analyze the content of the ITRs and the circus that was Dubai, we figure out how to fix this. Because it is only with our involvement that this will get fixed. A large part of that fix, involves the IGF as a place that can give credible inputs to the operational Internet Governance entities, and multistakeholder enhanced cooperation. >> >> Next acts: WSIS-10 Review , WTPF and IGF-13. >> We have lots of work to do. >> Isn't it exciting! >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 06:19:36 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:19:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IRPCoalition] Post-WCIT civil society statement: A way forward In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Does anyone else find it interesting that this was not mentioned on the IGC list at all? Many possible interpretations! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dixie Hawtin Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:42 AM Subject: [IRPCoalition] Post-WCIT civil society statement: A way forward To: "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" We further call upon governments to recognize the importance of ensuring meaningful and sustainable civil society participation in all internet governance and policy-making processes which should be both transparent and accountable. – We urge governments to promote universal, affordable, high quality and equitable access to the internet – Recognizing the necessity of net neutrality for protection of human rights and for innovation we call for the promotion of network equality so that access is free from discrimination, filtering or control on commercial, political or other grounds. – Noting that the internet is a medium for both public and private exchange of views and information across boundaries, we call on governments and non-state actors to respect and protect freedom of expression online. – Taking into account that privacy is a fundamental human right, we urge the governments and service providers to take all legal, procedural and technical steps necessary to guarantee the right to protection of personal data, including traffic and indirectly identifiable data; the right to secure private communications, including the right to online anonymity and pseudonimity; and the right to be free from unwarranted surveillance and all forms of eavesdropping -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 06:41:39 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:41:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate antitrust laws In-Reply-To: References: <20121213182803.GA18612@vortex.com> Message-ID: <049b01cdd9f0$177a4580$466ed080$@gmail.com> +1 M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:46 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Cc: McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate antitrust laws On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: Does the G in IGC now stand for Google? :-) Adam It is entertaining to watch feathers ruffled when criticisms against Google is launched. Google is not bad - really, it is not a monster - it has done and continues to lots of great work - but the whole point of Internet Governance is to engage in discussions on issues that affect stakeholders. We are very appreciative of the wonderful things that Google has done in relation to helping Japan recover from the Tsunami through getting victims to post messages - helping out in Haiti during the earth quake. At the same time there are certain aspects of Google's operations that require discussion. The same can be said when critiquing other stakeholders within the Internet Governance and the point is not the critiquing but in the constructive dialogue of how things can be improved to impact on the average end user. On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:07 AM, McTim wrote: > I will leave the editorialising to others... > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Lauren Weinstein > Date: Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 1:28 PM > Subject: [ NNSquad ] New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did > not violate antitrust laws > To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org > > > > New York Post: FTC reportedly will find that Google did not violate > antitrust laws > > http://j.mp/TdAByO (New York Post) > > "Federal regulators are expected to close a year-long probe of Google's > search business without finding any antitrust violations, The Post has > learned. The Federal Trade Commission is expected to announce before > the end of the year that Google's search engine did not cause any > consumer harm or favor its own businesses, sources close to the > situation said." > > - - - > > Hoping this report from The New York Post is correct. There obviously > has been no consumer harm, and the attacks on Google in this sphere > have been driven by Google's competitors who just can't match the > quality of Google's services on their own. > > --Lauren-- > Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren > Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: > http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info Founder: > - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org > - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info > - Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org > - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: > http://www.gctip.org > Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy > Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com > Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren > Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com > _______________________________________________ > nnsquad mailing list > http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad > > > > -- > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 06:43:30 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:43:30 +1300 Subject: [governance] REMINDER 2013 Preparations for MAG Message-ID: Dear All, We have been receiving feedback on our Preparations for 2013 - this is a reminder to continue to send your thoughts and views etc . We will consolidate this information. For those who are interested in volunteering to help put our submissions together in this regard, please let us know by replying to this list. For those who have given their views, thank you and again, I invite you all to keep the thoughts and discussions coming in. Kind Regards, Sala On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > We need to start preparing for issues and topics that we would like raised > by current MAG members. > > The Secretariat has put up a call for contributions on the IGF website > inviting stakeholders to submit written contributions taking stock of the > 2012 Baku meeting and inviting suggestions on the themes and format of the > IGF 2013 meeting. The deadline for contributions is *14 February 2012*. > These inputs will be summarized in a synthesis paper that will act as an > input into the discussions of the February meeting. > > The IGC Plan is as follows: > > 25 Nov 2012 - Issue Notice to IGC > > 25 Nov 2012 - 15 January, 2013 - Gather Feedback and formulate first draft > > 16-Jan -30 Jan 2013 - Review first Draft and gather feedback > > 31 Jan - 5th February 2013 - Produce 2nd Draft > 6th Feb - 10th February - Finalise submissions from IGC > 11th Feb - Send to IGF Secretariat and our representatives to the MAG > > > It will be great to start discussions on what some of the themes we would > like canvassed. > > Warm Regards > > > -- > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 07:09:41 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 01:09:41 +1300 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > There is a lot of good stuff in the new ITRs. > > A lot of countries did genuine negotiation and got to good provisions on > things like emergency services, landlocked countries, IXPs. > Yes, there was genuine negotiations. [Para 9 on the Draft resolution Article 1 section 1.7 recognizes the sovereignty of member states. It is also worthwhile noting that the Resolution does not have the same effect as a Treaty and is merely there to create an enabling environment] As for definitions - there was nothing on ICT and it was simply Telecommuncations although there was a distinction between Government and Service Telecommunications. I was also happy with Para 34 on Article 4 section 4.3 on QoS. It was also good to see Article 5B on Spam. Article 6 on Taxation would be the most controversial one and one of the core reasons why some countries won't sign - what will be interesting to watch is the WTO space as well. I found Article 7 interesting on Suspension of Services both partial and temporary. I was extremely pleased to see Hungary's Proposal on Access for Disabled Persons under Article 8B > > Some of the worst things were avoided, like national IP networks, national > control of IP addressing and naming and national control of routing. > There is no appetite in my view for national control of IP addressing not now or in the future. The countries are pleased with the way the RIRs run their show. > > But some problems persisted: provisions on security that went beyond > robustness - what is that but content, on spam that includes analysis of > content as its basis, and resolutions that give the ITU marching orders on > Internet governance. Basically enough was left in that was pernicious for > the Internet that I agree that it is good that these issues prevented many > governments from signing. > > I expect over time some countries will sign when the spotlight is off > them. And some might even consider signing in the future if the Plenipot > fixes some of the broken aspects (no inside knowledge, just guessing). > This story is not over by a long shot. > > Personally it was an exiting glimpse into the Cold War for the Internet > and I am so glad I got to be there and hope to keep participating in it. > > The main thing I think for civil society is to make sure we are there for > the next acts. I think we could have done a lot as participants who could > have brought the voice of sanity to the discussion. I think it might have > helped if they had bothered to include our contributions in their > discussions. We have many differences of viewpoint, but we talk together > more than they could ever imagine doing. Our points of view have much > greater nuance and reaction to the obverse than do the fixed national > positions. Not only do we need to be there, they need to have us there. > > I suggest that as much as analyze the content of the ITRs and the circus > that was Dubai, we figure out how to fix this. Because it is only with our > involvement that this will get fixed. A large part of that fix, involves > the IGF as a place that can give credible inputs to the operational > Internet Governance entities, and multistakeholder enhanced cooperation. > > Next acts: WSIS-10 Review , WTPF and IGF-13. > We have lots of work to do. > Isn't it exciting! > > avri > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 07:12:37 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 01:12:37 +1300 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/statement-toure.aspx Statement from Toure. On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> There is a lot of good stuff in the new ITRs. >> >> A lot of countries did genuine negotiation and got to good provisions on >> things like emergency services, landlocked countries, IXPs. >> > > Yes, there was genuine negotiations. [Para 9 on the Draft resolution > Article 1 section 1.7 recognizes the sovereignty of member states. It is > also worthwhile noting that the Resolution does not have the same effect as > a Treaty and is merely there to create an enabling environment] > > As for definitions - there was nothing on ICT and it was simply > Telecommuncations although there was a distinction between Government and > Service Telecommunications. > > I was also happy with Para 34 on Article 4 section 4.3 on QoS. It was also > good to see Article 5B on Spam. > > Article 6 on Taxation would be the most controversial one and one of the > core reasons why some countries won't sign - what will be interesting to > watch is the WTO space as well. > > I found Article 7 interesting on Suspension of Services both partial and > temporary. I was extremely pleased to see Hungary's Proposal on Access for > Disabled Persons under Article 8B > >> >> Some of the worst things were avoided, like national IP networks, >> national control of IP addressing and naming and national control of >> routing. >> > > There is no appetite in my view for national control of IP addressing not > now or in the future. The countries are pleased with the way the RIRs run > their show. > >> >> But some problems persisted: provisions on security that went beyond >> robustness - what is that but content, on spam that includes analysis of >> content as its basis, and resolutions that give the ITU marching orders on >> Internet governance. Basically enough was left in that was pernicious for >> the Internet that I agree that it is good that these issues prevented many >> governments from signing. >> >> I expect over time some countries will sign when the spotlight is off >> them. And some might even consider signing in the future if the Plenipot >> fixes some of the broken aspects (no inside knowledge, just guessing). >> This story is not over by a long shot. >> >> Personally it was an exiting glimpse into the Cold War for the Internet >> and I am so glad I got to be there and hope to keep participating in it. >> >> The main thing I think for civil society is to make sure we are there for >> the next acts. I think we could have done a lot as participants who could >> have brought the voice of sanity to the discussion. I think it might have >> helped if they had bothered to include our contributions in their >> discussions. We have many differences of viewpoint, but we talk together >> more than they could ever imagine doing. Our points of view have much >> greater nuance and reaction to the obverse than do the fixed national >> positions. Not only do we need to be there, they need to have us there. >> >> I suggest that as much as analyze the content of the ITRs and the circus >> that was Dubai, we figure out how to fix this. Because it is only with our >> involvement that this will get fixed. A large part of that fix, involves >> the IGF as a place that can give credible inputs to the operational >> Internet Governance entities, and multistakeholder enhanced cooperation. >> >> Next acts: WSIS-10 Review , WTPF and IGF-13. >> We have lots of work to do. >> Isn't it exciting! >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 > > > > > -- 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 vanda at uol.com.br Fri Dec 14 07:16:24 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:16:24 -0200 Subject: RES: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <10E0870B-FB8E-4ED6-960F-26E9C7E8BDC2@hserus.net> Message-ID: <00f001cdd9f4$d9de6210$8d9b2630$@uol.com.br> Touré needed to have something in hands to finish the conference. But better than the radical proposal, still open doors for countries to go further in the previous document line. But without relevant signatures like Europeans or US the document become less important than it was intended to be. Not a good solution but the possible one. Guess none is happy. -----Mensagem original----- De: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] Em nome de Adam Peake Enviada em: sexta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2012 04:16 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Assunto: Re: [governance] WCIT melt down More countries that say they won'y sign or have to go back and have further national consultation, the stronger the multi-stakeholder model looks. But a wasted opportunity all the same. Adam On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > This outcome from WCIT has actually given me a lot more hope. Hope > that various countries will realize that pushing these through the ITU > is a non starter. > > I am glad to see that India voted against the ITRs too. For all the > initial rubbish about CIRP, and for all DoT's initial submission that > suggested the contrary. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 14-Dec-2012, at 11:10, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human > Rights? It seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by comments > and concerns (very > legitimate) that some proposal had potential to harm fundamental > rights. How many full sessions discussed a single line of text in the > preamble, 2, 3, more? All for his own PR, he said as much, it was > about the press and perception. So I wonder, if he has used the same > passion and time to persuade and cajole delegates to think of ways in > which the ITRs could contain high-level and lasting principles that > encouraged the spread of/access to broadband across the globe, perhaps > we would have had something useful and lasting. > > > Adam, > > Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband > without mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the > ITRs? You know that one side was completely intent that, what come > may, Internet/ broadband cannot find mention in the ITRs.... > > The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between two > sides both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to > prevent US et all from making a historical point that Internet is an > unregulated space - whereby their new global domination strategy could > be unrestrained. The other side was trying to prevent China/ Russia et > all from changing the basic nature of the global Internet into a tightly state controlled space. > > The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should have > included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil society, > which is supposed to contribute a positive agenda, failed. That I > think is the primary failure here. The 'sane public interest-oriented > middle' did not get formed. And the civil society was supposed to have > a big role in it. So, perhaps, we failed, more than anyone else. (Do > we want to look into this > failure?) > > A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such monumental > importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the people of the > world some hope.... Take any treaty or global summit process till now, > whether concerning climate change, trade, traditional knowledge, etc etc........... > There is always some hope built from a summit/ treaty process, and > civil society is on the side of this positive hope. Mostly leading the > positive hope brigade. > > What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was > there any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas. > And, I dare say, good that neither won, and the process broke down. I > highly appreciate the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this case, > I am not too unhappy that the treaty process kind of failed. I am not > celebrating the breakdown of dialogue. I am hopeful that this > breakdown will come as a positive shake-up to our collective and > selective slumbers that many of us seem to be caught in, in terms of > public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope is that such > shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am still > celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open dialogue about > real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond selective hype, > focussed on global public interest and not narrow partisan agendas as the WCIT process was. > > The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am > completely unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, what > would it have succeeded at. I am unable to form any conception of what > I could have considered as WCIT success - that, one could say proudly, > it gave the world this and this.... I will be happy if anyone here can > share any such possible conception of a 'successful WCIT' (keeping > within the limits in which WCIT process has been trapped for a long > time now), and perhaps I can still be persuade to feel bad about this > 'failure'. But right now, I am unable to do so. > > > parminder > > > Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to > become divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his comments > last night > poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the run-up to this conference > that this conference is not about governing the internet. I repeat, > that the conference did not include provisions on the internet in the treaty text." > etc. Opening plenary: "In preparing for this conference, we have seen > and heard many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take > over the Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not > about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet > governance." Sorry, that's twisting words and twisting generally. The > resolutions are part of the ITRs, they can be binding on the > secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder if Toure's blown his chance > for a legacy. Best, Adam > > Cheers > > Keith > > > On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: > > Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. > > Adam > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.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 vanda at uol.com.br Fri Dec 14 07:24:34 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:24:34 -0200 Subject: RES: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <8109713139486384252@unknownmsgid> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <8109713139486384252@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: <00f101cdd9f5$ff9a4e50$feceeaf0$@uol.com.br> You are absolute right Nick. Let´s see first what happen. For me this document open doors that I would like not to see open, but Toure could not finish the conference without a signed paper for his own good at least. With relevant countries not signing, the document lose power but still can be of bad use for several countries. Let´s see the final act. De: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Em nome de Nick Ashton-Hart Enviada em: quinta-feira, 13 de dezembro de 2012 20:54 Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter Cc: Marilia Maciel; Grace Githaiga Assunto: Re: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency It is a bit premature to draw final conclusions, especially involving such hyperbole as the quoted article contains. We will see which countries sign the Final Act in Dubai tomorrow and which do not, and what statements countries make during the ceremony. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic mangling. On 13 Dec 2012, at 23:45, Ian Peter wrote: +1 – well stated Marilia From: Marilia Maciel Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 9:16 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Grace Githaiga Subject: Re: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency Only in a twisted society lack of dialogue and understanding will be seen as victory and only irresponsible people celebrate failure. The bright side was that bad proposals about Internet were avoided, at least for now. The bad side is that good proposals from the ITRs seem to be lost, and the meeting proves that the rift is widening between actors. The consequence may be more attempts for national regulation in a myriad of topics, from national firewalls to SOPA, PIPA or domain name seizures from the US gov. But wait: aren't the US the ultimate freedom fighters according to .nxt? Marília On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: Having turned industries and governments upside down, the Internet has claimed its first organizational scalp, subjecting the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to a humiliating failure at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai earlier today. Read on: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-telecoms-a _____ From: lmcknigh at syr.edu To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:53:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/14 0705 Includes nuggets of info, new at least to me. http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/14 0705 Lee ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.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 jcurran at arin.net Fri Dec 14 08:40:20 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:40:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Dec 13, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > [Milton L Mueller] For an understanding of "what happened here" so forthcoming IGP blog post. (including my response, included below) Milton – You might want to watch the video archive of the fourteenth plenary meeting (Thursday, 13 December 2012, at 19.30 hours GT), and in particular at the reservations expressed two hours in by the US, UK, Sweden, Canada, Denmark, South Africa, Netherlands, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, New Zealand, Poland, etc. which occurred immediately after the WCIT plenary moved from operating under a consensus basis to utilizing Member State voting to force outcomes. The WCIT conference, in the words of SecGen Toure, were to be discussions based on “consensus, in the true tradition of ITU.” The draft revised ITRs under consideration at the time still had significant aspects which dealt with the Internet, including an Internet Resolution, references to spam and security matters, all despite clear statements at the begin of the conference that the scope of the treaty would not include the Internet. It should not be surprising that many participants left the WCIT once the WCIT abandoned these principles. In the end, 50+ countries do not appear to be signing the revised ITRs, citing the conference as a departure from the multistakeholder Internet governance. To ascribe this to a common desire to prevent non-discriminatory telecommunications access does not reflect a solid understanding of the nature of the proceedings as they occurred. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Dec 14 08:44:40 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:44:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <00f001cdd9f4$d9de6210$8d9b2630$@uol.com.br> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <10E0870B-FB8E-4ED6-960F-26E9C7E8BDC2@hserus.net> <00f001cdd9f4$d9de6210$8d9b2630$@uol.com.br> Message-ID: I agree that it would be a positive development for CS, particularly this caucus, to become more pro-active (and less defensive, less reactive) on these issues. That's also how I took the challenge thrown to us by the India's minister when he received some of us in Baku. Instead of speaking against and mainly playing the watchdog (watching over what others do), there are real problems and what workable solution are we proposing? It would be great to convince governments to have us at the table, but we don't need to wait for an invitation or even spend that much energy on getting one. CS is in the mix and nobody can now ignore that. If they won't have us at the table, nothing prevents us from negotiating an alternate treaty and put it out there for the world to see, one that would strike a balance between the state of the forces in the field and providing a vision into a better future. I'm just there will be more than one government who will take with them the CS's alternate treaty to their negotiations. I thought bestbists' deliberations in Baku gave us a glimpse on our ability to to do that --no? mawaki On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:16 AM, Vanda UOL wrote: > Touré needed to have something in hands to finish the conference. But > better than the radical proposal, still open doors for countries to go > further in the previous document line. But without relevant signatures like > Europeans or US the document become less important than it was intended to > be. Not a good solution but the possible one. Guess none is happy. > > -----Mensagem original----- > De: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] Em nome de Adam Peake > Enviada em: sexta-feira, 14 de dezembro de 2012 04:16 > Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Assunto: Re: [governance] WCIT melt down > > More countries that say they won'y sign or have to go back and have further > national consultation, the stronger the multi-stakeholder > model looks. But a wasted opportunity all the same. > > Adam > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> This outcome from WCIT has actually given me a lot more hope. Hope >> that various countries will realize that pushing these through the ITU >> is a non starter. >> >> I am glad to see that India voted against the ITRs too. For all the >> initial rubbish about CIRP, and for all DoT's initial submission that >> suggested the contrary. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 14-Dec-2012, at 11:10, parminder wrote: >> >> >> On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > >> >> So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human >> Rights? It seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by comments >> and concerns (very >> legitimate) that some proposal had potential to harm fundamental >> rights. How many full sessions discussed a single line of text in the >> preamble, 2, 3, more? All for his own PR, he said as much, it was >> about the press and perception. So I wonder, if he has used the same >> passion and time to persuade and cajole delegates to think of ways in >> which the ITRs could contain high-level and lasting principles that >> encouraged the spread of/access to broadband across the globe, perhaps >> we would have had something useful and lasting. >> >> >> Adam, >> >> Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband >> without mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the >> ITRs? You know that one side was completely intent that, what come >> may, Internet/ broadband cannot find mention in the ITRs.... >> >> The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between two >> sides both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to >> prevent US et all from making a historical point that Internet is an >> unregulated space - whereby their new global domination strategy could >> be unrestrained. The other side was trying to prevent China/ Russia et >> all from changing the basic nature of the global Internet into a tightly > state controlled space. >> >> The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should have >> included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil society, >> which is supposed to contribute a positive agenda, failed. That I >> think is the primary failure here. The 'sane public interest-oriented >> middle' did not get formed. And the civil society was supposed to have >> a big role in it. So, perhaps, we failed, more than anyone else. (Do >> we want to look into this >> failure?) >> >> A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such monumental >> importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the people of the >> world some hope.... Take any treaty or global summit process till now, >> whether concerning climate change, trade, traditional knowledge, etc > etc........... >> There is always some hope built from a summit/ treaty process, and >> civil society is on the side of this positive hope. Mostly leading the >> positive hope brigade. >> >> What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was >> there any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas. >> And, I dare say, good that neither won, and the process broke down. I >> highly appreciate the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this case, >> I am not too unhappy that the treaty process kind of failed. I am not >> celebrating the breakdown of dialogue. I am hopeful that this >> breakdown will come as a positive shake-up to our collective and >> selective slumbers that many of us seem to be caught in, in terms of >> public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope is that such >> shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am still >> celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open dialogue about >> real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond selective hype, >> focussed on global public interest and not narrow partisan agendas as the > WCIT process was. >> >> The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am >> completely unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, what >> would it have succeeded at. I am unable to form any conception of what >> I could have considered as WCIT success - that, one could say proudly, >> it gave the world this and this.... I will be happy if anyone here can >> share any such possible conception of a 'successful WCIT' (keeping >> within the limits in which WCIT process has been trapped for a long >> time now), and perhaps I can still be persuade to feel bad about this >> 'failure'. But right now, I am unable to do so. >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to >> become divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his comments >> last night >> poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the run-up to this conference >> that this conference is not about governing the internet. I repeat, >> that the conference did not include provisions on the internet in the > treaty text." >> etc. Opening plenary: "In preparing for this conference, we have seen >> and heard many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to take >> over the Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT is not >> about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet >> governance." Sorry, that's twisting words and twisting generally. The >> resolutions are part of the ITRs, they can be binding on the >> secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder if Toure's blown his chance >> for a legacy. Best, Adam >> >> Cheers >> >> Keith >> >> >> On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. >> >> Adam >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Fri Dec 14 09:05:08 2012 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:05:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status In-Reply-To: <50CB2DF0.3000506@isoc.org> References: ,<50CB2DF0.3000506@isoc.org> Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WCIT SignFinal Acts.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 105617 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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Dec 14 09:20:54 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:20:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > Sorry, that's twisting words and twisting generally. The resolutions are > part of the ITRs, they can be binding on the secretariat, they are > "WICT. [Milton L Mueller] Sorry, Adam, I think this is just false. Resolutions are NOT part of the ITRs. The ITRs are an international treaty which, if ratified, have force of law. Resolutions are not of the ITRs, full stop. Furthermore, I believe (but am not sure) that countries can take reservations on a resolution (i.e. refuse to agree to it) while signing the ITRs. Let me make it clear that I would oppose the "enabling environment" resolution, but I also view it as a rather lame, harmless and near-desperate attempt of the ITU to retain relevance in the IG world. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 09:22:14 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:22:14 -0800 Subject: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status In-Reply-To: References: <50CB2DF0.3000506@isoc.org> Message-ID: On Dec 14, 2012, at 6:05 AM, Grace Githaiga wrote: > There's "reservations" and then there's "reservations"; i.e. we do not know yet which reservations are typical boilerplate for issues of national sovereignty, etc., and which are reservations regarding specific portions of the ITRs, e.g. due to various Internet affecting provisions. FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. No reservations taken. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WCIT SignFinal Acts.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 105617 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Fri Dec 14 09:26:21 2012 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:26:21 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status In-Reply-To: References: ,<50CB2DF0.3000506@isoc.org> Message-ID: <019201cdda06$fd7d7910$f8786b30$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> I'm surprised to see the majority of European countries being in the "Will sign" category. I also see Kenya, Egypt and Poland in that column, which is equally surprising given the earlier statements that they would not sign. What has happened to sway their minds in that direction? Peter H. Hellmonds Public & International Affairs peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu +49 (160) 360-2852 Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Grace Githaiga Gesendet: 14 December 2012 15:05 An: hfeld at publicknowledge.org; wcit12 at cdt.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Fri Dec 14 09:30:23 2012 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:30:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status In-Reply-To: <019201cdda06$fd7d7910$f8786b30$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> References: ,<50CB2DF0.3000506@isoc.org> ,<019201cdda06$fd7d7910$f8786b30$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: I understand they signed reservations. From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ggithaiga at hotmail.com Subject: AW: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:26:21 +0100 I’m surprised to see the majority of European countries being in the “Will sign” category. I also see Kenya, Egypt and Poland in that column, which is equally surprising given the earlier statements that they would not sign. What has happened to sway their minds in that direction? Peter H. HellmondsPublic & International Affairspeter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu+49 (160) 360-2852 Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Grace Githaiga Gesendet: 14 December 2012 15:05 An: hfeld at publicknowledge.org; wcit12 at cdt.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Fri Dec 14 09:31:51 2012 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:31:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status In-Reply-To: References: ,<50CB2DF0.3000506@isoc.org>,,<019201cdda06$fd7d7910$f8786b30$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu>, Message-ID: Meant to say that Kenya they signed with reservations. From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com To: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:30:23 +0000 Subject: RE: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status I understand they signed reservations. From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; ggithaiga at hotmail.com Subject: AW: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:26:21 +0100 I’m surprised to see the majority of European countries being in the “Will sign” category. I also see Kenya, Egypt and Poland in that column, which is equally surprising given the earlier statements that they would not sign. What has happened to sway their minds in that direction? Peter H. HellmondsPublic & International Affairspeter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu+49 (160) 360-2852 Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Grace Githaiga Gesendet: 14 December 2012 15:05 An: hfeld at publicknowledge.org; wcit12 at cdt.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 09:37:25 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:37:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> ,<50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Parminder, I don't know that you can pin this on civil society, who remember was not even an invited guest to the party at the start of the WCIT preparatory process. IF the resolution had a different more conciliatory phrasing oriented towards 'exploring' what to do as Internet progresses etc etc, maybe then the split could be have been avoided. The resolution was too directive for issues for which a consensus does not exist. In a treaty-making poker game, if key players blow their hand....things happen. And at that final table, CS still didn't have a seat even if it had a peek at a few players cards. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 12:40 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] WCIT melt down On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 kichango at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 09:38:20 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:38:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status In-Reply-To: <50cb3723.4a13c20a.14ad.59d3SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <50CB2DF0.3000506@isoc.org> <50cb3723.4a13c20a.14ad.59d3SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: ... And I don't see Japan in here, while I thought it has clearly taken one of these positions. Russian Federation is in two columns -- while that is not impossible, it still signals that the lines of this categorization are a little fuzzy. Thanks for the effort anyway... we'll wait and learn more. Thanks, mawaki On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > I’m surprised to see the majority of European countries being in the “Will > sign” category. I also see Kenya, Egypt and Poland in that column, which is > equally surprising given the earlier statements that they would not sign. > What has happened to sway their minds in that direction? > > > > Peter H. Hellmonds > > Public & International Affairs > > peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu > > +49 (160) 360-2852 > > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Grace Githaiga > Gesendet: 14 December 2012 15:05 > An: hfeld at publicknowledge.org; wcit12 at cdt.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Dec 14 09:39:25 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:39:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> John: Just to be clear, I have said for some months that I don't think we need the ITRs at all and thus do not particularly care whether they are signed or not. As an academic I am, however, continually amazed at the double standards and poor reasoning taken by both sides in this debate. So you say > The WCIT conference, in the words of SecGen Toure, were to be > discussions based on "consensus, in the true tradition of ITU." The > draft revised ITRs under consideration at the time still had significant > aspects which dealt with the Internet, including an Internet Resolution, > references to spam and security matters, all despite clear statements at > the begin of the conference that the scope of the treaty would not > include the Internet. [Milton L Mueller] It remains a fact that nothing in the final ITRs mentions the Internet. The "spam and security" references in 5B and 5A, respectively, are as close as it comes and they cannot reasonably be classified as Internet governance. Here is 5A: "Member States shall individually and collectively endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international telecommunication networks in order to achieve effective use thereof and avoidance of technical harm thereto, as well as the harmonious development of international telecommunication services offered to the public." And here is 5B: "Member States should endeavour to take necessary measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications and minimize its impact on international telecommunication services. Member States are encouraged to cooperate in that sense." If it is your contention that these words constitute an aggressive attempt to take over the internet or to insert governments into the governance of the Internet in a new way I will laugh in your face. As for the Resolution, I understand the objections to it, but its (contested) passage via "room temperature assessment" did not by itself seem to trigger the abandonment of the process, though it may have contributed to it. And because it is NOT part of the ITRs and has no binding force on anything or anyone except the ITU SG, who is already actively and happily seeking a role for the ITU in Internet governance and has been doing so for the past 15 years, again I have trouble understanding it as a basis for refusal to sign the treaty. > It should not be surprising that many participants left the WCIT once > the WCIT abandoned these principles. In the end, 50+ countries do not > appear to be signing the revised ITRs, citing the conference as a > departure from the multistakeholder Internet governance. To ascribe this > to a common desire to prevent non-discriminatory telecommunications > access does not reflect a solid understanding of the nature of the > proceedings as they occurred. [Milton L Mueller] True, I was not there. But as my blog post makes clear, I was watching online and did not detect any disruption or abandonment of the process until AFTER the African amendment vote regarding nondiscriminatory access. Furthermore, there is nothing substantive in the ITRs that constitutes a significant deviation from "multistakeholder internet governance." Please specify what it is (the Resolution does not count, remember, because it is not part of the ITRs), or alter your assertion. To conclude, this is an empirical issue and my interpretation remains open to any new facts. Unless you produce better evidence contesting or disproving my interpretation, I will stand by the story as it stands. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 09:44:29 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 23:44:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F51@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, of course you're right, resolutions do not have treaty status. I was mixing a few things. Not to your point, but the resolution is for sure part of WCIT and during the first plenary Dr. Toure said "WCIT is not about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about Internet governance." If at that time he'd said treaty/ITRs you can be sure people would have taken notice. So it's a bit of a shame. Adam On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> Sorry, that's twisting words and twisting generally. The resolutions are >> part of the ITRs, they can be binding on the secretariat, they are >> "WICT. > > [Milton L Mueller] Sorry, Adam, I think this is just false. Resolutions are NOT part of the ITRs. The ITRs are an international treaty which, if ratified, have force of law. Resolutions are not of the ITRs, full stop. Furthermore, I believe (but am not sure) that countries can take reservations on a resolution (i.e. refuse to agree to it) while signing the ITRs. > > Let me make it clear that I would oppose the "enabling environment" resolution, but I also view it as a rather lame, harmless and near-desperate attempt of the ITU to retain relevance in the IG world. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 09:49:27 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:49:27 -0200 Subject: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status In-Reply-To: References: <50CB2DF0.3000506@isoc.org> <50cb3723.4a13c20a.14ad.59d3SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: For those interested, Brazilian final declaration + list of 11 latin-american countries that signed the document: http://observatoriodainternet.br/declaracao-final-do-brasil-na-conferencia-mundial-de-telecomunicacoes-da-uit Marília On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > ... And I don't see Japan in here, while I thought it has clearly > taken one of these positions. Russian Federation is in two columns -- > while that is not impossible, it still signals that the lines of this > categorization are a little fuzzy. Thanks for the effort anyway... > we'll wait and learn more. > Thanks, > > mawaki > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds > wrote: > > I’m surprised to see the majority of European countries being in the > “Will > > sign” category. I also see Kenya, Egypt and Poland in that column, which > is > > equally surprising given the earlier statements that they would not sign. > > What has happened to sway their minds in that direction? > > > > > > > > Peter H. Hellmonds > > > > Public & International Affairs > > > > peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu > > > > +49 (160) 360-2852 > > > > > > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Grace > Githaiga > > Gesendet: 14 December 2012 15:05 > > An: hfeld at publicknowledge.org; wcit12 at cdt.org; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Betreff: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.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 > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 09:52:07 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:52:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> ,<50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292FC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Lee: The more I look at this, the more it seems that the US misplayed its hand. There is nothing objectionable or demonstrably harmful in the ITRs per se. The fact that countries like the Netherlands, Tunisia and Brazil plan to sign the ITRs (if that list is correct) is not quite consistent with the contention that the new ITRs are a massive deviation from "MS governance" or part of an attempt by authoritarian states to take over the internet. If and when the refusniks are limited to a handful of Anglo-Saxon countries they will end up looking isolated. --MM From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 9:37 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: RE: [governance] WCIT melt down Parminder, I don't know that you can pin this on civil society, who remember was not even an invited guest to the party at the start of the WCIT preparatory process. IF the resolution had a different more conciliatory phrasing oriented towards 'exploring' what to do as Internet progresses etc etc, maybe then the split could be have been avoided. The resolution was too directive for issues for which a consensus does not exist. In a treaty-making poker game, if key players blow their hand....things happen. And at that final table, CS still didn't have a seat even if it had a peek at a few players cards. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 12:40 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] WCIT melt down On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Dec 14 10:05:22 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 07:05:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> On Dec 14, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> The WCIT conference, in the words of SecGen Toure, were to be >> discussions based on "consensus, in the true tradition of ITU." The >> draft revised ITRs under consideration at the time still had significant >> aspects which dealt with the Internet, including an Internet Resolution, >> references to spam and security matters, all despite clear statements at >> the begin of the conference that the scope of the treaty would not >> include the Internet. > > [Milton L Mueller] It remains a fact that nothing in the final ITRs mentions the Internet. The "spam and security" references in 5B and 5A, respectively, are as close as it comes and they cannot reasonably be classified as Internet governance. Here is 5A: > > "Member States shall individually and collectively endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international telecommunication networks in order to achieve effective use thereof and avoidance of technical harm thereto, as well as the harmonious development of international telecommunication services offered to the public." > > And here is 5B: > > "Member States should endeavour to take necessary measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications and minimize its impact on international telecommunication services. Member States are encouraged to cooperate in that sense." > > If it is your contention that these words constitute an aggressive attempt to take over the internet or to insert governments into the governance of the Internet in a new way I will laugh in your face. It's my contention that some Member States believe these words are applicable to the Internet... I was present during many of these debates, and it's clear for example that 5B is targeting spam _on the Internet_. > As for the Resolution, I understand the objections to it, but its (contested) passage via "room temperature assessment" did not by itself seem to trigger the abandonment of the process, though it may have contributed to it. And because it is NOT part of the ITRs and has no binding force on anything or anyone except the ITU SG, who is already actively and happily seeking a role for the ITU in Internet governance and has been doing so for the past 15 years, again I have trouble understanding it as a basis for refusal to sign the treaty. Apparently some of my earlier mail to this list you did not receive: The Resolution directed Member States "to elaborate on their respective positions on international Internet-related technical, development and public-policy issues within the mandate of ITU at various ITU forums..." While not giving the ITU any authority, per se, it does have Member States effectively acknowledging that there are (unspecified) Internet-related public-policy issues that fall within the mandate of ITU and which are to be discussed at ITU fora. >> It should not be surprising that many participants left the WCIT once >> the WCIT abandoned these principles. In the end, 50+ countries do not >> appear to be signing the revised ITRs, citing the conference as a >> departure from the multistakeholder Internet governance. To ascribe this >> to a common desire to prevent non-discriminatory telecommunications >> access does not reflect a solid understanding of the nature of the >> proceedings as they occurred. > > [Milton L Mueller] True, I was not there. But as my blog post makes clear, I was watching online and did not detect any disruption or abandonment of the process until AFTER the African amendment vote regarding nondiscriminatory access. To be expected, since it was the process issues with that vote which made it clear that WCIT had departed from its original mandate as described by ITU leadership at the start. Feel free to watch it again, and listen to the actual reasoning behind each countries reservations... there is about a dozen countries which all rise up and object to meeting at this point for similar reasons. > Furthermore, there is nothing substantive in the ITRs that constitutes a significant deviation from "multistakeholder internet governance." Please specify what it is (the Resolution does not count, remember, because it is not part of the ITRs), or alter your assertion. The WCIT moved from seeking consensus among the participants to conducting a contentious vote (only open to Member States) to force an outcome. This was specifically after they indicated that the WCIT conference would operate by consensus as is their typical practice for contentious issues. Countries and sector members participated on that basis. > To conclude, this is an empirical issue and my interpretation remains open to any new facts. ROTFL! /John Disclaimer: My views alone (although I could not provide such entertainment without others assistance.) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pranesh at cis-india.org Fri Dec 14 10:29:23 2012 From: pranesh at cis-india.org (Pranesh Prakash) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:29:23 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [WCIT12] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50CB45D3.8030007@cis-india.org> Thanks, Grace! While India has stated that it supports the proposed ITRs, and Resolutions 1, 2, 4, and 5, it has also stated that it will only sign (not ratify) it after holding consultations back home (especially on implications of Resolution 3). So it should be in the third table. Also, "Capitol" should be "Capital" :-) ~ Pranesh Grace Githaiga [2012-12-14 12:05]: > > > > > > > ############################################################# > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to > To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to > Send administrative queries to > -- Pranesh Prakash Policy Director Centre for Internet and Society T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: @pranesh_prakash -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 10:31:50 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:31:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA74E5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> John, Declan, the causes of concern about WCIT and the ITRs were not only the explicit mentions of the Internet (the Resolution came very close to being accepted and its rejection was not due only to the inclusion of the word.) The concern - and in some cases outright rejection - occurred against all encroachment by the ITU, or under the ITU umbrella by specific countries and groupings, on issues like spam (later un-named to "unsolicited commercial telecommunications", which could have covered even phone telemarketing), network security, routing (under the guises of "number misuse" and "call traceability" among others), IXPs (even without the "I", but what other exchanges make sense?), and so on. The painstaking removal of these issues, or their reduction to digestible size, took great effort and lots of conciliation. The "spam" issue as an example. For months the provision to be discussed was about spam or unsolicited commercial email. These words were replaced by "unsolicited [bulk] electronic communications" in order to avoid words explicitly belonging to the Internet. The new wording is ridiculous as it could be interpreted to describe phone telemarketing as well - which Sector Members would mostly not support. It is no wonder that delegations would balk at signing off gingerly on badly crafted language like this, fraught with unforeseeable consequences. Every step of the negotiations contributed to frayed nerves and to a piling up of reservations and second thoughts. The breakdown at the end came in a discussion between countries opposing the explicit inclusion of mentions to human rights and their (many of the same, not necessarily all) insistence on the explicit mention of "States' rights", mostly to international connectivity. It's not that principle that was contested; the crumbling down of the process has more to do with timing, wording and actors. One does have to read the transcript to see how this developed publicly, and that's still not the whole story of course. An unstated key is the constant shiftiness in the way things were introduced, retired, reintroduced, and spun, with the Secretary General and other ITU officers and principals from like-minded delegations attempts to manipulate the process. It would come to a head on almost any issue. They overreached one step too far. 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 John Curran [jcurran at istaff.org] Enviado el: viernes, 14 de diciembre de 2012 09:05 Hasta: Milton L Mueller CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Declan McCullagh Asunto: Re: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency On Dec 14, 2012, at 6:39 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> The WCIT conference, in the words of SecGen Toure, were to be >> discussions based on "consensus, in the true tradition of ITU." The >> draft revised ITRs under consideration at the time still had significant >> aspects which dealt with the Internet, including an Internet Resolution, >> references to spam and security matters, all despite clear statements at >> the begin of the conference that the scope of the treaty would not >> include the Internet. > > [Milton L Mueller] It remains a fact that nothing in the final ITRs mentions the Internet. The "spam and security" references in 5B and 5A, respectively, are as close as it comes and they cannot reasonably be classified as Internet governance. Here is 5A: > > "Member States shall individually and collectively endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international telecommunication networks in order to achieve effective use thereof and avoidance of technical harm thereto, as well as the harmonious development of international telecommunication services offered to the public." > > And here is 5B: > > "Member States should endeavour to take necessary measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications and minimize its impact on international telecommunication services. Member States are encouraged to cooperate in that sense." > > If it is your contention that these words constitute an aggressive attempt to take over the internet or to insert governments into the governance of the Internet in a new way I will laugh in your face. It's my contention that some Member States believe these words are applicable to the Internet... I was present during many of these debates, and it's clear for example that 5B is targeting spam _on the Internet_. > As for the Resolution, I understand the objections to it, but its (contested) passage via "room temperature assessment" did not by itself seem to trigger the abandonment of the process, though it may have contributed to it. And because it is NOT part of the ITRs and has no binding force on anything or anyone except the ITU SG, who is already actively and happily seeking a role for the ITU in Internet governance and has been doing so for the past 15 years, again I have trouble understanding it as a basis for refusal to sign the treaty. Apparently some of my earlier mail to this list you did not receive: The Resolution directed Member States "to elaborate on their respective positions on international Internet-related technical, development and public-policy issues within the mandate of ITU at various ITU forums..." While not giving the ITU any authority, per se, it does have Member States effectively acknowledging that there are (unspecified) Internet-related public-policy issues that fall within the mandate of ITU and which are to be discussed at ITU fora. >> It should not be surprising that many participants left the WCIT once >> the WCIT abandoned these principles. In the end, 50+ countries do not >> appear to be signing the revised ITRs, citing the conference as a >> departure from the multistakeholder Internet governance. To ascribe this >> to a common desire to prevent non-discriminatory telecommunications >> access does not reflect a solid understanding of the nature of the >> proceedings as they occurred. > > [Milton L Mueller] True, I was not there. But as my blog post makes clear, I was watching online and did not detect any disruption or abandonment of the process until AFTER the African amendment vote regarding nondiscriminatory access. To be expected, since it was the process issues with that vote which made it clear that WCIT had departed from its original mandate as described by ITU leadership at the start. Feel free to watch it again, and listen to the actual reasoning behind each countries reservations... there is about a dozen countries which all rise up and object to meeting at this point for similar reasons. > Furthermore, there is nothing substantive in the ITRs that constitutes a significant deviation from "multistakeholder internet governance." Please specify what it is (the Resolution does not count, remember, because it is not part of the ITRs), or alter your assertion. The WCIT moved from seeking consensus among the participants to conducting a contentious vote (only open to Member States) to force an outcome. This was specifically after they indicated that the WCIT conference would operate by consensus as is their typical practice for contentious issues. Countries and sector members participated on that basis. > To conclude, this is an empirical issue and my interpretation remains open to any new facts. ROTFL! /John Disclaimer: My views alone (although I could not provide such entertainment without others assistance.) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 10:48:08 2012 From: baudouin.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin Schombe) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:48:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] REMINDER 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I volunteer. Baudouin 2012/12/14, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > Dear All, > > We have been receiving feedback on our Preparations for 2013 - this is a > reminder to continue to send your thoughts and views etc . We will > consolidate this information. For those who are interested in volunteering > to help put our submissions together in this regard, please let us know by > replying to this list. > > For those who have given their views, thank you and again, I invite you all > to keep the thoughts and discussions coming in. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> We need to start preparing for issues and topics that we would like >> raised >> by current MAG members. >> >> The Secretariat has put up a call for contributions on the IGF website >> inviting stakeholders to submit written contributions taking stock of the >> 2012 Baku meeting and inviting suggestions on the themes and format of >> the >> IGF 2013 meeting. The deadline for contributions is *14 February 2012*. >> These inputs will be summarized in a synthesis paper that will act as an >> input into the discussions of the February meeting. >> >> The IGC Plan is as follows: >> >> 25 Nov 2012 - Issue Notice to IGC >> >> 25 Nov 2012 - 15 January, 2013 - Gather Feedback and formulate first >> draft >> >> 16-Jan -30 Jan 2013 - Review first Draft and gather feedback >> >> 31 Jan - 5th February 2013 - Produce 2nd Draft >> 6th Feb - 10th February - Finalise submissions from IGC >> 11th Feb - Send to IGF Secretariat and our representatives to the MAG >> >> >> It will be great to start discussions on what some of the themes we would >> like canvassed. >> >> Warm Regards >> >> >> -- >> 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 > -- SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL/ ACADEMIE DES TIC At-Large Member NCSG Member email:baudouin.schombe at gmail.com Baudouin.Schombe at ticafrica.net tél:+243998983491 skype:b.schombe wite web:http://webmail.ticafrica.net blog:http://akimambo.unblog.fr -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 10:48:45 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:48:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org] > > > > "Member States should endeavour to take necessary measures to prevent > the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications and > minimize its impact on international telecommunication services. Member > States are encouraged to cooperate in that sense." > > It's my contention that some Member States believe these words are > applicable to the Internet... I was present during many of these > debates, and it's clear for example that 5B is targeting spam _on the > Internet_. [Milton L Mueller] OMG. Be afraid. Be very afraid. States are being encouraged to "endeavor to take necessary measures to prevent [spam]." Can states do that now? Yes. Are there new, specific regulatory powers that are conferred upon the ITU by this provision? No. Are there new international obligations imposed upon free states by unfree states by this provision? No. Are multistakeholder IG institutions affected by this provision? Not in any way I can discern. ICANN is not taken over; the IETF is not affected or destroyed, the RIRs have no new obligations, etc. So there is NOTHING ELSE in the entire ITRs you can object to? D'ya think its possible that you folks are overreacting a bit? > The Resolution directed Member States "to elaborate on their respective > positions on international Internet-related technical, development and > public-policy issues within the mandate of ITU at various ITU forums..." [Milton L Mueller] Agreed, this resolution sucks in that respect. But to be realistic, are you saying that states who choose to meet in ITU-sponsored venues cannot talk about the internet, internet governance or internet issues unless this resolution authorizes them to do so? Did they not do that in WSIS 2002-2005, the 2010 Plenipot, and many other ITU meetings? What exactly is new and disastrous here? BTW, why didn't folks try to amend this resolution to add "IGF" to "ITU Forums". > While [the resolution does] not giv[e] the ITU any authority, per se, [Milton L Mueller] uh huhhhhhh. > To be expected, since it was the process issues with that vote which > made it clear that WCIT had departed from its original mandate as > described by ITU leadership at the start. [snip] > The WCIT moved from seeking consensus among the participants to > conducting a contentious vote (only open to Member States) to force an > outcome. This was specifically after they indicated that the WCIT > conference would operate by consensus as is their typical practice for > contentious issues. Countries and sector members participated on that > basis. [Milton L Mueller] So, to summarize it was really the process, not the substance, and the problem with the process was that a vote was forced on the African bloc amendment regarding nondiscrimination instead of using consensus. So the only modification to my blog post would be to weaken its stance: people were less worried about the nondiscrimination requirement per se than they were about the lack of consensus behind the amendment, and the breach of faith involved in doing that. Correct? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 10:54:07 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 07:54:07 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5A7F8B24-AE22-4C1D-B912-4A012B9466DF@istaff.org> On Dec 14, 2012, at 7:48 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ... > [Milton L Mueller] So, to summarize it was really the process, not the substance, and the problem with the process was that a vote was forced on the African bloc amendment regarding nondiscrimination instead of using consensus. So the only modification to my blog post would be to weaken its stance: people were less worried about the nondiscrimination requirement per se than they were about the lack of consensus behind the amendment, and the breach of faith involved in doing that. Correct? Milton - Tentatively "yes"... I think we agree on the _event_ that finally caused the breakdown (i.e. it being the vote on amendment regarding non-discriminatory access), but I indeed see the issue being far more with the process used in face of a clear lack of consensus, rather than the outcome of that particular provision. FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 11:23:44 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:23:44 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org>,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA766B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Hi, [Milton] So there is NOTHING ELSE in the entire ITRs you can object to? Plenty. It has been discussed in this list and elsewhere for months, provided to national delegations, published in organizational statements, blogs, and so on, profusely. Alejandro Pisanty -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 11:36:10 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:36:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA74E5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA74E5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293111@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > The painstaking removal of these issues, or their reduction to > digestible size, took great effort and lots of conciliation. [Milton L Mueller] ...and was successful. Which makes the temper tantrum at the end all the more puzzling. > The "spam" issue as an example. For months the provision to be discussed > was about spam or unsolicited commercial email. These words were > replaced by "unsolicited [bulk] electronic communications" in order to > avoid words explicitly belonging to the Internet. [Milton L Mueller] in other words, we won. > The new wording is > ridiculous as it could be interpreted to describe phone telemarketing [Milton L Mueller] Not ridiculous at all. In case you are unaware, there are all kinds of regulations related to phone telemarketing, and the two are often placed in the same category (nuisances requiring regulatory or other types of mitigation efforts) And hey, I thought the ITRs were SUPPOSED to be about telecommunications? > well - which Sector Members would mostly not support. It is no wonder > that delegations would balk at signing off gingerly on badly crafted > language like this, fraught with unforeseeable consequences. [Milton L Mueller] Nonsense. Massive overstatement of the significance of a fairly innocuous sentence. > Every step of the negotiations contributed to frayed nerves and to a > piling up of reservations and second thoughts. [Milton L Mueller] If rejection of the treaty was based on frayed nerves, and not on its substance, you made a mistake. Next time, we should send in people with stronger nerves, and to quote fellow Kansas Citian Harry Truman, "if you can't stand the heat..." I wonder whether this experience has increased your sympathy for critics of the ICANN regime, who deal monthly with even more warped processes, badly crafted language, and, to quote your own wonderful words, "the constant shiftiness in the way things were introduced, retired, reintroduced, and spun." You have always viewed that process from the Olympian perch of a privileged, unelected Board member. Welcome to the trenches. 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Dec 14 11:37:02 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:37:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292FC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> ,<50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292FC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B172A88@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Milton, I noted up front my analysis depended upon final numbers of 'refuseniks' being ~ 1/3rd. So maybe we went to extra time, and final score is still unknown, and you're right. It's a bit hard seeing the playing field from - the cheap seats of ITU's opaque processes ; ) Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 9:52 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] WCIT melt down Lee: The more I look at this, the more it seems that the US misplayed its hand. There is nothing objectionable or demonstrably harmful in the ITRs per se. The fact that countries like the Netherlands, Tunisia and Brazil plan to sign the ITRs (if that list is correct) is not quite consistent with the contention that the new ITRs are a massive deviation from “MS governance” or part of an attempt by authoritarian states to take over the internet. If and when the refusniks are limited to a handful of Anglo-Saxon countries they will end up looking isolated. --MM From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 9:37 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: RE: [governance] WCIT melt down Parminder, I don't know that you can pin this on civil society, who remember was not even an invited guest to the party at the start of the WCIT preparatory process. IF the resolution had a different more conciliatory phrasing oriented towards 'exploring' what to do as Internet progresses etc etc, maybe then the split could be have been avoided. The resolution was too directive for issues for which a consensus does not exist. In a treaty-making poker game, if key players blow their hand....things happen. And at that final table, CS still didn't have a seat even if it had a peek at a few players cards. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 12:40 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] WCIT melt down On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 14 12:01:28 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:01:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293111@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA74E5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293111@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA7710@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Milton, "You have always viewed that process from the Olympian perch of a privileged, unelected Board member. Welcome to the trenches." Re: Olympian. Kettle-black. And a fact - those ugly theory-interfering thingies: I was elected. Three different times. On the wording for spam: what do you know, I and many others may be aware of the existing regulations, and your spitting through the tooth may be misplaced. Your statement supports calling the statement, in its final shape, ridiculous. To some other "question" of yours. There were many attempts to introduce language calling Member States and the ITU to join the ongoing mechanisms, arrangements and organizations doing multistakeholder governance, through several national delegations. They were not taken up; not unexpected if one remembers the Plenipot in Guadalajara 2010, where even Touré couldn't convince the assembly of mentioning them and barely made a footnote. Alejandro Pisanty -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 12:17:47 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:17:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA7710@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA74E5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local>,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293111@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA7710@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293218@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Oh, yes, I forgot: you had the solid support of the Business and Intellectual Property and ISP constituencies (aka the trademark lobby) and amassed, what was it? 13 votes? Sorry for the error. I forgot that a GNSO selection process qualified as an election. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch [mailto:apisan at unam.mx] > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 12:01 PM > To: Milton L Mueller; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Cc: Declan McCullagh > Subject: RE: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency > > Milton, > > "You have always viewed that process from the Olympian perch of a > privileged, unelected Board member. Welcome to the trenches." > > Re: Olympian. Kettle-black. And a fact - those ugly theory-interfering > thingies: I was elected. Three different times. > > On the wording for spam: what do you know, I and many others may be > aware of the existing regulations, and your spitting through the tooth > may be misplaced. Your statement supports calling the statement, in its > final shape, ridiculous. > > To some other "question" of yours. There were many attempts to introduce > language calling Member States and the ITU to join the ongoing > mechanisms, arrangements and organizations doing multistakeholder > governance, through several national delegations. They were not taken > up; not unexpected if one remembers the Plenipot in Guadalajara 2010, > where even Touré couldn't convince the assembly of mentioning them and > barely made a footnote. > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 12:21:06 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:21:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA766B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org>,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA766B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293233@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > [Milton] So there is NOTHING ELSE in the entire ITRs you can object to? > > Plenty. It has been discussed in this list and elsewhere for months, > provided to national delegations, published in organizational > statements, blogs, and so on, profusely. [Milton L Mueller] I am talking about the ITRs actually passed, Alex, not fantasies about what might have gone into them. Please cite any provisions in the new ITRs that are objectionable or dangerous, if you are able to do so. I am open to new information. No one else who actually reads the things can figure out what all the brouhaha is about. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 12:26:54 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:26:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B172A88@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> ,<50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292FC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>,<77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B172A88@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B172B1B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> If this is correct, someone's run up the score in extra time.... http://www.medianama.com/2012/12/223-india-signs-the-new-itr-at-wcit-80-countries-including-u-s-refuse-to-sign/ ________________________________ From: Lee W McKnight Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 11:37 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] WCIT melt down Milton, I noted up front my analysis depended upon final numbers of 'refuseniks' being ~ 1/3rd. So maybe we went to extra time, and final score is still unknown, and you're right. It's a bit hard seeing the playing field from - the cheap seats of ITU's opaque processes ; ) Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 9:52 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] WCIT melt down Lee: The more I look at this, the more it seems that the US misplayed its hand. There is nothing objectionable or demonstrably harmful in the ITRs per se. The fact that countries like the Netherlands, Tunisia and Brazil plan to sign the ITRs (if that list is correct) is not quite consistent with the contention that the new ITRs are a massive deviation from “MS governance” or part of an attempt by authoritarian states to take over the internet. If and when the refusniks are limited to a handful of Anglo-Saxon countries they will end up looking isolated. --MM From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Lee W McKnight Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 9:37 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: RE: [governance] WCIT melt down Parminder, I don't know that you can pin this on civil society, who remember was not even an invited guest to the party at the start of the WCIT preparatory process. IF the resolution had a different more conciliatory phrasing oriented towards 'exploring' what to do as Internet progresses etc etc, maybe then the split could be have been avoided. The resolution was too directive for issues for which a consensus does not exist. In a treaty-making poker game, if key players blow their hand....things happen. And at that final table, CS still didn't have a seat even if it had a peek at a few players cards. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 12:40 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] WCIT melt down On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 12:30:37 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:30:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293233@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA766B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293233@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> >> [Milton] So there is NOTHING ELSE in the entire ITRs you can object to? >> >> Plenty. It has been discussed in this list and elsewhere for months, >> provided to national delegations, published in organizational >> statements, blogs, and so on, profusely. > > [Milton L Mueller] I am talking about the ITRs actually passed, Alex, not fantasies about what might have gone into them. > Please cite any provisions in the new ITRs that are objectionable This one seems pretty objectionable to me, but maybe I'm not smart enough to understand it fully: 1/7 1.4 In cases where one or more international routes have been established by agreement between authorized operating agencies and where traffic is diverted unilaterally by the authorized operating agency of origin to an international route which has not been agreed with the authorized operating agency of destination, the terminal shares payable to the authorized operating agency of destination shall be the same as would have been due to it had the traffic been routed over the agreed primary route, and the transit costs are borne by the authorized operating agency of origin, unless the authorized operating agency of destination is prepared to agree to a different share. 1/8 1.5 In cases where traffic is routed via a transit point without authorization and/or agreement to the transit share, the transit authorized operating agency has the right to set the level of the transit share to be included in the international accounts. or dangerous, if you are able to do so. I am open to new information. No one else who actually reads the things can figure out what all the brouhaha is about. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 12:36:49 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:36:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA766B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293233@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293288@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> This applies to circuit-switched telecoms, not Internet. > -----Original Message----- > 1/7 1.4 In cases where one or more international routes have been > established by agreement between authorized operating agencies and where > traffic is diverted unilaterally by the authorized operating agency of > origin to an international route which has not been agreed with the > authorized operating agency of destination, the terminal shares payable > to the authorized operating agency of destination shall be the same as > would have been due to it had the traffic been routed over the agreed > primary route, and the transit costs are borne by the authorized > operating agency of origin, unless the authorized operating agency of > destination is prepared to agree to a different share. > 1/8 1.5 In cases where traffic is routed via a transit point without > authorization and/or agreement to the transit share, the transit > authorized operating agency has the right to set the level of the > transit share to be included in the international accounts. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 12:50:07 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:50:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293288@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CA66AA.7040301@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA766B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293233@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> ,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293288@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA78AB@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Milton, only in appearance. The parties interested in this routing-related clause in the ITRs are concerned that they cannot know exactly where the traffic between two POTS numbers goes, given the use of not only IP networks but also the Internet for routing calls. The interest comes both from the commercial side (charging, revenue share conservation, etc.) and from law-enforcement origins, in turn related to another vexing question the ITRs can't cover correctly, the traceability of a telephone call's origin. A further branching out of this problem is "number abuse" which has been discussed in depth by Geoff Huston. 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: Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Enviado el: viernes, 14 de diciembre de 2012 11:36 Hasta: McTim; governance at lists.igcaucus.org CC: Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch; Declan McCullagh Asunto: RE: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency This applies to circuit-switched telecoms, not Internet. > -----Original Message----- > 1/7 1.4 In cases where one or more international routes have been > established by agreement between authorized operating agencies and where > traffic is diverted unilaterally by the authorized operating agency of > origin to an international route which has not been agreed with the > authorized operating agency of destination, the terminal shares payable > to the authorized operating agency of destination shall be the same as > would have been due to it had the traffic been routed over the agreed > primary route, and the transit costs are borne by the authorized > operating agency of origin, unless the authorized operating agency of > destination is prepared to agree to a different share. > 1/8 1.5 In cases where traffic is routed via a transit point without > authorization and/or agreement to the transit share, the transit > authorized operating agency has the right to set the level of the > transit share to be included in the international accounts. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Fri Dec 14 13:14:00 2012 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:14:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293233@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA766B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293233@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20121214181400.GA23727@tarvainen.info> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:21:06PM +0000, Milton L Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) wrote: > Please cite any provisions in the new ITRs that are objectionable or > dangerous In the preamble: "These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services." I was told that was what broke EU's back here, so to speak. -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 14:01:13 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:01:13 +1300 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers [Post WCIT and Analysis of Outcomes] Message-ID: Dear All, This is a call for Volunteers who are interested in working together to produce an Impact Assessment of the outcomes from the WCIT. Care will be taken to produce a Report that is balanced. This is expected to be completed before 2013. Following the preparation of the Report, the IGC will be issuing a Statement to accompany the Report. We will need those who are willing and prepared to produce a Report in the shortest amount of time. Kind Regards, -- 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Dec 14 14:29:47 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:29:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?FW=3A_=5BIP=5D_Statement_from_Dr_Hama?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?doun_I=2E_Tour=E9?= In-Reply-To: <590ED9EF-6D45-463C-8D9E-F26295C942AC@me.com> References: <590ED9EF-6D45-463C-8D9E-F26295C942AC@me.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B172BC7@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> fyi ________________________________________ From: DAVID FARBER [dfarber at me.com] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 7:54 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Statement from Dr Hamadoun I. Touré http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/statement-toure.aspx ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20121214080111:CDF5C74E-45ED-11E2-8703-FC12893EB4F3 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kovenronald at aol.com Fri Dec 14 14:52:11 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:52:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?FW=3A_=5BIP=5D_Statement_from_Dr_Hamad?= =?UTF-8?Q?oun_I=2E_Tour=C3=A9?= In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B172BC7@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <590ED9EF-6D45-463C-8D9E-F26295C942AC@me.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B172BC7@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8CFA84BA3728850-1258-B9F2@webmail-m128.sysops.aol.com> This is an extraordinary statement: The ITU head is trying to have it both ways -- saying ITU made no bid for Internet governance but that everything ITU does is inextricably connected to the Internet. Bests, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: Lee W McKnight To: governance Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 8:30 pm Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Statement from Dr Hamadoun I. Touré fyi ________________________________________ From: DAVID FARBER [dfarber at me.com] Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 7:54 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Statement from Dr Hamadoun I. Touré http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/statement-toure.aspx ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20121214080111:CDF5C74E-45ED-11E2-8703-FC12893EB4F3 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 14:59:30 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:59:30 +1300 Subject: [governance] CHANGE in Schedule and Call for Nominees for Election [IGC Coordinator Position] and Election Schedule Message-ID: Dear All, This is to advise that we have yet to receive Nominations for those interested in standing for the Elections. As such, there is a change in dates, and they are as follows, see Notice below. I may be offline for a few days depending as we have a Category 4 Cyclone coming into Fiji which has already devastated Samoa. In the meantime, we encourage both men and women to apply from all parts of the earth. For more information, see below: > This is to advise that we would like to invite people to submit > Nominations for Candidates to stand in the elections for the purposes of > occupying the Co-Coordinator position which Izumi Aizu used to occupy. > > > *Nominations* > Those who are interested in standing for elections or in nominating > persons to stand for the elections should submit their Nominations by *4th > January, 2013 at 10pm UTC +12*. We would like to encourage people to > either nominate themselves or nominate others whom you think would make > great coordinators. Responsibilities of coordinators can be viewed in the > IGC Charter. > > All Nominations are asked to submit their Nominations in the following > format: > > > > *Nomination By:* > > [Self Nomination or > > *Candidate:* > > [Full Name of Candidate] > > > *Brief Bio:* > > [100 words and feel free to insert link to website] > > > > > The full list of Nominees will be published on the IGC list on the 16th > December, 2012 at 10pm UTC at 10pm UTC +12 and elections. > > > *Online voting* > * > * > We will begin on the *8th January, 2013.* > > I would like to encourage as many Nominations to be sent in to > coordinators at igcaucus.org and by responding to this email thread. > > > *Excerpts from the Charter* > > *Charter:* (http://igcaucus.org/charter) > > *Selection of Coordinators* > > The selection will be done by on-line voting using the voting process > according to the following formula: > * election of the coordinator will be held, whenever possible by midsummer > (the summer solstice). If events prevent an election by midsummer, it will > be held as soon after midsummer as possible. > * the coordinator(s) who are not up for election or not standing for > election will be responsible for running the election, subject to appeal by > the appeal team. > (Note: as a boot strap procedure for 2006, the interim coordinator will > serve until the end of the first election period, during which two > coordinators will be selected - one for one (1) year and one for two (2) > years). > > *Recall of coordinators* > > In response to an appeal, as described in the appeals section, the appeals > team can decide to hold a recall vote for a coordinator. In order to cause > the recall vote, there needs to be full consensus among the appeal team > members. > The recall vote itself requires a 2/3 majority of voters to succeed. > > *Replacement of a coordinator.* > > If a coordinator leaves the role due to personal reasons or recall, the > role will be refilled as quickly as possible. The role will be refilled for > the balance of the term unless the refill occurs during the year in which > the role was to be vacated. In this case the coordinator position will be > for the balance of the replacement terms plus a two (2) year regular term. > For example, if the 'even year' coordinator for 2006, leaves the role > during an odd year, 2007, the rest of the term will be filled with a > replacement, and a new selection will be made on schedule in 2008. If on > the other hand the coordinator leaves the role early in 2008, then the > replacement would complete the original term and serve the 2008-2010 term. > > > *Membership* > The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, > who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and > have the same rights and duties. > > *Voting Process* > Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months > before the election will be given a voter account. > As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that > they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described > elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information > (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to > vote). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a > personal decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the > self-defined member-voters will be published after the election with > the results of the election. > > Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the > appeals process. > > All voting will be open, though at the discretion of the coordinators, > with or without a specific request from member(s), any vote can be > made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will > be stated, and are subject to appeal. > > > *Membership (http://igcaucus.org/membership)* > * > *Members of the Internet Governance Caucus are individuals, acting in > personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All > members are equal and have the same rights and duties. > > If you wish to participate in our activities, or just observe our > activities, you are welcome to join our mailing list. The mailing list > is our priority working space. You can subscribe by registering on > this Web site. If you need to change your subscription options, you > will need to visit the separate mailing list site and follow > instructions from there. For information on unsubscribing and > subscribing under multiple addresses, please read here. > > Not all list participants are members. To determine membership, each > person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before > any election or voting event will be given a voter account. As part of > the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that they are a > member of the IGC based on membership criteria described in the IGC > charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter > must affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote). The > decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal > decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the self-defined > member-voters will be published after any election with the results of > the election > > Warm Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > * IGC Co-Coordinator* > > > > > > > -- > 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 15:09:31 2012 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:09:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] CHANGE in Schedule and Call for Nominees for Election [IGC Coordinator Position] and Election Schedule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Stay safe Sala - I think that's one of the most horrible feelings in the world, just sitting there waiting for it to hit you, praying it will wobble somewhere else at the last minute. Hugs Deirdre On 14 December 2012 15:59, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > This is to advise that we have yet to receive Nominations for those > interested in standing for the Elections. As such, there is a change in > dates, and they are as follows, see Notice below. > > I may be offline for a few days depending as we have a Category 4 Cyclone > coming into Fiji which has already devastated Samoa. > > In the meantime, we encourage both men and women to apply from all parts > of the earth. For more information, see below: > > >> This is to advise that we would like to invite people to submit >> Nominations for Candidates to stand in the elections for the purposes of >> occupying the Co-Coordinator position which Izumi Aizu used to occupy. >> >> >> *Nominations* >> Those who are interested in standing for elections or in nominating >> persons to stand for the elections should submit their Nominations by *4th >> January, 2013 at 10pm UTC +12*. We would like to encourage people to >> either nominate themselves or nominate others whom you think would make >> great coordinators. Responsibilities of coordinators can be viewed in the >> IGC Charter. >> >> All Nominations are asked to submit their Nominations in the following >> format: >> >> >> >> *Nomination By:* >> >> [Self Nomination or > >> >> *Candidate:* >> >> [Full Name of Candidate] >> >> >> *Brief Bio:* >> >> [100 words and feel free to insert link to website] >> >> >> >> >> The full list of Nominees will be published on the IGC list on the 16th >> December, 2012 at 10pm UTC at 10pm UTC +12 and elections. >> >> >> *Online voting* >> * >> * >> We will begin on the *8th January, 2013.* >> >> I would like to encourage as many Nominations to be sent in to >> coordinators at igcaucus.org and by responding to this email thread. >> >> >> *Excerpts from the Charter* >> >> *Charter:* (http://igcaucus.org/charter) >> >> *Selection of Coordinators* >> >> The selection will be done by on-line voting using the voting process >> according to the following formula: >> * election of the coordinator will be held, whenever possible by >> midsummer (the summer solstice). If events prevent an election by >> midsummer, it will be held as soon after midsummer as possible. >> * the coordinator(s) who are not up for election or not standing for >> election will be responsible for running the election, subject to appeal by >> the appeal team. >> (Note: as a boot strap procedure for 2006, the interim coordinator will >> serve until the end of the first election period, during which two >> coordinators will be selected - one for one (1) year and one for two (2) >> years). >> >> *Recall of coordinators* >> >> In response to an appeal, as described in the appeals section, the >> appeals team can decide to hold a recall vote for a coordinator. In order >> to cause the recall vote, there needs to be full consensus among the appeal >> team members. >> The recall vote itself requires a 2/3 majority of voters to succeed. >> >> *Replacement of a coordinator.* >> >> If a coordinator leaves the role due to personal reasons or recall, the >> role will be refilled as quickly as possible. The role will be refilled for >> the balance of the term unless the refill occurs during the year in which >> the role was to be vacated. In this case the coordinator position will be >> for the balance of the replacement terms plus a two (2) year regular term. >> For example, if the 'even year' coordinator for 2006, leaves the role >> during an odd year, 2007, the rest of the term will be filled with a >> replacement, and a new selection will be made on schedule in 2008. If on >> the other hand the coordinator leaves the role early in 2008, then the >> replacement would complete the original term and serve the 2008-2010 term. >> >> >> *Membership* >> The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, >> who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and >> have the same rights and duties. >> >> *Voting Process* >> Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months >> before the election will be given a voter account. >> As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that >> they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described >> elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information >> (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to >> vote). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a >> personal decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the >> self-defined member-voters will be published after the election with >> the results of the election. >> >> Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the >> appeals process. >> >> All voting will be open, though at the discretion of the coordinators, >> with or without a specific request from member(s), any vote can be >> made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will >> be stated, and are subject to appeal. >> >> >> *Membership (http://igcaucus.org/membership)* >> * >> *Members of the Internet Governance Caucus are individuals, acting in >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All >> members are equal and have the same rights and duties. >> >> If you wish to participate in our activities, or just observe our >> activities, you are welcome to join our mailing list. The mailing list >> is our priority working space. You can subscribe by registering on >> this Web site. If you need to change your subscription options, you >> will need to visit the separate mailing list site and follow >> instructions from there. For information on unsubscribing and >> subscribing under multiple addresses, please read here. >> >> Not all list participants are members. To determine membership, each >> person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before >> any election or voting event will be given a voter account. As part of >> the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that they are a >> member of the IGC based on membership criteria described in the IGC >> charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter >> must affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote). The >> decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal >> decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the self-defined >> member-voters will be published after any election with the results of >> the election >> >> Warm Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> * IGC Co-Coordinator* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 15:32:16 2012 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:32:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?FW=3A_=5BIP=5D_Statement_from_Dr_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hamadoun_I=2E_Tour=E9?= In-Reply-To: <8CFA84BA3728850-1258-B9F2@webmail-m128.sysops.aol.com> References: <590ED9EF-6D45-463C-8D9E-F26295C942AC@me.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B172BC7@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <8CFA84BA3728850-1258-B9F2@webmail-m128.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Thank you Dr Lee for the resource and info. And as Dr Touré said "WCIT has shown us this truth and we have worked hard together to find a way that is acceptable to all. Let WCIT be the beginning of this dialogue". The hope is for the dialogue to continue so as to achieve the goals of the process engaged. On 12/14/12, Koven Ronald wrote: > This is an extraordinary statement: The ITU head is trying to have it both > ways -- saying ITU made no bid for Internet governance but that everything > ITU does is inextricably connected to the Internet. > > > Bests, Rony Koven > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight > To: governance > Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 8:30 pm > Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Statement from Dr Hamadoun I. Touré > > > fyi > ________________________________________ > From: DAVID FARBER [dfarber at me.com] > Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 7:54 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Statement from Dr Hamadoun I. Touré > > http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/statement-toure.aspx > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07 > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc > Unsubscribe Now: > https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20121214080111:CDF5C74E-45ED-11E2-8703-FC12893EB4F3 > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.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 > > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 15:34:56 2012 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 12:34:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] CHANGE in Schedule and Call for Nominees for Election [IGC Coordinator Position] and Election Schedule Message-ID: <1355517296.55889.BPMail_high_noncarrier@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Salanieta We pray for you, your family and other people of your Fiji to keep all of you safe & sound and protected from the Cyclone. Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ------------------------------ On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 1:09 AM PKT Deirdre Williams wrote: >Stay safe Sala - I think that's one of the most horrible feelings in the >world, just sitting there waiting for it to hit you, praying it will wobble >somewhere else at the last minute. >Hugs >Deirdre > >On 14 December 2012 15:59, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> This is to advise that we have yet to receive Nominations for those >> interested in standing for the Elections. As such, there is a change in >> dates, and they are as follows, see Notice below. >> >> I may be offline for a few days depending as we have a Category 4 Cyclone >> coming into Fiji which has already devastated Samoa. >> >> In the meantime, we encourage both men and women to apply from all parts >> of the earth. For more information, see below: >> >> >> This is to advise that we would like to invite people to submit >> Nominations for Candidates to stand in the elections for the purposes of >> occupying the Co-Coordinator position which Izumi Aizu used to occupy. >> >> >> *Nominations* >> Those who are interested in standing for elections or in nominating >> persons to stand for the elections should submit their Nominations by *4th >> January, 2013 at 10pm UTC +12*. We would like to encourage people to >> either nominate themselves or nominate others whom you think would make >> great coordinators. Responsibilities of coordinators can be viewed in the >> IGC Charter. >> >> All Nominations are asked to submit their Nominations in the following >> format: >> >> >> >> *Nomination By:* >> >> [Self Nomination or > >> >> *Candidate:* >> >> [Full Name of Candidate] >> >> >> *Brief Bio:* >> >> [100 words and feel free to insert link to website] >> >> >> >> >> The full list of Nominees will be published on the IGC list on the 16th >> December, 2012 at 10pm UTC at 10pm UTC +12 and elections. >> >> >> *Online voting* >> * >> * >> We will begin on the *8th January, 2013.* >> >> I would like to encourage as many Nominations to be sent in to >> coordinators at igcaucus.org and by responding to this email thread. >> >> >> *Excerpts from the Charter* >> >> *Charter:* (http://igcaucus.org/charter) >> >> *Selection of Coordinators* >> >> The selection will be done by on-line voting using the voting process >> according to the following formula: >> * election of the coordinator will be held, whenever possible by >> midsummer (the summer solstice). If events prevent an election by >> midsummer, it will be held as soon after midsummer as possible. >> * the coordinator(s) who are not up for election or not standing for >> election will be responsible for running the election, subject to appeal by >> the appeal team. >> (Note: as a boot strap procedure for 2006, the interim coordinator will >> serve until the end of the first election period, during which two >> coordinators will be selected - one for one (1) year and one for two (2) >> years). >> >> *Recall of coordinators* >> >> In response to an appeal, as described in the appeals section, the >> appeals team can decide to hold a recall vote for a coordinator. In order >> to cause the recall vote, there needs to be full consensus among the appeal >> team members. >> The recall vote itself requires a 2/3 majority of voters to succeed. >> >> *Replacement of a coordinator.* >> >> If a coordinator leaves the role due to personal reasons or recall, the >> role will be refilled as quickly as possible. The role will be refilled for >> the balance of the term unless the refill occurs during the year in which >> the role was to be vacated. In this case the coordinator position will be >> for the balance of the replacement terms plus a two (2) year regular term. >> For example, if the 'even year' coordinator for 2006, leaves the role >> during an odd year, 2007, the rest of the term will be filled with a >> replacement, and a new selection will be made on schedule in 2008. If on >> the other hand the coordinator leaves the role early in 2008, then the >> replacement would complete the original term and serve the 2008-2010 term. >> >> >> *Membership* >> The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, >> who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and >> have the same rights and duties. >> >> *Voting Process* >> Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months >> before the election will be given a voter account. >> As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that >> they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described >> elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information >> (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to >> vote). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a >> personal decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the >> self-defined member-voters will be published after the election with >> the results of the election. >> >> Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the >> appeals process. >> >> All voting will be open, though at the discretion of the coordinators, >> with or without a specific request from member(s), any vote can be >> made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will >> be stated, and are subject to appeal. >> >> >> *Membership (http://igcaucus.org/membership)* >> * >> *Members of the Internet Governance Caucus are individuals, acting in >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All >> members are equal and have the same rights and duties. >> >> If you wish to participate in our activities, or just observe our >> activities, you are welcome to join our mailing list. The mailing list >> is our priority working space. You can subscribe by registering on >> this Web site. If you need to change your subscription options, you >> will need to visit the separate mailing list site and follow >> instructions from there. For information on unsubscribing and >> subscribing under multiple addresses, please read here. >> >> Not all list participants are members. To determine membership, each >> person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before >> any election or voting event will be given a voter account. As part of >> the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that they are a >> member of the IGC based on membership criteria described in the IGC >> charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter >> must affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote). The >> decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal >> decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the self-defined >> member-voters will be published after any election with the results of >> the election >> >> Warm Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> * IGC Co-Coordinator* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > >-- >“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 15:50:41 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:50:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers [Post WCIT and Analysis of Outcomes] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Sala, I am extremely interested in this opportunity. I understand that I lack experience and knowledge, but it would be one of my priorities for the nearest future. Best regards, Oksana 2012/12/14 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > Dear All, > > This is a call for Volunteers who are interested in working together to > produce an Impact Assessment of the outcomes from the WCIT. Care will be > taken to produce a Report that is balanced. This is expected to be completed > before 2013. > > Following the preparation of the Report, the IGC will be issuing a Statement > to accompany the Report. We will need those who are willing and prepared to > produce a Report in the shortest amount of time. > > Kind Regards, > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 16:08:58 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:08:58 +1300 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers [Post WCIT and Analysis of Outcomes] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Oksana, No experience is necessary - just lots of heart and passion. When everyone combines their skills, things are woven together. It will also be a good opportunity to expand in perception and understanding for all those involved which is what always happens as people gather to collaborate. Warm Regards, Sala On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > Dear Sala, > > I am extremely interested in this opportunity. I understand that I > lack experience and knowledge, but it would be one of my priorities > for the nearest future. > > Best regards, > Oksana > > 2012/12/14 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>: > > Dear All, > > > > This is a call for Volunteers who are interested in working together to > > produce an Impact Assessment of the outcomes from the WCIT. Care will be > > taken to produce a Report that is balanced. This is expected to be > completed > > before 2013. > > > > Following the preparation of the Report, the IGC will be issuing a > Statement > > to accompany the Report. We will need those who are willing and prepared > to > > produce a Report in the shortest amount of time. > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Tel: +679 3544828 > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro 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 nne75 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 14 16:12:55 2012 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:12:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers [Post WCIT and Analysis of Outcomes] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1355519575.43416.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I attended WCIT from the 4th to the 13th.  I left after the ITRs were approved. I may not have enough time.. but may spare a couple of hours to input N   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: Oksana Prykhodko To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 8:50 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Volunteers [Post WCIT and Analysis of Outcomes] Dear Sala, I am extremely interested in this opportunity. I understand that I lack experience and knowledge, but it would be one of my priorities for the nearest future. Best regards, Oksana 2012/12/14 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro : > Dear All, > > This is a call for Volunteers who are interested in working together to > produce an Impact Assessment of the outcomes from the WCIT. Care will be > taken to produce a Report that is balanced. This is expected to be completed > before 2013. > > Following the preparation of the Report, the IGC will be issuing a Statement > to accompany the Report. We will need those who are willing and prepared to > produce a Report in the shortest amount of time. > > Kind Regards, > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Fri Dec 14 16:54:35 2012 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:54:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] WCIT - German Government Statement - not signing! Message-ID: <02d701cdda45$9b57bef0$d2073cd0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Germany has made a public press release explaining the reasons for not signing the ITRs. Please see the statement (in German): http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Presse/pressemitteilungen,did=542914.html Google Translation (with some edits by myself to fix grammar etc): PRESS RELEASE 14.12.2012 Germany will not sign the new International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) Government aims first at broad social dialogue on the decisions taken at the ITU conference Laptop and globe; Source: colourbox.com © colourbox.com At the conference of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Dubai, negotiations ended today on a redesign of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs). The federal government entered into the international negotiations with the clear position to preserve the freedom of the global Internet and to prevent an expansion of the scope of the ITRs to the Internet. In cooperation with the EU Member States, the federal government has consistently pursued its central aim of the negotiations on the ITU conference, and together with the United States and many other countries - with the involvement of participants from civil society - kept Internet issues out of the draft ITRs. Yet in the final ITR text, submitted for approval, there remain blurred passages, as in the texts on security and combating spam, and those covering risks of government intervention in the Internet. Therefore, Germany has not signed the ITRs, just as the EU countries, the U.S. and others. Several, especially African, Arab and Asian countries have also pushed through a resolution on "Internet" in the negotiations in Dubai, giving the ITU a mandate for further work in the area of ​​management of the Internet. The resolution is not legally binding, and was not put to the substantive discussion by the chairman of the conference, so that the non-signatory states had no influence reflecting their interests. The Federal Government will explain and discuss the text of the new ITRs in a broad social dialogue. For this purpose there will be discussions with companies, representatives of civil society and other stakeholders in Germany in the near future. The aim of the Federal Government is to allow all stakeholders sufficient time for a comprehensive analysis to avoid quick fixes in this sensitive area. The new ITRs will apply provisionally only to those countries that sign them. For all other countries the existing ITRs from 1988 will continue to apply. The ultimate fate of the new ITRs depends on how many countries actually ratify or accede. ------------- Thanks to all those in Germany who helped to assure this clear line. Peter H. Hellmonds Public & International Affairs peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu +49 (160) 360-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 13999 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 17:11:43 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:11:43 +1300 Subject: [governance] WCIT - German Government Statement - not signing! In-Reply-To: <50cba045.474fc20a.48aa.1dd8SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <50cba045.474fc20a.48aa.1dd8SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Thanks Peter for the Press Release and the google translation. Kind Regards, Sala On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:54 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds < peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu> wrote: > Germany has made a public press release explaining the reasons for not > signing the ITRs.**** > > ** ** > > Please see the statement (in German):**** > > http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Presse/pressemitteilungen,did=542914.html**** > > ** ** > > Google Translation (with some edits by myself to fix grammar etc):**** > > ** ** > > PRESS RELEASE**** > > *14.12.2012* > > Germany will not sign the new International Telecommunication Regulations > (ITRs)**** > > Government aims first at broad social dialogue on the decisions taken at > the ITU conference**** > > [image: Laptop and globe; Source: colourbox.com]**** > > © colourbox.com**** > > At the conference of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in > Dubai, negotiations ended today on a redesign of the International > Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs).**** > > ** ** > > The federal government entered into the international negotiations with > the clear position to preserve the freedom of the global Internet and to > prevent an expansion of the scope of the ITRs to the Internet. In > cooperation with the EU Member States, the federal government has > consistently pursued its central aim of the negotiations on the ITU > conference, and together with the United States and many other countries - > with the involvement of participants from civil society - kept Internet > issues out of the draft ITRs.**** > > ** ** > > Yet in the final ITR text, submitted for approval, there remain blurred > passages, as in the texts on security and combating spam, and those > covering risks of government intervention in the Internet. Therefore, > Germany has not signed the ITRs, just as the EU countries, the U.S. and > others.**** > > ** ** > > Several, especially African, Arab and Asian countries have also pushed > through a resolution on "Internet" in the negotiations in Dubai, giving the > ITU a mandate for further work in the area of management of the > Internet. The resolution is not legally binding, and was not put to the > substantive discussion by the chairman of the conference, so that the > non-signatory states had no influence reflecting their interests.**** > > ** ** > > The Federal Government will explain and discuss the text of the new ITRs > in a broad social dialogue. For this purpose there will be discussions with > companies, representatives of civil society and other stakeholders in > Germany in the near future. The aim of the Federal Government is to allow > all stakeholders sufficient time for a comprehensive analysis to avoid > quick fixes in this sensitive area.**** > > ** ** > > The new ITRs will apply provisionally only to those countries that sign > them. For all other countries the existing ITRs from 1988 will continue to > apply. The ultimate fate of the new ITRs depends on how many countries > actually ratify or accede.**** > > ** ** > > -------------**** > > ** ** > > Thanks to all those in Germany who helped to assure this clear line.**** > > ** ** > > Peter H. Hellmonds**** > > Public & International Affairs**** > > peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu**** > > +49 (160) 360-2852**** > > ** ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 13999 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 17:18:28 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:18:28 +1300 Subject: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on WCIT Message-ID: FYI World Conference on International Telecommunications Remarks Terry Kramer Ambassador U.S. Head of Delegation, World Conference on International Telecommunications Via Teleconference Dubai, United Arab Emirates December 13, 2012 ------------------------------ *MODERATOR:* Yes, good evening everyone. We’re here in Dubai and with Ambassador Kramer. We’ve just finished a session at the World Conference on International Telecommunications, and I’m going to turn it over to Ambassador Kramer now to give us the latest developments that happened at the WCIT 2012. Ambassador. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Great. Megan, thank you, and thank all of you for joining us today. I want to thank you for your attention and patience as we’ve worked through the last two weeks at this conference, and I appreciate your diligence and persistence in reporting on the WCIT. I also want to take this opportunity to thank and commend the ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Toure and our Conference Chairman, Mr. Mohamed Al-Ghanim, for their efforts and skills in working to guide this meeting. Our gratitude also goes to the United Arab Emirates for their hospitality during these two weeks. The United States today has announced that it cannot sign the revised international telecommunication regulations in their current form. Throughout the WCIT, the U.S. and other likeminded governments have worked consistently and unwaveringly to maintain and enhance an environment for success for the international telecommunications and internet sectors. The United States has consistently believed, and continues to believe, that the ITRs should be a high-level document and that the scope of the treaty does not extend to internet governance or content. Other administrations have made it clear that they believe the treaty should be extended to cover those issues, and so we cannot be part of that consensus. There are a number of issues that were critical to the United States in these negotiations. Number one, recognized operating agencies versus operating agencies. The United States consistently sought to clarify that the treaty would not apply to internet service providers or governments or private network operators. Number two, spam. The United States position remains that spam is a form of content and that regulating it inevitably opens the door to regulation of other forms of content, including political and cultural speech. Number three, network security. The United States continues to believe that the ITRs are not a useful venue for addressing security issues and cannot accede to vague commitments that would have significant implications but few practical improvements on security. Number four, internet governance. In several proposals, it was clear that some administrations were seeking to insert government control over internet governance, specifically internet naming and addressing functions. We continue to believe these issues can only be legitimately handled through multi-stakeholder organizations. And finally, number five, the internet resolution. This document represented a direct extension of scope into the internet and of the ITU’s role therein despite earlier assertions from Secretary General Hamadoun Toure that the WCIT would not address internet issues. The United States has been willing to engage in good-faith discussions regarding these issues, and we’d like to thank and commend the other delegates for engaging with us. However, while we have consistently maintained our positions regarding the scope of the conference, other administrations have continually filed out-of-scope proposals that unacceptably altered the nature of the discussions, and ultimately of the ITRs. It is clear that the world community is at a crossroads in its collective view of the internet and of the most optimal environment for the flourishing of the internet in this century. The internet is a global phenomenon that is providing enormous personal, social, and economic benefits to consumers, citizens, and societies in all areas of the world. It has grown exponentially over the past decade and continues to flourish and adapt to human needs everywhere. The entire world has benefited from this growth, and the developing countries are seeing higher growth rates than the developed world. The infrastructure of the global internet is shifting rapidly away from the transatlantic routes that formerly carried most traffic. The internet is becoming more regional and national and less centered in the U.S. and other Western countries. This is a welcome development. All of the benefits and growth of the internet have come as a result not of government action or of intergovernmental treaty. They are an organic expression of consumer demand and societal needs, along with other multi-stakeholder governance. We have every expectation that the internet will continue to grow and provide enormous benefits worldwide. The United States will continue to uphold and advance the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance, standards development, and management. No single organization or government can or should attempt to control the internet or dictate its future development. In addition, the United States remains fully committed to the values of freedom of expression and the free flow of information and ideas on the internet. While there was no consensus at WCIT-12, the conference served a valuable purpose in clarifying views and building a foundation for continued dialogue. The United States will continue to work not only within the ITU but in multiple forums to achieve the universal goals of further growth of advanced network infrastructure in developing countries. The United States continues to believe that multi-stakeholder governance of the internet, coupled with liberalized telecommunication markets and the growth of network infrastructure in all countries, will accelerate growth and spread of the international telecommunications and internet throughout the world. The U.S. will remain engaged in a global dialogue on the role of governments and other stakeholders in the growth and development of international telecommunications and the internet sectors. This conversation will not be over when WCIT-12 ends. Rather, the discussion will continue for many months and years. I’d like to now open the floor for your questions. *OPERATOR:* Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, please press * then 1 on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone indicating you have been placed in queue. You may remove yourself from the queue at any time by pressing the # key. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. One moment, please, for our first question. Our first question is from Rob Lever with AFP. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION: *Yes, Ambassador, thank you. You said at the start that the United States cannot sign these ITRs in their current form. And does that mean that it’s not quite over and that you still have some hope of reaching some compromise, or is – you believe that proposal is on the table? And secondly, what does it mean if there is no consensus or no treaty that’s signed? What does that mean? Do we even need this at all? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. Thank you for the question. So first of all, the discussions in the main plenary right now are in the final stages. And the chairman has gone through – the chairman of the conference has gone through several rounds of changes to the ITRs to try and meet a variety of needs. And that’s been a lot of our negotiations that have gone on over the last few days. The version that’s out there now looks like it’s the near-final one. There could still be some very small ones, but it’s looking near final. And the level of support from a variety of other nations looks strong enough that it looks unlikely it will materially change. So I just made a public commentary on the plenary floor to let the audience know there that we were not going to sign the agreement. And obviously, we talked about our fundamental belief in multi-stakeholder governance. So while there’s still a chance things could change, I’d say it’s highly unlikely. The plenary will meet for another hour or two, and then there’s formalities tomorrow with signatures and other things. So what can happen is your second question. So what’s likely is if there’s enough consensus to proceed, there’ll be an actual signing ceremony where the countries that do agree with the ITRs will formally sign them. Obviously we are not going to be signing them. There may be some nations that will take reservations. So they may sign the agreement, but they will identify several areas that they don’t like about the treaty. So it’s a way of expressing opposition to it. So the final part of your question is why does all this matter, how does it matter, et cetera. At the end of the day, these ITRs are not legally binding terms. They’re much more normative and values oriented. It really kind of drives what the public discussion is. The actual ITRs officially don’t take effect until January of 2015, and again, there’s not a legally binding nature to it. But what is very fundamental about all this discussion is this is – we’ve had a very explicit discussion about views on the internet, and how it should be managed. And that – it was an explicit discussion on the plenary floor, and with our bilaterals, et cetera. And as you know, the divergence of views is significant. And we’re going to continue to advocate the multi-stakeholder model. I’d like to think that as time progresses and people see the benefit of the internet, that the belief in liberalized markets and a multi-stakeholder model that frankly is much more practical in terms of advancing the internet, that that will take hold. But that will take a period of time, that discussion. *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from Eliza Krigman. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION: *Hi. This is Eliza Krigman with Politico. Thanks for taking my call. What does this mean for the commercial arrangement between carriers, and specifically within payments from – or sending party pay payments, will there – if some countries ratify this treaty, does that mean they’re going to then send Google a bill for sending their subscribers YouTube content? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So, Eliza, fortunately the sending party pays elements have been removed through negotiations. They have been removed from the agreements here. So we’re obviously very pleased about that. There’s obviously still – you have a lot of organizations that do business globally. But the way the treaty works is there’s national sovereignty rights, so countries can do whatever they want to do in their own country. But obviously we don’t want to have agreements globally that set a tone. So we’re going to have to continue to advocate the importance of the global nature of the internet. And there’s a natural momentum where the world is becoming more interconnected, and the commercial opportunities are significant. So that’s where there’s a continued kind of momentum to keep negotiations going between countries, between network operators. *QUESTION: *Thank you. *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from John Eggerton with Broadcasting & Cable. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION: *Yes, Ambassador. Can you identify any of the other countries you think might not sign, or is it just going to be the U.S.? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah, so there were several – after I made my statement, there were a variety of other nations that then started to share their views, their concerns about the treaty. And they were either acknowledging that they would not sign or they acknowledged they had significant reservations and wanted to talk to their capitals overnight, or they identified specific areas that they want to take a reservation on. And matter of fact, once I spoke, there was a variety of nations, and I’ll read them off to you here, and then we went to a break immediately afterwards. So the countries that have already spoken and we’ll hear from more, but it is the United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Denmark, Egypt, Sweden, Netherlands, Kenya, the Czech Republic, Canada, New Zealand, and Poland. And again, that was just the group that spoke before we went on a break. So we’ll know more after this. One of the reasons, obviously, that I put my statement out is we wanted to clearly signal that this is the United States position. There’s a lot of countries, as you can imagine, that are waiting to see where the U.S. comes out. But on this issue, candidly, we are resolute on this. We had to go in understanding that we may have nobody else supporting us, because these issues are so fundamental. And fortunately, as I mentioned with that list of countries, a lot of other countries see the same issues we do. *QUESTION: *All right. But that’s a mix. You don’t know which specifically have said they’re not going to sign; that’s a mix of all three of those? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* That’s right. That’s right. But all of them – the tone in which they shared it were all concerns. There isn’t anybody in that group saying, “We love it.” They are all either going to be taking some sort of reservation or they’re going to not sign. I mean, it was pretty clear from their comments. *QUESTION: *Okay. Thanks. *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from Richard Waters with *Financial Times*. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Yes, hello. The fact that so many countries haven’t – sorry, are going to sign this suggests that – or does it suggest that actually the trend is away from the kind of open, free internet that you’ve been discussing here? And particularly if you bear in mind what happened at earlier conferences in 2003 and ‘5 where the kind of worst outcomes were headed off from your point of view, is what we’re seeing now a trend away from the kind of web and the internet that the U.S. would like? And what gives you the confidence to think that if things will swing around? You seem to be suggesting that when countries see the benefit of an open internet, they will adjust their point of view, but it seems to be exactly the opposite here, isn’t it? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yes. So first of all, we don’t know yet who’s going to vote in favor, because we won’t know, literally, till tomorrow on that. There could be a lot of countries that abstain, et cetera. So it’s, I think, premature for us to say who’s going to agree or not agree. But a couple of things on this. A lot of the countries that are expressing points of view different than ours are newer and less experienced in the whole internet play. It’s a newer phenomenon. The penetration rates are still growing, et cetera. Many of them are dealing with political issues in their home countries where there’s political instability and there’s a different mindset to what the benefits of the internet bring. So the context, first of all, is very different in a lot of the countries that have expressed points of view different to ours. The second comment, Richard, is, as you know, I’ve got a mobile background. I used to work with Vodafone. It is amazing as technology rolls from country to country how it looks in different places. It carries its own life and customizes to the local market. I actually think even more than the mobile sector, the internet looks different in different places from a content standpoint, an application standpoint, et cetera. And in turn, as that customization occurs, growth tends to increase. So I’m a fundamental believer over the long term you will see a lot more interest, economic activity, et cetera. Are there going to be political issues where certain countries don’t want free expression? Absolutely, but if you say over a long period of time, I think people will see a lot of the benefits, and this is a long game that we’re playing here. *QUESTION:* But as more countries join the internet, as you say, it could be that they will change the internet rather than the internet changing them. So this just might be the way (inaudible) countries that have a different approach to the medium changing the internet. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* I don’t know. I mean, it depends what you mean by changing the internet. If you mean they’re going to look to make it look different and customize it to their environment, then yeah, I would agree with you. If it’s governments are going to, on the long term, control the internet and decide what it looks and how, I don’t know that’s going to happen yet. Certainly, people talk about it in a futuristic way, but I’ve not seen kind of a concrete piece of it. And take an example of Kenya. I think Kenya is a great example from the internet and mobile and they’re one of the supporters of our activity. They see a clear benefit in their society because it creates economic value, it reduces the digital divide, it creates more demand for services, it connects them with the world. And I think as you see more of those case examples of success, you get more and more people that say this is a good thing. And that’s, again, the long game that we see. *QUESTION:* All right, thanks. *OPERATOR:* Okay, our next question is from Joseph Menn with Reuters. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Hi, Ambassador. I wasn’t tracking all of it as well as I might have been, but it looked like 3.8, the addressing thing, came out, which seemed like a very clear stumbling block. If that’s right, then was the last straw the provision on countries pledging not to disconnect each other? Because if so, that sort of makes it look like the U.S. is an outlier and wants the ability to disconnect other countries in times of conflict. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So you know, candidly, there were several items that really were the things that turned this over. What was interesting about this negotiation is sometimes there’s this impression, well, you’re negotiating ten items; one or two matter a lot, and seven or eight are kind of moderate, they don’t matter a huge amount, you can give and take. In this negotiation, candidly, there’s like five, six, seven things that were huge issues that had a lot to do, again, with different aspects of controlling the internet, and any one of these would have been a trip for us, would have been us saying no, we don’t want to do this. And so when I read those off at the beginning of the call, each of those would have been a big issue. So there was an internet resolution, as I mentioned. The internet resolution specifically talks about governance, about governments involved in governance of the internet. Now, what happened in the negotiations, they said, well, we’ll take that internet resolution, we’ll move it from the body of the articles which are binding in nature and they’ll move it to a resolution which is nonbinding. And they said, well, isn’t that great? The reality is it’s still in the ITRs and people are going to look at it and say the ITU and this WCIT conference got into internet governance. So that was a fundamental issue that would have tripped, again, our position. The second one is on spam. There’s a provision on spam in this. And again, there was a lot of effort to try and water it down with saying we’re going to mitigate, the focus on content, et cetera. But at the end of the day, if you’re saying you want to reduce the spam problem, you’re getting into a content issue there. And somebody, especially if you’re talking amongst governments, you’re giving the government the right to look at those issues. A third issue was the issue of security. When you put security mixed in here with the internet and content, again, you open the door for an organization to say, listen, in the quest of dealing with cyber security issues, I’m going to have to look at content and I’m going to make it okay to review that content. So again, there’s all these kind of circuitous ways to get into these things. The final thing is just the agencies that are subject to this. We don’t want lack of clarity about the agencies that are subject to this. We’re very clear on this that public providers of telecomm services should be the ones that are affected but not any others, not private networks, not internet players, not cloud computing players, not government networks, et cetera. There’s a lot of players in this kind of converged world that, again, indirectly or directly could be subject to these regulations. So candidly, the decision to do a no-sign – there wasn’t a lot of consternation on it. There were too many issues here that were problematic for us, and it made the decision clear. *QUESTION:* Thank you. *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from David Gewirtz with CBS Interactive. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Hi. This is David Gewirtz calling. So Ambassador, what happens now? Will other countries essentially route around the U.S. desires for an open net? Will this lead to what might essentially become two internets, one open and one closed? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, we obviously hope that doesn’t happen here. And again, from my own technology and mobile background, there’s a natural momentum to players that have scale, that are first-movers, et cetera, that create lower costs, they create greater inoperability, et cetera. So there’s a natural, I think, bias or advantage to that. And that benefits, by the way – we talk about Richard’s question earlier about when technology rolls to successive markets, many of those later markets get the better end of the technology, because infrastructure costs come down, or handset costs come down, or unique contents available, et cetera, they get the benefit of it. Now, if a country says, listen, I want to have a different standard, I’m going to have a different approach, then they can go proceed with that. Candidly, they could still do that under national sovereignty. But they’re going to have to deal, again, with a more and more interconnected environment. And so I think our job in all of this is to continue to espouse the benefits of an open internet, of free content, of low costs here, of all the things that entrepreneurs do with the internet. We have to keep advocating that, and that will create a natural bias or momentum in favor of it. And again, at the end of the day, if somebody wants to develop a different standard approach, it’s obviously that’s country’s prerogative. But we’re hoping that’s not an easy task. *QUESTION:* Thank you. *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from Grant Gross with IDG News Service. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Hello, Ambassador. Thanks for taking our calls. Kind of following up on that, what is the danger of this kind of resolution now as you see it coming out? What problems could it cause, even with the U.S. and the UK and other countries not adopting it? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, so I don’t see a lot of near-term or intermediate-term risks here, because it’s not a legally binding document. It doesn’t carry that risk. I think we’ve also maintained good relationships and enough kind of openness that companies that do business abroad have got a good environment. I do think that it does set up for a much more direct conversation that’s going to have to happen on multi-stakeholder governance, that that is really the only model that’s been proven to be effective, where, again, you’ve got civil society and industry and others there addressing fundamental internet issues. And in turn, multi-stakeholder organizations are going to have to continue to focus on outreach and being global in nature. And if you – there’s issues in Africa. A lot of our African colleagues here are saying, listen, we’ve got cyber issues; we need help with that. Then we need to make sure there are multi-stakeholder organizations available to help then with those issues. The United States, in addition, does a variety of bilaterals with individual countries to help them with their own cyber work and other issues related to the internet. But again, our fundamental view on this thing is you’ve got to be pragmatic. No one government can solve fundamental issues and deal with the internet, so you’ve got to have that expertise, that agility. And importantly, you’ve got to be customized in your approach. So again, to bring up the cyber security issue, when you ask a lot of countries what is the cyber security issue, at the end of the day, it’s heavily a regional issue; it’s not a global issue. There’s kind of one or two countries there are cyber issues with. So then you kind of ask the question, well, why exactly would you want to put terms in a global agreement on cyber. And there’s not a very good answer. So the net net of all this is we need to continue to advance the argument and the benefits of multi-stakeholder organizations. We need to put a lot of energy into the effectiveness of those organizations and make sure we continue to kind of build that global opportunity. So I think that’s the charter going forward. And again, coming from the mobile industry, I’ve seen that in my own life with the associations and standards bodies that work very well in that environment. So I do think it will happen. It’s just a period of time. *QUESTION:* Thanks. *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from Adam Popescu with ReadWrite.com. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Hi, Mr. Ambassador. Thanks for your time. A lot of my questions have already been answered by my peers, but going forward, what I’m – what I understand from what you’re saying is because of the fact that other nations are going to be putting forth a lot of this stuff in terms of the ROA versus OA, basically my question is, sort of dovetailing on one of the last questions about the two internets, are we going to see a different view of a certain site for international, when they’re here in the U.S.? And what’s going to happen globally? And you mentioned January 2015 as the day when these are supposed to take effect, so maybe you could speak on that a little bit. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. So first of all, I mean on a second internet, again, anything is possible. And you see on the content side there are social media sites, for example, in Russia that are unique in Russia. But again, what happens in this space, as you know – take a Facebook, right, with over a billion users. There’s a natural advantage to having that type of user base globally. And that creates a momentum for that to spread further. So I think, again, with the momentum that’s going on, that it’s kind of a natural that having some unique standard and setup somewhere else is going to be an easy task. There’s countries, again, in the mobile space that have tried to set up a different standard for 3G, 4G, the latest network technologies – very difficult to pull off. So I don’t know necessarily there’s some ulterior motive at this point. We’re seeing some nation want create some new effort. But we are going to need to continue to do this global outreach so we don’t inadvertently allow a Balkanization of the internet. And in terms of the January 15th date, nothing happens until then. And there’s a lot of activities and conferences that are going to happen between now and January of 2015. So a lot of different reviews are going to happen. And candidly, in these situations a lot of people may have buyer’s remorse. It’s interesting; even when we do our bilats, et cetera, there are a lot of nations that are still kind of getting their head around what the internet is, the opportunity, what are the issues with spam, and what are the issues with roaming related to this et cetera. And that’s been the benefit of this conference and our bilaterals, is we can have that discussion with people. And I think from that information, that education, you get a much better outcome. And I think people will come to the conclusion that multi-stakeholder governance is the right approach. *QUESTION: *One quick follow-up question: When is the next major internet conference where we can kind of take up some of these matters? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Well, there’s WTPF, a policy forum that’s in May of next year. So that’s going to be a place where some internet issues will be discussed. There’s an IGF, an Internet Governance Forum meeting that’s every year. I think their – it’s tentatively targeted for Indonesia next year in the fall. So these happen literally every few months or so. But again, what we don’t want to see is have these in the form of a treaty negotiating conference. There’s a huge amount to be done in best practice sharing, and fora that talk about ideas and approaches, but just not setting up regulations. *QUESTION: *And then my final question: Is this conference, then, and the fact that we’re not signing, is this a failure? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Not at all. It’s an interesting question, because I would talk with our U.S. delegation – success – and we always set this out with the goals of our delegation in the U.S. effort. Our end goal here is to create an environment where we can say there’s going to be success for the internet and telecom. And it is so easy in this setting here where you’re dealing with a lot of technical rules and regulations, you’re dealing with other regulators here, et cetera, to lose sight of the plot in life. The plot here is to make sure that these sectors do well. And if you can’t definitively say that an ITR is going to help that future of success, then you shouldn’t put the ITR in. You shouldn’t put regulation in. So I very much look at this – this is success. We’ve had a chance in this conference to communicate what success, we think, looks like, the importance of the internet globally. There’s been a connection between different countries and different people, et cetera, that I think all of that is a benefit. And on any issue that you have that’s a deep kind of philosophical or technical issue, you don’t have kind of one conversation and people’s minds change. It happens over a period of time. It happens when you can point to success. It happens when you can say, look at what’s happened in Kenya with broadband and the internet. Look what’s happened in India with mobile penetration. You start pointing to success, and people say, “Now I know this isn’t some theoretical, philosophical argument. This is a model that works.” And so I think those things will happen. I’m optimistic about it. But it’s the beginning of several steps. And so I do think this was a success, and there are going to be more of them. *QUESTION: *Thank you. *OPERATOR: *Our next question is from Cyrus Farivar with ARS Technica. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION: *Hello Mr. Ambassador, and thank you very much for my taking question. I had two questions. First of all, I’m wondering – you talked about how the United States is not going to be supporting these agreements. I’m wondering why these agreements are even necessary in the first place. As you know, and I think as pretty much all of my colleagues know, lots of countries out there already conduct their own national internets to varying degrees. I’m talking most notably of China, Iran, certainly North Korea, that has probably the most restrictive internet policy of anyone in the world. So I wonder: Why are these even kind of national-based agreements even necessary to begin with when this practice is already going on? That’s my first question. And then my second question is: I’m wondering what was the role of lobbying to your delegation, particularly by corporations such as Google and particularly by prominent internet technical experts, like Vint Cerf, who, as you know, was the architect of some of the fundamental foundations of the protocols behind the internet itself. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. No. Great questions. So first of all, on your first question on the global nature, you’re absolutely right. Countries have national sovereignty rights, so they can do what they want. But what we don’t want over time is a set of global agreements that people can point to and say, listen, this treaty gave us the right to impose these terms on global operators of some sort. Now, again, we don’t’ think that’s going to happen with this per se because it’s a normative approach, it’s not legally binding. But you sure don’t want to kind of just allow something to happen that people can think is a binding term on an increasingly global environment. So that’s why we don’t want it to happen. Our argument specifically on the ITU is the ITU does great work in a lot of the radio areas, in spectrum work, in coordination work, they do a lot of great work in developing markets, et cetera. But in the internet, it’s not the charter. It’s not the place. It’s not going to be able to do the things that are going to really add value. And so that’s why we say, continue with the ITU and interact with a lot of other delegates, but make sure it’s on the right topics. Now your second question – you said “lobbying.” It’s a good question, but I’ll rephrase it. It’s not lobbying per se. We had – have a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. They – as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they’re representing national interests. So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they – the industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed our positions more broadly on a national basis. A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that’s the real benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you’re able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, and share the points of view. And that’s been a huge benefit of our delegation. But finally I’ll say – and I don’t know if you call – it’s a bit of the irony of all this is we – people said, “Geez, you guys have a large delegation.” The fact we had a large delegation with the type of engagement we had is the beauty of our system – is you have a lot of people that are taking their ideas – some of them are their own self-interest, but a lot of it is much broader than that, and they’re contributing to a greater outcome here. And as I did bilaterals with other nations, it was interesting how many countries I would go to where a member of industry or civil society said, could you tell my government this, this and this? And I said, well, isn’t there a delegation in their own country sharing it? Well, the reality is a lot of countries don’t have that type of inclusive nature. Certainly the democratic ones do, but there are a lot of ones that aren’t. And it was a very stark message to me of exactly what we’re talking about when we talk about multi-stakeholder governance and how you collect the best wisdom and energy to create something bigger. So a long-winded answer to your question, but that – those representatives were a very essential part of our delegation. *QUESTION:* Thank you. *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from David McAuley with Bloomberg BNA. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Thank you. Ambassador Kramer, my questions, too, have been answered, but let me ask this: What will happen to the U.S. delegation now and to your role between now and, let’s say, WTPF in May? And what are the U.S. plans going forward between now and January of 2015? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. Thank you, David. And so a couple of things. People will all go into their own worlds again in the coming weeks and months. So our delegation – obviously a lot of them are in civil society or industry, et cetera. They’ll, obviously, go back into that. I’ll eventually go back into probably academia and the work that I was doing before, and maybe industry again. You never know. But importantly, what should be happening in the next month or two is what are the learnings from the conference, what are the implications going forward, how do we advance multi-stakeholder governance. All of those things, I think, are going to be very, very helpful. And I think, again, to the earlier question about was this successful, there’s a lot of success in understanding points of view of other nations, of really honing in on our arguments, and importantly how do you advance these ideas about liberalized markets and about multi-stakeholder governance. So the next couple of months, my mind is going to be on that and sharing insights as well as a lot of my colleagues. *QUESTION:* Thank you. *OPERATOR:* Next question comes from Jennifer Martinez, The Hill. Please go ahead. *QUESTION:* Hi. Thanks so much for taking my call. Appreciate it. You’ve kind of touched on this in previous questions, so apologies if this is somewhat of a repeat. But with the countries that are signing the ITRs, I guess, would they be treating a company like Google or Facebook differently in the future, or is it too early to tell, since the treaty hasn’t gone into effect yet? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. I think it’s too early to tell. A lot of the countries that would sign, that would have policies very different than ours, are already creating a very different environment. So I don’t think that’s likely to happen near term. And again, I think from a legally binding standpoint, these ITRs don’t have teeth in them. But I do think we have to continually be vigilant on this issue about not erecting barriers. And some of the arguments on this, Jennifer, it’s interesting. You may have governments that have different political views than us. They may have different practices on censorship, et cetera. But many of them are fundamentally concerned about commercial issues. They want to see commerce; they want to see people using the internet effectively, et cetera. And so there’s always that argument that helps advance keeping the internet free and open. So that’s kind of the mindset from here. And again, I don’t expect any big change in any of this. But we are going to have a continued effort to make sure this multi-stakeholder model and the global opportunity is made clear. *MODERATOR:* All right. We have time for one more question. *OPERATOR:* Okay. Last question comes from Josh Peterson, The Daily Caller. *QUESTION:* Hi, Ambassador. Thank you for your time and thank you for taking my question. I just wanted to go back and talk a little bit about what brought the proceedings to a vote. Because from what I understand, the event operates on consensus, but – and a vote was unlikely. So what was it that prompted this to happen? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, so first of all, what happened last night and what also happened this evening is there was an indication of interest. People hold up placards. They did one vote, I think, later on to try and move things along. So some of what’s happening is the views on these issues are so heartfelt and so significant, and it slowed down a lot of the negotiations. I mean, here we are Thursday night, and it’s almost midnight here, and people are still trying to work away. So the chairman has really tried to move things along. And one of the tools was to do this vote on the human rights element. But in general, they’ve tried to really stick to consensus. So I don’t feel, per se, that this indication of interest or a nominal vote has been the big issue. I think the bigger issue is there’s a variety of nations out there that do hold different views than our own, and we’re going to have to continue to engage so that we don’t find that that continues to be an area of disagreement. *MODERATOR:* All right. Well, thank you, everyone, for joining us this evening. And as a reminder, we will not be having another call. This was our press briefing that we had mentioned in our media note previously. Thank you, everyone. Have a good night. *ENDS* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 17:25:35 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:25:35 -0200 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50CBA75F.3040407@cafonso.ca> Cuba brings the issue for obvious reasons -- the USA does not allow Internet operators under US jurisdiction to provide connectivity to Cuba, as part of its blockade. Venezuela is now providing fiber bandwidth to Cuba, but I wonder what happens to Cuban traffic in the portions of the Internet under USA jurisdiction? --c.a. On 12/14/2012 01:31 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Iran is a member of the GAC. > > Trying to remember what happened in WSIS, but believe this issue > generally (access of Member States to international telecommunication > services) is something Cuba brings up in various forms on a regular > basis. > > Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. > > Adam > > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:02 AM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >>> >>> Suppose that the US decided to deny access to the domain name root zone >>> resolution to, say Iran (.ir), because of its bad HR record. >>> >>> How exactly would they do that? >>> >>> >>> >>> [Milton L Mueller] They could apply the same sanctions to ICANN – which is >>> in U.S. jurisdiction – that they apply to Oracle, MSFT, GoDaddy, etc. >>> >>> They could decide that ICANN was providing “services” to the sanctioned >>> country. >> >> >> >> >> If so, there are still some root-ops who would not abide by those sanctions, >> no? >> >> >>> >>> Certainly Syria is a criminal regime. But do we want ICANN to be a neutral >>> meeting ground for all parties or not? >>> >>> yes. Who decides who gets in the GAC? >>> >>> >>> >>> [Milton L Mueller] >>> >>> [Milton L Mueller] ICANN bylaws. >> >> >> so you are saying it's the Board? >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 ca at cafonso.ca Fri Dec 14 17:57:41 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:57:41 -0200 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <50CADDBB.7040901@itforchange.net> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <10E0870B-FB8E-4ED6-960F-26E9C7E8BDC2@hserus.net> <50CACE9E.3060002@itforchange.net> <815ED32D-D827-45DA-8AEE-429DEB323ABD@hserus.net> <50CADDBB.7040901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50CBAEE5.5060305@cafonso.ca> Here is the ITU official table of the voting (the ones voting in favor are in green): http://www.itu.int/osg/wcit-12/highlights/signatories.html --c.a. On 12/14/2012 06:05 AM, parminder wrote: > > my information is specific to the voting that took place yesterday, > India was among 77 that voted for... > > On Friday 14 December 2012 01:08 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> you can sue various newspapers for lying then >> >> here's one to start with, with statements from the DoT that are >> remarkably divergent from their earlier position. >> >> http://www.livemint.com/Industry/3gtX8BWmMEaIfNyCfFI7xL/UN-group-gives-nod-for-greater-Internet-oversight.html >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 14-Dec-2012, at 12:30, parminder > > wrote: >> >>> >>> On Friday 14 December 2012 11:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> This outcome from WCIT has actually given me a lot more hope. Hope >>>> that various countries will realize that pushing these through the >>>> ITU is a non starter. >>>> >>>> I am glad to see that India voted against the ITRs too. >>> >>> A falsehood... >>> >>> >>>> For all the initial rubbish about CIRP, and for all DoT's initial >>>> submission that suggested the contrary. >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> On 14-Dec-2012, at 11:10, parminder >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human >>>>>> Rights? It seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by >>>>>> comments and concerns (very legitimate) that some proposal had >>>>>> potential to harm fundamental rights. How many full sessions >>>>>> discussed a single line of text in the preamble, 2, 3, more? All >>>>>> for his own PR, he said as much, it was about the press and >>>>>> perception. So I wonder, if he has used the same passion and time >>>>>> to persuade and cajole delegates to think of ways in which the >>>>>> ITRs could contain high-level and lasting principles that >>>>>> encouraged the spread of/access to broadband across the globe, >>>>>> perhaps we would have had something useful and lasting. >>>>> >>>>> Adam, >>>>> >>>>> Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband >>>>> without mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the >>>>> ITRs? You know that one side was completely intent that, what come >>>>> may, Internet/ broadband cannot find mention in the ITRs.... >>>>> >>>>> The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between >>>>> two sides both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to >>>>> prevent US et all from making a historical point that Internet is >>>>> an unregulated space - whereby their new global domination strategy >>>>> could be unrestrained. The other side was trying to prevent China/ >>>>> Russia et all from changing the basic nature of the global Internet >>>>> into a tightly state controlled space. >>>>> >>>>> The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should >>>>> have included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil >>>>> society, which is supposed to contribute a positive agenda, >>>>> failed. That I think is the primary failure here. The 'sane public >>>>> interest-oriented middle' did not get formed. And the civil society >>>>> was supposed to have a big role in it. So, perhaps, we failed, more >>>>> than anyone else. (Do we want to look into this failure?) >>>>> >>>>> A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such >>>>> monumental importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the >>>>> people of the world some hope.... Take any treaty or global summit >>>>> process till now, whether concerning climate change, trade, >>>>> traditional knowledge, etc etc........... There is always some hope >>>>> built from a summit/ treaty process, and civil society is on the >>>>> side of this positive hope. Mostly leading the positive hope brigade. >>>>> >>>>> What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was >>>>> there any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas. >>>>> And, I dare say, good that neither won, and the process broke down. >>>>> I highly appreciate the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this >>>>> case, I am not too unhappy that the treaty process kind of failed. >>>>> I am not celebrating the breakdown of dialogue. I am hopeful that >>>>> this breakdown will come as a positive shake-up to our collective >>>>> and selective slumbers that many of us seem to be caught in, in >>>>> terms of public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope is >>>>> that such shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am >>>>> still celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open >>>>> dialogue about real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond >>>>> selective hype, focussed on global public interest and not narrow >>>>> partisan agendas as the WCIT process was. >>>>> >>>>> The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am >>>>> completely unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, >>>>> /what would it have succeeded at./ I am unable to form any >>>>> conception of what I could have considered as WCIT success - that, >>>>> one could say proudly, /it gave the world this and this/.... I will >>>>> be happy if anyone here can share any such possible conception of a >>>>> 'successful WCIT' (keeping within the limits in which WCIT process >>>>> has been trapped for a long time now), and perhaps I can still be >>>>> persuade to feel bad about this 'failure'. But right now, I am >>>>> unable to do so. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to >>>>>> become divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his >>>>>> comments last night poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the >>>>>> run-up to this conference that this conference is not about >>>>>> governing the internet. I repeat, that the conference did not >>>>>> include provisions on the internet in the treaty text." etc. >>>>>> Opening plenary: "In preparing for this conference, we have seen >>>>>> and heard many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to >>>>>> take over the Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT >>>>>> is not about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about >>>>>> Internet governance." Sorry, that's twisting words and twisting >>>>>> generally. The resolutions are part of the ITRs, they can be >>>>>> binding on the secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder if Toure's >>>>>> blown his chance for a legacy. Best, Adam >>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Keith >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>>>> Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 18:03:29 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:03:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <50CBA75F.3040407@cafonso.ca> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CBA75F.3040407@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Cuba brings the issue for obvious reasons -- the USA does not allow Internet > operators under US jurisdiction to provide connectivity to Cuba, as part of > its blockade. Venezuela is now providing fiber bandwidth to Cuba, but I > wonder what happens to Cuban traffic in the portions of the Internet under > USA jurisdiction? it gets delivered: Traceroute has started… traceroute to nic.cuba.cu (150.188.8.225), 64 hops max, 72 byte packets 1 verizon (192.168.1.1) 1.751 ms 1.157 ms 0.995 ms 2 10.27.14.1 (10.27.14.1) 30.263 ms 30.276 ms 29.502 ms 3 g4-0-3-2102.clppva-lcr-01.verizon-gni.net (130.81.196.248) 29.611 ms 28.698 ms 28.194 ms 4 p13-0-0.clppva-lcr-02.verizon-gni.net (130.81.23.0) 32.462 ms 32.606 ms 32.847 ms 5 so-12-0-0-0.res-bb-rtr1.verizon-gni.net (130.81.28.14) 32.489 ms 32.415 ms 32.348 ms 6 0.ae2.br3.iad8.alter.net (152.63.34.149) 37.869 ms 0.ae2.br1.iad8.alter.net (152.63.32.158) 32.688 ms 32.235 ms 7 te9-2-0d0.cir1.ashburn-va.us.xo.net (206.111.0.201) 33.754 ms 204.255.168.226 (204.255.168.226) 33.045 ms te9-2-0d0.cir1.ashburn-va.us.xo.net (206.111.0.201) 32.087 ms 8 207.88.14.170.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.170) 43.161 ms 47.322 ms 48.275 ms 9 ae0d0.mcr1.nyc-ny.us.xo.net (216.156.0.18) 39.232 ms 39.348 ms 39.720 ms 10 216.55.2.134 (216.55.2.134) 89.837 ms 89.756 ms 89.619 ms 11 eth0.fw2.reacciun.ve (150.185.255.10) 89.794 ms 90.380 ms 90.197 ms 12 150.188.8.225 (150.188.8.225) 90.543 ms 90.988 ms 90.575 ms I can see the website of the cuban NIC at least. -- 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 declan at well.com Fri Dec 14 18:34:19 2012 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:34:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <50CBAEE5.5060305@cafonso.ca> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <10E0870B-FB8E-4ED6-960F-26E9C7E8BDC2@hserus.net> <50CACE9E.3060002@itforchange.net> <815ED32D-D827-45DA-8AEE-429DEB323ABD@hserus.net> <50CADDBB.7040901@itforchange.net> <50CBAEE5.5060305@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <50CBB77B.2040406@well.com> Thanks. My quick count is 89 of 144 signed the final treaty and 55 did not. -Declan On 12/14/12 2:57 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Here is the ITU official table of the voting (the ones voting in favor > are in green): > > http://www.itu.int/osg/wcit-12/highlights/signatories.html > > --c.a. > > On 12/14/2012 06:05 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> my information is specific to the voting that took place yesterday, >> India was among 77 that voted for... >> >> On Friday 14 December 2012 01:08 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> you can sue various newspapers for lying then >>> >>> here's one to start with, with statements from the DoT that are >>> remarkably divergent from their earlier position. >>> >>> http://www.livemint.com/Industry/3gtX8BWmMEaIfNyCfFI7xL/UN-group-gives-nod-for-greater-Internet-oversight.html >>> >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 14-Dec-2012, at 12:30, parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Friday 14 December 2012 11:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>> This outcome from WCIT has actually given me a lot more hope. Hope >>>>> that various countries will realize that pushing these through the >>>>> ITU is a non starter. >>>>> >>>>> I am glad to see that India voted against the ITRs too. >>>> >>>> A falsehood... >>>> >>>> >>>>> For all the initial rubbish about CIRP, and for all DoT's initial >>>>> submission that suggested the contrary. >>>>> >>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>> >>>>> On 14-Dec-2012, at 11:10, parminder >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human >>>>>>> Rights? It seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by >>>>>>> comments and concerns (very legitimate) that some proposal had >>>>>>> potential to harm fundamental rights. How many full sessions >>>>>>> discussed a single line of text in the preamble, 2, 3, more? All >>>>>>> for his own PR, he said as much, it was about the press and >>>>>>> perception. So I wonder, if he has used the same passion and time >>>>>>> to persuade and cajole delegates to think of ways in which the >>>>>>> ITRs could contain high-level and lasting principles that >>>>>>> encouraged the spread of/access to broadband across the globe, >>>>>>> perhaps we would have had something useful and lasting. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam, >>>>>> >>>>>> Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband >>>>>> without mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the >>>>>> ITRs? You know that one side was completely intent that, what come >>>>>> may, Internet/ broadband cannot find mention in the ITRs.... >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between >>>>>> two sides both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to >>>>>> prevent US et all from making a historical point that Internet is >>>>>> an unregulated space - whereby their new global domination strategy >>>>>> could be unrestrained. The other side was trying to prevent China/ >>>>>> Russia et all from changing the basic nature of the global Internet >>>>>> into a tightly state controlled space. >>>>>> >>>>>> The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should >>>>>> have included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil >>>>>> society, which is supposed to contribute a positive agenda, >>>>>> failed. That I think is the primary failure here. The 'sane public >>>>>> interest-oriented middle' did not get formed. And the civil society >>>>>> was supposed to have a big role in it. So, perhaps, we failed, more >>>>>> than anyone else. (Do we want to look into this failure?) >>>>>> >>>>>> A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such >>>>>> monumental importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the >>>>>> people of the world some hope.... Take any treaty or global summit >>>>>> process till now, whether concerning climate change, trade, >>>>>> traditional knowledge, etc etc........... There is always some hope >>>>>> built from a summit/ treaty process, and civil society is on the >>>>>> side of this positive hope. Mostly leading the positive hope brigade. >>>>>> >>>>>> What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was >>>>>> there any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas. >>>>>> And, I dare say, good that neither won, and the process broke down. >>>>>> I highly appreciate the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this >>>>>> case, I am not too unhappy that the treaty process kind of failed. >>>>>> I am not celebrating the breakdown of dialogue. I am hopeful that >>>>>> this breakdown will come as a positive shake-up to our collective >>>>>> and selective slumbers that many of us seem to be caught in, in >>>>>> terms of public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope is >>>>>> that such shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am >>>>>> still celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open >>>>>> dialogue about real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond >>>>>> selective hype, focussed on global public interest and not narrow >>>>>> partisan agendas as the WCIT process was. >>>>>> >>>>>> The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am >>>>>> completely unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, >>>>>> /what would it have succeeded at./ I am unable to form any >>>>>> conception of what I could have considered as WCIT success - that, >>>>>> one could say proudly, /it gave the world this and this/.... I will >>>>>> be happy if anyone here can share any such possible conception of a >>>>>> 'successful WCIT' (keeping within the limits in which WCIT process >>>>>> has been trapped for a long time now), and perhaps I can still be >>>>>> persuade to feel bad about this 'failure'. But right now, I am >>>>>> unable to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to >>>>>>> become divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his >>>>>>> comments last night poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the >>>>>>> run-up to this conference that this conference is not about >>>>>>> governing the internet. I repeat, that the conference did not >>>>>>> include provisions on the internet in the treaty text." etc. >>>>>>> Opening plenary: "In preparing for this conference, we have seen >>>>>>> and heard many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to >>>>>>> take over the Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT >>>>>>> is not about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about >>>>>>> Internet governance." Sorry, that's twisting words and twisting >>>>>>> generally. The resolutions are part of the ITRs, they can be >>>>>>> binding on the secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder if Toure's >>>>>>> blown his chance for a legacy. Best, Adam >>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Keith >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>>>>> Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) >>>>>>>>> we hollow. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.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 kichango at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 18:49:16 2012 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 18:49:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <50CBB77B.2040406@well.com> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <10E0870B-FB8E-4ED6-960F-26E9C7E8BDC2@hserus.net> <50CACE9E.3060002@itforchange.net> <815ED32D-D827-45DA-8AEE-429DEB323ABD@hserus.net> <50CADDBB.7040901@itforchange.net> <50CBAEE5.5060305@cafonso.ca> <50CBB77B.2040406@well.com> Message-ID: India's official stance now released: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=90748 -mc On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Thanks. My quick count is 89 of 144 signed the final treaty and 55 did not. > > -Declan > > > On 12/14/12 2:57 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> Here is the ITU official table of the voting (the ones voting in favor >> are in green): >> >> http://www.itu.int/osg/wcit-12/highlights/signatories.html >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 12/14/2012 06:05 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> my information is specific to the voting that took place yesterday, >>> India was among 77 that voted for... >>> >>> On Friday 14 December 2012 01:08 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>> >>>> you can sue various newspapers for lying then >>>> >>>> here's one to start with, with statements from the DoT that are >>>> remarkably divergent from their earlier position. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.livemint.com/Industry/3gtX8BWmMEaIfNyCfFI7xL/UN-group-gives-nod-for-greater-Internet-oversight.html >>>> >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> On 14-Dec-2012, at 12:30, parminder >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Friday 14 December 2012 11:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This outcome from WCIT has actually given me a lot more hope. Hope >>>>>> that various countries will realize that pushing these through the >>>>>> ITU is a non starter. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am glad to see that India voted against the ITRs too. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A falsehood... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> For all the initial rubbish about CIRP, and for all DoT's initial >>>>>> submission that suggested the contrary. >>>>>> >>>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>>> >>>>>> On 14-Dec-2012, at 11:10, parminder >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human >>>>>>>> Rights? It seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by >>>>>>>> comments and concerns (very legitimate) that some proposal had >>>>>>>> potential to harm fundamental rights. How many full sessions >>>>>>>> discussed a single line of text in the preamble, 2, 3, more? All >>>>>>>> for his own PR, he said as much, it was about the press and >>>>>>>> perception. So I wonder, if he has used the same passion and time >>>>>>>> to persuade and cajole delegates to think of ways in which the >>>>>>>> ITRs could contain high-level and lasting principles that >>>>>>>> encouraged the spread of/access to broadband across the globe, >>>>>>>> perhaps we would have had something useful and lasting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adam, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband >>>>>>> without mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the >>>>>>> ITRs? You know that one side was completely intent that, what come >>>>>>> may, Internet/ broadband cannot find mention in the ITRs.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between >>>>>>> two sides both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to >>>>>>> prevent US et all from making a historical point that Internet is >>>>>>> an unregulated space - whereby their new global domination strategy >>>>>>> could be unrestrained. The other side was trying to prevent China/ >>>>>>> Russia et all from changing the basic nature of the global Internet >>>>>>> into a tightly state controlled space. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should >>>>>>> have included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil >>>>>>> society, which is supposed to contribute a positive agenda, >>>>>>> failed. That I think is the primary failure here. The 'sane public >>>>>>> interest-oriented middle' did not get formed. And the civil society >>>>>>> was supposed to have a big role in it. So, perhaps, we failed, more >>>>>>> than anyone else. (Do we want to look into this failure?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such >>>>>>> monumental importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the >>>>>>> people of the world some hope.... Take any treaty or global summit >>>>>>> process till now, whether concerning climate change, trade, >>>>>>> traditional knowledge, etc etc........... There is always some hope >>>>>>> built from a summit/ treaty process, and civil society is on the >>>>>>> side of this positive hope. Mostly leading the positive hope brigade. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was >>>>>>> there any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas. >>>>>>> And, I dare say, good that neither won, and the process broke down. >>>>>>> I highly appreciate the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this >>>>>>> case, I am not too unhappy that the treaty process kind of failed. >>>>>>> I am not celebrating the breakdown of dialogue. I am hopeful that >>>>>>> this breakdown will come as a positive shake-up to our collective >>>>>>> and selective slumbers that many of us seem to be caught in, in >>>>>>> terms of public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope is >>>>>>> that such shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am >>>>>>> still celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open >>>>>>> dialogue about real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond >>>>>>> selective hype, focussed on global public interest and not narrow >>>>>>> partisan agendas as the WCIT process was. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am >>>>>>> completely unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, >>>>>>> /what would it have succeeded at./ I am unable to form any >>>>>>> conception of what I could have considered as WCIT success - that, >>>>>>> one could say proudly, /it gave the world this and this/.... I will >>>>>>> be happy if anyone here can share any such possible conception of a >>>>>>> 'successful WCIT' (keeping within the limits in which WCIT process >>>>>>> has been trapped for a long time now), and perhaps I can still be >>>>>>> persuade to feel bad about this 'failure'. But right now, I am >>>>>>> unable to do so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to >>>>>>>> become divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his >>>>>>>> comments last night poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the >>>>>>>> run-up to this conference that this conference is not about >>>>>>>> governing the internet. I repeat, that the conference did not >>>>>>>> include provisions on the internet in the treaty text." etc. >>>>>>>> Opening plenary: "In preparing for this conference, we have seen >>>>>>>> and heard many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to >>>>>>>> take over the Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT >>>>>>>> is not about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about >>>>>>>> Internet governance." Sorry, that's twisting words and twisting >>>>>>>> generally. The resolutions are part of the ITRs, they can be >>>>>>>> binding on the secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder if Toure's >>>>>>>> blown his chance for a legacy. Best, Adam >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Keith >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) >>>>>>>>>> we hollow. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>> >>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Dec 14 19:17:30 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:17:30 -0200 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CBA75F.3040407@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <50CBC19A.8020304@cafonso.ca> Good to know! --c.a. On 12/14/2012 09:03 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Cuba brings the issue for obvious reasons -- the USA does not allow Internet >> operators under US jurisdiction to provide connectivity to Cuba, as part of >> its blockade. Venezuela is now providing fiber bandwidth to Cuba, but I >> wonder what happens to Cuban traffic in the portions of the Internet under >> USA jurisdiction? > > it gets delivered: > > Traceroute has started… > > traceroute to nic.cuba.cu (150.188.8.225), 64 hops max, 72 byte packets > 1 verizon (192.168.1.1) 1.751 ms 1.157 ms 0.995 ms > 2 10.27.14.1 (10.27.14.1) 30.263 ms 30.276 ms 29.502 ms > 3 g4-0-3-2102.clppva-lcr-01.verizon-gni.net (130.81.196.248) 29.611 > ms 28.698 ms 28.194 ms > 4 p13-0-0.clppva-lcr-02.verizon-gni.net (130.81.23.0) 32.462 ms > 32.606 ms 32.847 ms > 5 so-12-0-0-0.res-bb-rtr1.verizon-gni.net (130.81.28.14) 32.489 ms > 32.415 ms 32.348 ms > 6 0.ae2.br3.iad8.alter.net (152.63.34.149) 37.869 ms > 0.ae2.br1.iad8.alter.net (152.63.32.158) 32.688 ms 32.235 ms > 7 te9-2-0d0.cir1.ashburn-va.us.xo.net (206.111.0.201) 33.754 ms > 204.255.168.226 (204.255.168.226) 33.045 ms > te9-2-0d0.cir1.ashburn-va.us.xo.net (206.111.0.201) 32.087 ms > 8 207.88.14.170.ptr.us.xo.net (207.88.14.170) 43.161 ms 47.322 ms 48.275 ms > 9 ae0d0.mcr1.nyc-ny.us.xo.net (216.156.0.18) 39.232 ms 39.348 ms 39.720 ms > 10 216.55.2.134 (216.55.2.134) 89.837 ms 89.756 ms 89.619 ms > 11 eth0.fw2.reacciun.ve (150.185.255.10) 89.794 ms 90.380 ms 90.197 ms > 12 150.188.8.225 (150.188.8.225) 90.543 ms 90.988 ms 90.575 ms > > I can see the website of the cuban NIC at least. > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 14 19:26:22 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:26:22 -0200 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <10E0870B-FB8E-4ED6-960F-26E9C7E8BDC2@hserus.net> <50CACE9E.3060002@itforchange.net> <815ED32D-D827-45DA-8AEE-429DEB323ABD@hserus.net> <50CADDBB.7040901@itforchange.net> <50CBAEE5.5060305@cafonso.ca> <50CBB77B.2040406@well.com> Message-ID: <50CBC3AE.90200@cafonso.ca> Extremely careful positioning. They support the resolutions and the treaty, but will not *sign* the treaty (which, unlike the resolutions, means a legal commitment) until they analyze all its implications. frt rgds --c.a. On 12/14/2012 09:49 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > India's official stance now released: > > http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=90748 > > -mc > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: >> Thanks. My quick count is 89 of 144 signed the final treaty and 55 did not. >> >> -Declan >> >> >> On 12/14/12 2:57 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> >>> Here is the ITU official table of the voting (the ones voting in favor >>> are in green): >>> >>> http://www.itu.int/osg/wcit-12/highlights/signatories.html >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 12/14/2012 06:05 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> my information is specific to the voting that took place yesterday, >>>> India was among 77 that voted for... >>>> >>>> On Friday 14 December 2012 01:08 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>> >>>>> you can sue various newspapers for lying then >>>>> >>>>> here's one to start with, with statements from the DoT that are >>>>> remarkably divergent from their earlier position. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.livemint.com/Industry/3gtX8BWmMEaIfNyCfFI7xL/UN-group-gives-nod-for-greater-Internet-oversight.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>> >>>>> On 14-Dec-2012, at 12:30, parminder >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday 14 December 2012 11:18 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This outcome from WCIT has actually given me a lot more hope. Hope >>>>>>> that various countries will realize that pushing these through the >>>>>>> ITU is a non starter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am glad to see that India voted against the ITRs too. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A falsehood... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> For all the initial rubbish about CIRP, and for all DoT's initial >>>>>>> submission that suggested the contrary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --srs (iPad) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14-Dec-2012, at 11:10, parminder >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human >>>>>>>>> Rights? It seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by >>>>>>>>> comments and concerns (very legitimate) that some proposal had >>>>>>>>> potential to harm fundamental rights. How many full sessions >>>>>>>>> discussed a single line of text in the preamble, 2, 3, more? All >>>>>>>>> for his own PR, he said as much, it was about the press and >>>>>>>>> perception. So I wonder, if he has used the same passion and time >>>>>>>>> to persuade and cajole delegates to think of ways in which the >>>>>>>>> ITRs could contain high-level and lasting principles that >>>>>>>>> encouraged the spread of/access to broadband across the globe, >>>>>>>>> perhaps we would have had something useful and lasting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Adam, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband >>>>>>>> without mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the >>>>>>>> ITRs? You know that one side was completely intent that, what come >>>>>>>> may, Internet/ broadband cannot find mention in the ITRs.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between >>>>>>>> two sides both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to >>>>>>>> prevent US et all from making a historical point that Internet is >>>>>>>> an unregulated space - whereby their new global domination strategy >>>>>>>> could be unrestrained. The other side was trying to prevent China/ >>>>>>>> Russia et all from changing the basic nature of the global Internet >>>>>>>> into a tightly state controlled space. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should >>>>>>>> have included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil >>>>>>>> society, which is supposed to contribute a positive agenda, >>>>>>>> failed. That I think is the primary failure here. The 'sane public >>>>>>>> interest-oriented middle' did not get formed. And the civil society >>>>>>>> was supposed to have a big role in it. So, perhaps, we failed, more >>>>>>>> than anyone else. (Do we want to look into this failure?) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such >>>>>>>> monumental importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the >>>>>>>> people of the world some hope.... Take any treaty or global summit >>>>>>>> process till now, whether concerning climate change, trade, >>>>>>>> traditional knowledge, etc etc........... There is always some hope >>>>>>>> built from a summit/ treaty process, and civil society is on the >>>>>>>> side of this positive hope. Mostly leading the positive hope brigade. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was >>>>>>>> there any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas. >>>>>>>> And, I dare say, good that neither won, and the process broke down. >>>>>>>> I highly appreciate the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this >>>>>>>> case, I am not too unhappy that the treaty process kind of failed. >>>>>>>> I am not celebrating the breakdown of dialogue. I am hopeful that >>>>>>>> this breakdown will come as a positive shake-up to our collective >>>>>>>> and selective slumbers that many of us seem to be caught in, in >>>>>>>> terms of public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope is >>>>>>>> that such shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am >>>>>>>> still celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open >>>>>>>> dialogue about real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond >>>>>>>> selective hype, focussed on global public interest and not narrow >>>>>>>> partisan agendas as the WCIT process was. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am >>>>>>>> completely unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, >>>>>>>> /what would it have succeeded at./ I am unable to form any >>>>>>>> conception of what I could have considered as WCIT success - that, >>>>>>>> one could say proudly, /it gave the world this and this/.... I will >>>>>>>> be happy if anyone here can share any such possible conception of a >>>>>>>> 'successful WCIT' (keeping within the limits in which WCIT process >>>>>>>> has been trapped for a long time now), and perhaps I can still be >>>>>>>> persuade to feel bad about this 'failure'. But right now, I am >>>>>>>> unable to do so. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> parminder >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to >>>>>>>>> become divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his >>>>>>>>> comments last night poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the >>>>>>>>> run-up to this conference that this conference is not about >>>>>>>>> governing the internet. I repeat, that the conference did not >>>>>>>>> include provisions on the internet in the treaty text." etc. >>>>>>>>> Opening plenary: "In preparing for this conference, we have seen >>>>>>>>> and heard many comments about ITU or the United Nations trying to >>>>>>>>> take over the Internet. Let me be very clear one more time: WCIT >>>>>>>>> is not about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is not about >>>>>>>>> Internet governance." Sorry, that's twisting words and twisting >>>>>>>>> generally. The resolutions are part of the ITRs, they can be >>>>>>>>> binding on the secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder if Toure's >>>>>>>>> blown his chance for a legacy. Best, Adam >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Keith >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) >>>>>>>>>>> we hollow. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 22:13:45 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:13:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement Message-ID: <00c601cdda72$4da30a70$e8e91f50$@gmail.com> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1213/DOC-3179 26A1.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri Dec 14 23:08:35 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 05:08:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement In-Reply-To: <00c601cdda72$4da30a70$e8e91f50$@gmail.com> References: <00c601cdda72$4da30a70$e8e91f50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: More cold war propaganda. FCC monkeying Google. Who's next ? Louis - - - On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:13 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1213/DOC-317926A1.pdf > ** > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 14 23:38:15 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 05:38:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] CHANGE in Schedule and Call for Nominees for Election [IGC Coordinator Position] and Election Schedule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017801cdda7e$24b83980$6e28ac80$@gmail.com> Thanks Sala, and wishing you well in the Cyclone! I would like to nominate our Swiss colleague Norbert Bollow for the Co-Coordinator position. I believe that he will follow up with a brief bio. Best to all, Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: Friday, December 14, 2012 9:00 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] CHANGE in Schedule and Call for Nominees for Election [IGC Coordinator Position] and Election Schedule Dear All, This is to advise that we have yet to receive Nominations for those interested in standing for the Elections. As such, there is a change in dates, and they are as follows, see Notice below. I may be offline for a few days depending as we have a Category 4 Cyclone coming into Fiji which has already devastated Samoa. In the meantime, we encourage both men and women to apply from all parts of the earth. For more information, see below: This is to advise that we would like to invite people to submit Nominations for Candidates to stand in the elections for the purposes of occupying the Co-Coordinator position which Izumi Aizu used to occupy. Nominations Those who are interested in standing for elections or in nominating persons to stand for the elections should submit their Nominations by 4th January, 2013 at 10pm UTC +12. We would like to encourage people to either nominate themselves or nominate others whom you think would make great coordinators. Responsibilities of coordinators can be viewed in the IGC Charter. All Nominations are asked to submit their Nominations in the following format: Nomination By: [Self Nomination or http://igcaucus.org/charter) Selection of Coordinators The selection will be done by on-line voting using the voting process according to the following formula: * election of the coordinator will be held, whenever possible by midsummer (the summer solstice). If events prevent an election by midsummer, it will be held as soon after midsummer as possible. * the coordinator(s) who are not up for election or not standing for election will be responsible for running the election, subject to appeal by the appeal team. (Note: as a boot strap procedure for 2006, the interim coordinator will serve until the end of the first election period, during which two coordinators will be selected - one for one (1) year and one for two (2) years). Recall of coordinators In response to an appeal, as described in the appeals section, the appeals team can decide to hold a recall vote for a coordinator. In order to cause the recall vote, there needs to be full consensus among the appeal team members. The recall vote itself requires a 2/3 majority of voters to succeed. Replacement of a coordinator. If a coordinator leaves the role due to personal reasons or recall, the role will be refilled as quickly as possible. The role will be refilled for the balance of the term unless the refill occurs during the year in which the role was to be vacated. In this case the coordinator position will be for the balance of the replacement terms plus a two (2) year regular term. For example, if the 'even year' coordinator for 2006, leaves the role during an odd year, 2007, the rest of the term will be filled with a replacement, and a new selection will be made on schedule in 2008. If on the other hand the coordinator leaves the role early in 2008, then the replacement would complete the original term and serve the 2008-2010 term. Membership The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties. Voting Process Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before the election will be given a voter account. As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the self-defined member-voters will be published after the election with the results of the election. Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the appeals process. All voting will be open, though at the discretion of the coordinators, with or without a specific request from member(s), any vote can be made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will be stated, and are subject to appeal. Membership ( http://igcaucus.org/membership) Members of the Internet Governance Caucus are individuals, acting in personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and have the same rights and duties. If you wish to participate in our activities, or just observe our activities, you are welcome to join our mailing list. The mailing list is our priority working space. You can subscribe by registering on this Web site. If you need to change your subscription options, you will need to visit the separate mailing list site and follow instructions from there. For information on unsubscribing and subscribing under multiple addresses, please read here. Not all list participants are members. To determine membership, each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before any election or voting event will be given a voter account. As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described in the IGC charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the self-defined member-voters will be published after any election with the results of the election Warm Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala IGC Co-Coordinator -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 00:26:08 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 06:26:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: Globophobia: America Against the World -- U.S. Senate votes down the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (etc., etc.) References: Message-ID: <01a701cdda84$b0e1f8f0$12a5ead0$@gmail.com> --------------------------------------------- From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:17 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Globophobia: America Against the World -- U.S. Senate votes down the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (etc., etc.) http://www.nationofchange.org/globophobia-america-against-world-1355235178 Nation of Change December 4, 2012 Globophobia: America Against the World By Thomas Magstadt Mark this date on your calendar. The somber day the U.S. Senate voted down the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities , a treaty designed to extend the same rights disabled Americans already have to the rest of the world. The treaty fell five votes short of the two-thirds majority required for ratification because the extremists who now control the House Republican caucus hate the United Nations. The headline in the Yakima Herald said it all: “Senate vote a profile in cowardice”. If that's how it looks to folks in Yakima, imagine how it looks to people in Yakutsk (that's right, Putin's Russia ratified the treaty in September). Or to the 114 nations that have ratified this treaty, including the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the European Union. Who cares how it looks to the outside world? That's frequently the first question the anti-UN globophobics ask of "bleeding-heart liberals" dumb enough to believe it matters what the rest of the world think of us. The fact that the UN is made in America (rare these days), that it's located in New York City (within spitting distance of Wall Street), and that the US has a veto in the Security Council (one of 5 Permanent Members thusly privileged) is irrelevant. With an original roster of 51 member-states, the UN today is a place where ambassadors representing 192 nations of the world meet and talk. Irrelevant. It's specialized agencies do all kinds of good in the world in quiet ways (think UNICEF, World Bank, World Health Organization, and the FAO). Irrelevant. The UN's peacekeeping forces help to dampen down brushfire wars and contain regional conflicts – dozens of them – with a tiny fraction of the Pentagon's budget. Totally irrelevant. Just ask Twitter bug, Rick Santorum, who teamed up with other patriotic senators to save America's parents from the Disabilities Convention. "We did it!" he tweeted.* The offending treaty, he explained, "is a direct assault on us and our family." How, you ask? Obvious: someone might use the treaty in a lawsuit "and through the court system begin to deny parents the right to raise their children in conformity with what they believe." See? But it's not just the Disabilities Convention globophobes and UN haters have saved us from. Here's a partial list to jog everyone's memory. #1 The Kyoto Protocol The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997. The treaty sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European Union aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The modest targets amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012. At present, 195 parties have ratified the 1992 Convention on Climate Change, all but three (192 in all) have now ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which entered into force in February 2005 when 55 parties emitting 55% of the greenhouses gases ratified the 1992 Convention. The United States is the only country of any consequence that has refused to ratify the treaty. When Hurricane Sandy hit the very city the UN calls home nobody in the major news media remarked on the irony. Nor did New Jersey's Republican Governor Chris Christie, despite the devastation "Superstorm Sandy" wrought on the Jersey Shore. #2 Gaza and the Arab-Israeli Conflict In three decades between 1972-2002, the US vetoed well over 100 resolutions in the UN Security Council (no need to filibuster when you have a veto). Nearly half of these vetoes had a singular purpose: to block UN efforts to condemn Israel's policies toward the Palestinians and/or Israeli military action. In 1981 alone, for example, the US vetoed 18 resolutions condemning a) Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, b) Israel's human rights policies, and c) Israel's bombing attack on the Iraqi Osiris nuclear reactor. During this same period, Russia used its veto twice. Over the next decade (2003-2012), the US vetoed another 14 resolutions as Israel's surrogate on the Security Council, including one in 2009 that called for an end to the twenty-two-day-long Israeli attack on Gaza and one last year calling for a halt to the illegal Israeli West Bank settlements. Along the way, Washington also vetoed a resolution to end racial discrimination and one that enjoined all states (including the US) to obey international law. #3 The World Court and International Law The International Court of Justice (or ICJ), as it is formally known, was established under the UN Charter in 1945. The United States signed on but only after inserting an "optional clause" which, in effect, allows Washington to decide when to be a party to a legal dispute and when not to be. In other words, the "compulsory jurisdiction" provision is only compulsory for everybody else. If there was ever in doubt, it was laid to rest during the Reagan era when the ICJ ruled that the Reagan's covert war against Nicaragua violated international law and Washington promptly withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986. We now accept the World Court's jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis – that is, when it suits us. Chapter XIV of the UN Charter authorizes the Security Council to enforce World Court rulings, but enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members. Besides, nobody can enforce anything unless we say so. For a country that claims to be the beacon of democracy and exemplar of law-and-order in the world it amounts to a self-indictment. It makes us look like a bunch of hypocrites, makes our words meaningless no matter how true they are, and sucks the soft power out of our policies, leaving nothing but brute force to fall back on. And so we do. #4 The Law of the Sea Treaty This treaty, which 161 governments have ratified, governs international waterways and marine resources. It w successfully negotiated in 1982, but US Senate has never ratified it. Opponents cite possible restrictions on the US Navy and express fear that rich nations will see the ocean's wealth redistributed to poor nations. (Real Americans are against the haves helping the have-nots, okay?) With support from big business, the State Department and the Pentagon, Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) made another push in 2012 but 34 right-wing extremists in the Senate opposed the measure so it was dead in the water again. (Under the antiquated US Constitution, of course, it takes two-thirds of the Senate, 67 votes, to approve a treaty). What do we care? We've got the biggest Navy money can buy. And everybody knows the Army gets the gravy and the Navy gets the beans. Who needs fish? What about saving the whales? Forget the whales, we've got bigger fish to fry (LOL). #5 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women This treaty has passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee twice. President Jimmy Carter signed it in 1980, but it's never come up for a vote in the Senate. Oh sure, it guarantees women equal rights in housing, employment, pay and other areas, but if the Senate gets suckered into ratifying it, the next thing you know the UN will force Kansas to legalize abortion. To date, 187 countries have been suckered into ratifying this treaty. But Santorum and his buddies in the Senate aren't that dumb, see? #6 The International Criminal Court The treaty forming the ICC was finalized in Rome in 1998. The ICC's raison d'être is to investigate genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes — you know, the sort of things we "tried and fried" accused Nazi killers for at Nuremburg after World War II. Well, guess what, the U.S. has not ratified this treaty either. But this time, at least, we have company: Iraq, Israel, Yemen, China, Qatar and Libya. (Who said it was good company?) In one of his more creative strokes (rivaled only by his parsing of the word "is" in the Lewinsky caper) President Bill Clinton signed the treaty but didn't send it to the Senate for ratification – it supposedly lacked safeguards to protect the rights of American soldiers. It had adequate safeguards for signing, but not for ratifying. Kapish? Subsequently, "W" revoked Clinton's signature in 2002 right on cue – one month after the ICC officially came into existence. So the 121 countries that ratified it can go pound sand. Hee hee hee. #7 The Convention on the Rights of the Child No joke. Only two countries have failed to ratify this treaty . The other one is Somalia. So what if 193 countries have ratified it? Clinton signed the treaty in 1995, but conservative extremists in the Senate have blocked its ratification. President Obama characterized the Senate's failure to ratify it as "embarrassing" but then what can you expect from a Muslim socialist who wasn't even born in the United States? Thank goodness Rick Santorum and Paul Ryan are smart enough to see through this subterfuge. Next thing you know parents won't have the right to discipline their own kids. Or home school them like Santorum does. #8 The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty That's right, we haven't ratified this one either. Its purpose: to ban countries from testing nuclear weapons, something the U.S. has consistently opposed when other countries do it. Something the U.S. has not done in 20 years. But (surprise!) right-wingers in the Senate are against ratifying it (meanwhile they're all for other countries observing it, of course). Here's the catch: the treaty will not go into effect until every nuclear power in 1994 (when it was adopted) ratifies it. President Barack Obama's brief attempt to get it done in 2010 fizzled. To date, 157 countries have ratified it. We also have not signed the Ottawa Treaty that bans the development of anti-personnel landmines and requires countries to clear landmines. The Pentagon is against ratifying this treaty and, of course, gets all the backing it needs to block a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate. One can easily get the impression that the US Senate lets no good deed (or idea) go unpunished. And what the Senate does or does not do is what the rest of the world sees. The Yakima Herald noted that "the actions of some of the Republicans who voted against the [UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities] make one doubt how many of them truly believed they were doing the right thing.” In my home state of Kansas, Senator Pat Roberts and his colleague Jerry Moran voted “no” despite having promised aging and ailing fellow Kansan, former Senator Bob Dole, they would support the treaty. Campaigning for the presidency, Mitt Romney urged America to heed the words of Thomas Paine: "lead, follow, or get out of the way". (Never mind the fact nobody to date has been able to verify Tom Paine ever said or wrote it – the truth is irrelevant if you have enough guns, money, and cheek.) But there's a larger truth the rest of the world sees and the Wingnuts in Washington don't. It's this: we no longer lead, we won't follow, and, as the disgraceful vote against helping the world's disabled shows, we can't get out of our own way. *Never mind that Santorum as a wannabe president was roundly rejected by his own party, that both of his parties (Republican and Tea) lost the election, and that the outcome was a virtual landslide considering that a sitting president is usually blamed for a bad economy. !DSPAM:2676,50c786a425481629917380! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Dec 15 02:33:12 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:33:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> Message-ID: Sent this message to another list, but it is something I wanted to say on these list. Begin forwarded message: > From: Avri Doria > Subject: Re: [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty > Date: 15 December 2012 08:30:15 GMT+01:00 > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Hi, I can't speak to why the US and other democracies did not sign not the other treaties and the fact the US republicans filibustered its own laws made treaty in the Treaty on the Disabled. But since I was in Dubai and immersed in this process, I will try to speak to this situation somewhat. In this case, the ITR treaty, was seen as threatening the Internet and Internet governance in some ways, especially with regard to Internet content and the scope of Member State and ITU control over the Internet. I know that Milton and Fadí beleive this is not the case, and I will admit that the attacks are not as blatant as was expected, but I agree with the decision by many governments, including my own governments decision to not sign, and thus disagree with the analysis of these august gentlemen. For me one the major issues related to the security and robustness of the Internet being a Member State responsibility. " ARTICLE 5A Security and robustness of networks 41B Member States shall individually and collectively endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international telecommunication networks in order to achieve effective use thereof and avoidance of technical harm thereto, as well as the harmonious development of international telecommunication services offered to the public. " First what is security at the telecommunication layer other that robustness? And what does it mean to apply this security not only to the physical network but also to harmonious development... The worst power of the ITRs is what they allow Member States to do inside their countries with permission of international law. Also what is envisioned in the collective endeavor. To what extent does this empower one country to impose on the legal system of another country to support its laws concerning the security, i.e harmony, of its network development? It does not take much imagination to see the future actions of repressive states with regard to their power to protect the security of the network from disharmony. Yes, it is less than these governments wanted, but it is yet another step forward toward government control of the network - especially since for most of those nations Internet is infrastructure and the ITRs are about infrastructure. It is only a small abstraction that, while not made in the ITRs, has been made by them and can be seen in their reservations. I also see threat in the article on spam, even though they have named it euphemistically: Unsolicited bulk electronic communications " ARTICLE 5B Unsolicited bulk electronic communications 41C Member States should endeavour to take necessary measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic communications and minimize its impact on international telecommunication services. Member States are encouraged to cooperate in that sense. " True this is not as bad as unwanted Spam, which could mean anything, since Spam cannot be defined without reference to content. But even this: has this criminalized political statements sent to mailing lists? Will a sender potentially need to prove that every recipient solicited the mailing. Or will this feed into new crimes being defined in Russia and elsewhere that all email on LGBTQIA.+ event criminal propaganda. Remember we can't even prove that every email sent on this list is solicited. And will the general reference bulk electronic communication extend this to beyond just the consideration of email? What about SMS and other tools used in events such as the Arab spring - what can potentially be deemed illegal based on this article. remains to be sen, but it is a dangerous open door on repression of communications. I also have a problem with the preeminent place they have created for ITU-T protocols. True they did not go as far as initially proposed and state that only UTU-T protocols could be used, but they went far enough making the use of ITU-T recommendations something that must be taken into account. Specifically: "taking due account of the relevant ITU-T Recommendations." A step too far in my estimation especially if you take into account the recommendations that came out of WTSA, including the approval of DPI standards. We have to take WTSA and WCIT, and in fact the upcoming WTPF as a progression of events and look at the effects with a comppound perspective. Some will argue that these are not binding on member States, and that is true. My issues, and the issue of many governments, is not that all states will be bound by these (except [perhaps those that require collective endeavor), but that many States will use these as their legal bulwark for repressive acts that threaten the freedom of the Internet. I am also concerned with its scope, While Authorized Operating Agencies (AOA), a new term that is as of yet untested, and is not as broad as Operating Agency (OA) that would have allowed regulation of every infrastructure company, it is not as restricted as the Recognized Operating Agency (ROA). Some have argued that AOA is as restricted as ROA, yet logic demands the question that if AOA is the same as ROA, why did it need to be changed. There is extra scope in AOA which remains to be discovered in practice. Beyond that, while not binding on governments, "RESOLUTION PLEN/3 (DUBAI, 2012) To foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet " Gives the iTU marching orders on Internet governance. While the ITRs themselves did not mention the Internet, this resolution did, in a big way. With a statements like: " instructs the Secretary-General 1 to continue to take the necessary steps for ITU to play an active and constructive role in the development of broadband and the multistakeholder model of the Internet as expressed in § 35 of the Tunis Agenda; " We can expect to see a much stronger presence of the ITU everywhere. I even would bet that Fadí will be seeing a lot more of his good friend Hamadoun. And I expect the encroachment of the ITU on the IGF and all things Internet governance to continue unabated. ICANN may be safe for the moment, but the rest of the Internet ecosystem is certainly not. So not this wasn't the horror we expected. The governments did a fine job of negotiating this back, and I think without the attached resolution might have taken their chances on the other stuff, no matter how nervous it makes me and some of them. But the resolution that gives the ITU extra responsibilities for governance of the Internet broke the sense of an acceptable agreement. There is a lot of good stuff in this treaty for roaming, for emergency services, for landlocked countries and for accessibility, and I expect that these will be adhered to de-facto by most of the non-signatories (though some like Chile may not adhere to new regulation on landlocked countries and the US may not adhere to the new rules on roaming). And I expect (purely a personal prediction) that if something can be done about the Internet resolution in the Plenipot in 2014, more countries will sign on to the treaty before 2015 when if goes into effect. the story is not over by a long shot, just this episode. 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 alice at apc.org Sat Dec 15 02:36:24 2012 From: alice at apc.org (alice at apc.org) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 07:36:24 -0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Re: [kictanet] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status Message-ID: <34829.10.254.253.3.1355556984.squirrel@sqmail.gn.apc.org> Dear Colleagues, Please note, Kenya has not signed. Best Alice On 14/12/2012 17:31, Grace Githaiga wrote: > Kenya signed with reservations. > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Sat Dec 15 03:07:44 2012 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:07:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status In-Reply-To: References: <50CB2DF0.3000506@isoc.org> <50cb3723.4a13c20a.14ad.59d3SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I heard Japan made reservation, need to discuss back home, but unlikely to sign. Am checking with our gov folks via email. izumi 2012/12/14 Mawaki Chango : > ... And I don't see Japan in here, while I thought it has clearly > taken one of these positions. Russian Federation is in two columns -- > while that is not impossible, it still signals that the lines of this > categorization are a little fuzzy. Thanks for the effort anyway... > we'll wait and learn more. > Thanks, > > mawaki > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds > wrote: >> I’m surprised to see the majority of European countries being in the “Will >> sign” category. I also see Kenya, Egypt and Poland in that column, which is >> equally surprising given the earlier statements that they would not sign. >> What has happened to sway their minds in that direction? >> >> >> >> Peter H. Hellmonds >> >> Public & International Affairs >> >> peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu >> >> +49 (160) 360-2852 >> >> >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Grace Githaiga >> Gesendet: 14 December 2012 15:05 >> An: hfeld at publicknowledge.org; wcit12 at cdt.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.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 karl at cavebear.com Sat Dec 15 03:47:50 2012 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:47:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> Message-ID: <50CC3936.3020708@cavebear.com> On 12/14/2012 11:33 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > " ARTICLE 5A > Security and robustness of networks > > 41B Member States shall individually and collectively > endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international > telecommunication networks... > > First what is security at the telecommunication layer other that > robustness?... One thing that I've always wanted to see is some line that allows those of us who diagnose and repair networks to do our work without being accused of being nefarious beings of malevolent intent. A surgeon brings sharp, potentially dangerous tools to the operating table. Those of us who diagnose and repair networks also have sharp tools in our toolkits. In both cases those tools are ambiguous - they could cause harm or cause good. There needs to be some sort of demarcation that allows for network diagnosis and repair. This goes not merely to the use of tools but also some recognition that during repair and diagnosis that sometimes things that are private are revealed to the repair team. Otherwise the security measures that "endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international telecommunication networks" could easily become barriers that cause networks to be, in sum, less robust. --karl-- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ggithaiga at hotmail.com Sat Dec 15 04:24:23 2012 From: ggithaiga at hotmail.com (Grace Githaiga) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 09:24:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] The highlights and low points of WCIT In-Reply-To: <057901cdd935$ad003b20$0700b160$@gmail.com> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> <2586C718-1F5E-42CB-8D97-5886D04A6EBB@hserus.net>,<057901cdd935$ad003b20$0700b160$@gmail.com> Message-ID: The logic of forcing the world’s governments into a box to rewrite a global treaty that has stood for 24 years in just 14 days may be questionable, but it definitely creates an event and along with that moments that stand out and set the general tone and atmosphere of the meeting itself. Here are the main ones from WCIT 2012:http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/highlights-and-low-points-wcit -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 05:09:45 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:09:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] The highlights and low points of WCIT In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> <2586C718-1F5E-42CB-8D97-5886D04A6EBB@hserus.net> <057901cdd935$ad003b20$0700b160$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Grace, I'm in the same statement and this raises the worries. Indeed, a treaty adopted 24 years ago, would it be possible to adapt it within 12 days to the current context of the evolution of digital technology exponentially!?? I realize that this is still a process that is open and requires several months of consultations in each geographic region. The political context has evolved and so alter the geostrategic sphere evident in the world. It is obvious that things are just starting on RTI. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/12/15 Grace Githaiga > > The logic of forcing the world’s governments into a box to rewrite a > global treaty that has stood for 24 years in just 14 days may be > questionable, but it definitely creates an event and along with that > moments that stand out and set the general tone and atmosphere of the > meeting itself.**** > > > Here are the main ones from WCIT 2012:**** > http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/highlights-and-low-points-wcit > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 05:27:59 2012 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:27:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers [Post WCIT and Analysis of Outcomes] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Sala, You know you can count on me, I volunteer. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2012/12/14 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > Dear All, > > This is a call for Volunteers who are interested in working together to > produce an Impact Assessment of the outcomes from the WCIT. Care will be > taken to produce a Report that is balanced. This is expected to be > completed before 2013. > > Following the preparation of the Report, the IGC will be issuing a > Statement to accompany the Report. We will need those who are willing and > prepared to produce a Report in the shortest amount of time. > > Kind Regards, > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Dec 15 06:27:28 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:27:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Facebook customer outreach on privacy policy backfires In-Reply-To: References: <0e1f01cdd806$430c85f0$c92591d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7BQnC93g6FzQFAFB@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 08:38:39 on Wed, 12 Dec 2012, Deirdre Williams writes >Do you think we may be losing, or have already lost, the right to say >no if the "crowd" is saying yes? It depends whether you want to isolate yourself from the crowd. Some people are in a better position to be able to do that (or might even desire it). Many crowd-base activities are difficult to walk away from - Google or Facebook, for example. MS-Windows (where the crowd is software developers and users) is a little easier because there's always been some fairly popular alternative options that are capable of delivering adequate user experience. Many people seem to have drifted away from Myspace though. But could anyone walk away from WWW (for example if there were significant local privacy issues) or would they simply restrict their usage to low-risk and high-utility WWW functionality. That's what I'm suggesting people do for FB, rather than walk away. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Dec 15 07:04:31 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:04:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> Message-ID: In message , at 08:33:12 on Sat, 15 Dec 2012, Avri Doria writes >For me one the major issues related to the security and robustness of >the Internet being a Member State responsibility. > >" >ARTICLE 5A > >Security and robustness of networks > >41B Member States shall individually and collectively >endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international >telecommunication networks in order to achieve effective use thereof >and avoidance of technical harm thereto, as well as the harmonious >development of international telecommunication services offered to the >public. >" > >First what is security at the telecommunication layer other that >robustness? Security means keeping users safe, rather than robustly (strongly and reliably) allowing people to harm them. Or to make an analogy, airplane security is about not letting hi-jackers on board, whereas robustness is the ability to land in a snowstorm, with only the co-pilot still conscious, and without the wheels falling off when you slam into the runway a little too hard. >I also see threat in the article on spam, even though they have named >it euphemistically: Unsolicited bulk electronic communications > >" >ARTICLE 5B >Unsolicited bulk electronic communications >41C Member States should endeavour to take necessary >measures to prevent the propagation of unsolicited bulk electronic >communications and minimize its impact on international >telecommunication services. >Member States are encouraged to cooperate in that sense. >" >True this is not as bad as unwanted Spam, which could mean anything, >since Spam cannot be defined without reference to content. The anti-spam industry, and several privacy laws worldwide, have established beyond doubt what 'Unsolicited bulk communications' means for over a decade. There's no need to start new hares running. (Meanwhile, the measures states are likely to take overlap quite a bit with Internet Governance, which casts a shadow across the ITRs). Incidentally, the ITU membership has been worried about Spam for a very long time and the perceived lack of action for the IG establishment has caused bell-heads to make remarks along the lines of "if they can't even stop spam, what kind of mess are they making of the rest". Shrugging and saying "Spam is someone else's problem" doesn't cut much ice in the wider world. And does Spam really no overlap into the world of ICANN - if not WHOIS(sic) supposed to be doing something? -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 07:57:02 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:57:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Biggest Social Media Sites Censor Alternative News Message-ID: <50CC739E.5090902@gmail.com> Biggest Social Media Sites Censor Alternative News Posted on December 14, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog censorship on Social Networking Biggest Social Media Sites Censor Alternative News "Unreliable News Source" The mainstream media skews the news to defend the status quo , and serves the interests of the rich and powerful . But at least web news sources are free of censorship ... one would hope. Unfortunately, that's not true. Facebook pays low-wage foreign workers to delete certain content based upon a censorship list . For example, Facebook deletes accounts created by any Palestinian resistance groups. Digg was caught censoring stories which were controversial or too critical of the government. See this and this . Many accuse Youtube of blatant censorship . Reddit -- the 133rd most popular website worldwide on the Internet -- is also censoring. I'm not talking about censoring specific websites (For example, I was informed today that Reddit's News category censors all stories from this website. But that's just an example). I'm talking about censoring entire /categories/ of news media. Specifically, Reddit's WorldNews category has 2.5 million subscribers. Most tv news shows have less than 2.5 million daily viewers. So that means that Reddit's WorldNews is /itself/ a mainstream media source in terms of numbers. And many more people see WorldNews stories on the front page of Reddit, even if they are not subscribers to the WorldNews subreddit. (Reddit is owned by the 46th largest company in the United States -- Advance Publications -- which owns a number of mainstream newspapers and magazines .) Yet WorldNews censors blogs, and doesn't consider them real news sources. Here's a discussion I had recently with WorldNews moderators: Clipboard02 Biggest Social Media Sites Censor Alternative News In fact, the top independent experts in every field -- economics, business, foreign affairs, military, science, energy, etc. -- have their own blogs, making blogs one of the best sources of information, a good way to fact-check the mainstream news, and the best way to read the experts' insights direct and unfiltered. See this , this and this . Indeed, the /whole reason/ that news blogs have become popular is that they get around the censorship which is ubiquitous in the mainstream television news. And social media is popular as a news source -- especially among youth -- because it /pretends/ that it provides uncensored news, where a free market of popularity governs. That's obviously not the case, where specific websites -- and entire /classes of media/, such as blogs -- are barred. Reddit holds itself out as a young, hip, progressive news source. But if it is censoring blogs, it fails to live up to any of these claims. The government already censors and manipulates social media . More proof here and here . It is sad that the moderators of the social media sites themselves are doing the same thing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: censorship-on-Social-Networking.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 36836 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Clipboard02.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 48343 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 Sat Dec 15 08:44:19 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:14:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> ,<50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50CC7EB3.2020502@itforchange.net> On Friday 14 December 2012 08:07 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Parminder, > > I don't know that you can pin this on civil society, who remember was > not even an invited guest to the party at the start of the WCIT > preparatory process. Lee It does not only depend on what space you have get, it also depends of what agenda, and legitimacy (of representing pubic interest), civil society carries. The UN convention on disability rights was practically written by civil society, and if that appears a relatively non controversial issue and thus different, the right to information act, that revolutionised gov-citizen relationship in India, was also practically written by civil society. And civil society fought in the streets, and got an Act that directly goes against the interests of politician and bureaucrats who were forced to pass it. Therefore it is just not about the space CS gets.... I dont think CS had, or still has, a positive agenda in the global IG space. It is fine to demolish, but while doing so, we must also know what will take its place... Else we are just allowing free market to entirely take over the precious and important communicative realm of our societies. They will soon distort it beyond recognition, and we would have to nothing to turn to. > > And at that final table, CS still didn't have a seat even if it had a > peek at a few players cards. An important part of the positive agenda is to come out with the actual model of what kind of multistakeholderism really does CS want...( I welcome John Curran's recent email seeking building such models.) For too long has it avoided facing this challenge. And the glimpses that I get about some views on this area makes me very concerned. For instance, in the context of WCIT, I have read McTim and John Curran suggest that they would want non government stakeholders vote at WCIT kind of platforms. Is this really what we want (even outside core technical coordination/ policy spaces like ICANN or IETF)? We need to come out with clear views and a clear model of MSism in which regard. What models of CS and private sector participation do we seek in forums that deal with substantive policy areas (and, to repeat, not in tech coordination/ standards/ policy space)... We cant ask for something without telling what is it that we want. We have been doing it for too long now... parminder > > Lee > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder > [parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2012 12:40 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] WCIT melt down > > > On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human >> Rights? It seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by comments >> and concerns (very legitimate) that some proposal had potential to >> harm fundamental rights. How many full sessions discussed a single >> line of text in the preamble, 2, 3, more? All for his own PR, he said >> as much, it was about the press and perception. So I wonder, if he >> has used the same passion and time to persuade and cajole delegates >> to think of ways in which the ITRs could contain high-level and >> lasting principles that encouraged the spread of/access to broadband >> across the globe, perhaps we would have had something useful and >> lasting. > > Adam, > > Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband > without mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the > ITRs? You know that one side was completely intent that, what come > may, Internet/ broadband cannot find mention in the ITRs.... > > The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between two > sides both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to > prevent US et all from making a historical point that Internet is an > unregulated space - whereby their new global domination strategy could > be unrestrained. The other side was trying to prevent China/ Russia et > all from changing the basic nature of the global Internet into a > tightly state controlled space. > > The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should have > included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil society, > which is supposed to contribute a positive agenda, failed. That I > think is the primary failure here. The 'sane public interest-oriented > middle' did not get formed. And the civil society was supposed to have > a big role in it. So, perhaps, we failed, more than anyone else. (Do > we want to look into this failure?) > > A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such monumental > importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the people of the > world some hope.... Take any treaty or global summit process till now, > whether concerning climate change, trade, traditional knowledge, etc > etc........... There is always some hope built from a summit/ treaty > process, and civil society is on the side of this positive hope. > Mostly leading the positive hope brigade. > > What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was > there any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas. > And, I dare say, good that neither won, and the process broke down. I > highly appreciate the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this case, > I am not too unhappy that the treaty process kind of failed. I am not > celebrating the breakdown of dialogue. I am hopeful that this > breakdown will come as a positive shake-up to our collective and > selective slumbers that many of us seem to be caught in, in terms of > public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope is that such > shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am still > celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open dialogue about > real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond selective hype, > focussed on global public interest and not narrow partisan agendas as > the WCIT process was. > > The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am > completely unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, /what > would it have succeeded at./ I am unable to form any conception of > what I could have considered as WCIT success - that, one could say > proudly, /it gave the world this and this/.... I will be happy if > anyone here can share any such possible conception of a 'successful > WCIT' (keeping within the limits in which WCIT process has been > trapped for a long time now), and perhaps I can still be persuade to > feel bad about this 'failure'. But right now, I am unable to do so. > > > parminder > > >> Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to >> become divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his comments >> last night poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the run-up to >> this conference that this conference is not about governing the >> internet. I repeat, that the conference did not include provisions on >> the internet in the treaty text." etc. Opening plenary: "In preparing >> for this conference, we have seen and heard many comments about ITU >> or the United Nations trying to take over the Internet. Let me be >> very clear one more time: WCIT is not about taking over the Internet. >> And WCIT is not about Internet governance." Sorry, that's twisting >> words and twisting generally. The resolutions are part of the ITRs, >> they can be binding on the secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder >> if Toure's blown his chance for a legacy. Best, Adam >>> Cheers >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> >>> On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: >>>> Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at istaff.org Sat Dec 15 08:51:35 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:51:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: <50CC3936.3020708@cavebear.com> References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <50CC3936.3020708@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <04A0107A-8321-4A36-863B-79CD87662186@istaff.org> On Dec 15, 2012, at 3:47 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > One thing that I've always wanted to see is some line that allows those > of us who diagnose and repair networks to do our work without being > accused of being nefarious beings of malevolent intent. > > A surgeon brings sharp, potentially dangerous tools to the operating table. > > Those of us who diagnose and repair networks also have sharp tools in > our toolkits. > > In both cases those tools are ambiguous - they could cause harm or cause > good. > > There needs to be some sort of demarcation that allows for network > diagnosis and repair. This goes not merely to the use of tools but also > some recognition that during repair and diagnosis that sometimes things > that are private are revealed to the repair team. > > Otherwise the security measures that "endeavour to ensure the security > and robustness of international telecommunication networks" could easily > become barriers that cause networks to be, in sum, less robust. Karl - 100% agreement. If we need controls, then we need them on actual acts of harm, not the tools or their use. The surgeon cuts flesh, but they are doing it for the right reason. The network engineer might indeed have to turn on packet monitoring, e.g. to find the control network behind a DDoS attack, etc. I'm not certain this point is well-understood by folks, and it comes back down to making sure that guidance from those who make public policy is sufficiently high-level based on outcomes, i.e. "User traffic should be considered private, and not monitored and except to the extent necessary for network operations or per lawful order" is far more useful than "Don't deploy DPI or traffic monitoring" FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Note to traffic monitoring equipment: Interception of this email constitutes acceptance of my terms and conditions; in short, you now owe me a latte. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 15 09:08:50 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:38:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292FC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> ,<50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292FC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50CC8472.2030203@itforchange.net> Milton/ Lee I think both the US gov-corporate establishment and the ITU will take a considerable hit by this breakdown. And more I think of it, it appears to me to be a somewhat historic moment. The kid gloves are off. US plus has clearly said - off with the ITU, we are done with the polite noises that we used to make at and about ITU with regard to its various Internet related activities. (Among other things, the ITU's May WTPF meeting is in serious trouble; if the Internet resolution at the WCIT was the real problem, with WTPF almost entirely about what was written in the Resolution, I dont know what is going to happen to it. ) On the other side, G 77 may also begin to assert; and correspondingly respond by saying, the detente on passive acceptance of US led/ controlled private IG systems is over now ..... With US plus having walked out of what was a harmless ITR, its diplomatic resources will get seriously depleted to defend the status quo. It seems that 2013 is going to an important year for global IG.... The battle lines are more clearly drawn. I hope civil society contributes in a positive way, in what can in a way be constructed as a 'significant opportunity' having opened up for appropriate agenda framing and insitutional development that is in the best global public interest. /*BTW, two days back second committee of UN GA approved the text on CSTD WG on enhanced cooperation,*/ after a week of what seemed to be a complete impasse, with chances of a WG looking low. Also, the WSIS review will take place by the end of 2015 now, rather than towards end of 2014. So more time now before the what is expected to be a high level event (though the decision for the level and modalities has been put off to the next GA). parminder On Friday 14 December 2012 08:22 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Lee: > > The more I look at this, the more it seems that the US misplayed its hand. > > There is nothing objectionable or demonstrably harmful in the ITRs per > se. > > The fact that countries like the Netherlands, Tunisia and Brazil plan > to sign the ITRs (if that list is correct) is not quite consistent > with the contention that the new ITRs are a massive deviation from “MS > governance” or part of an attempt by authoritarian states to take over > the internet. > > If and when the refusniks are limited to a handful of Anglo-Saxon > countries they will end up looking isolated. > > --MM > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Lee W > McKnight > *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2012 9:37 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder > *Subject:* RE: [governance] WCIT melt down > > Parminder, > > I don't know that you can pin this on civil society, who remember was > not even an invited guest to the party at the start of the WCIT > preparatory process. > > IF the resolution had a different more conciliatory phrasing oriented > towards 'exploring' what to do as Internet progresses etc etc, maybe > then the split could be have been avoided. The resolution was too > directive for issues for which a consensus does not exist. > > In a treaty-making poker game, if key players blow their > hand....things happen. > > And at that final table, CS still didn't have a seat even if it had a > peek at a few players cards. > > Lee > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of parminder > [parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Friday, December 14, 2012 12:40 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] WCIT melt down > > On Friday 14 December 2012 10:00 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > > > So why did he encourage plenary to spend so many hours on Human > Rights? It seemed to obsess him, he was personally stung by comments > and concerns (very legitimate) that some proposal had potential to > harm fundamental rights. How many full sessions discussed a single > line of text in the preamble, 2, 3, more? All for his own PR, he said > as much, it was about the press and perception. So I wonder, if he has > used the same passion and time to persuade and cajole delegates to > think of ways in which the ITRs could contain high-level and lasting > principles that encouraged the spread of/access to broadband across > the globe, perhaps we would have had something useful and lasting. > > > Adam, > > Can you suggest how ITRs could have encouraged spread of broadband > without mentioning Internet or broadband (which is Internet) in the > ITRs? You know that one side was completely intent that, what come > may, Internet/ broadband cannot find mention in the ITRs.... > > The problem with the WCIT process was that it was a battle between two > sides both with an entirely negative agenda. One side wanted to > prevent US et all from making a historical point that Internet is an > unregulated space - whereby their new global domination strategy could > be unrestrained. The other side was trying to prevent China/ Russia et > all from changing the basic nature of the global Internet into a > tightly state controlled space. > > The middle, which is supposed to be the sane lot, and that should have > included many countries, as well as, prominently, the civil society, > which is supposed to contribute a positive agenda, failed. That I > think is the primary failure here. The 'sane public interest-oriented > middle' did not get formed. And the civil society was supposed to have > a big role in it. So, perhaps, we failed, more than anyone else. (Do > we want to look into this failure?) > > A global treaty, especially as concerning a matter of such monumental > importance as the Internet, is supposed to give the people of the > world some hope.... Take any treaty or global summit process till now, > whether concerning climate change, trade, traditional knowledge, etc > etc........... There is always some hope built from a summit/ treaty > process, and civil society is on the side of this positive hope. > Mostly leading the positive hope brigade. > > What was the hope or positive expectation offered by the WCIT? Was > there any? No, none. It was a battle between two perverse agendas. > And, I dare say, good that neither won, and the process broke down. I > highly appreciate the sentiment of Marilia's email, but in this case, > I am not too unhappy that the treaty process kind of failed. I am not > celebrating the breakdown of dialogue. I am hopeful that this > breakdown will come as a positive shake-up to our collective and > selective slumbers that many of us seem to be caught in, in terms of > public interest regulation of the Internet. My hope is that such > shake-up will now start a real honest dialogue. Thus I am still > celebrating the process of dialogue - honest and open dialogue about > real issues (and not shadow boxing) and beyond selective hype, > focussed on global public interest and not narrow partisan agendas as > the WCIT process was. > > The situation which had been reached in the WCIT process, I am > completely unable to figure out, if WCIT process had succeeded, /what > would it have succeeded at./ I am unable to form any conception of > what I could have considered as WCIT success - that, one could say > proudly, /it gave the world this and this/.... I will be happy if > anyone here can share any such possible conception of a 'successful > WCIT' (keeping within the limits in which WCIT process has been > trapped for a long time now), and perhaps I can still be persuade to > feel bad about this 'failure'. But right now, I am unable to do so. > > > parminder > > > > Instead he seems to have allowed the Union under his leadership to > become divided. We'll see how badly later on. Also found his comments > last night poor: Last night: "I have been saying in the run-up to this > conference that this conference is not about governing the internet. I > repeat, that the conference did not include provisions on the internet > in the treaty text." etc. Opening plenary: "In preparing for this > conference, we have seen and heard many comments about ITU or the > United Nations trying to take over the Internet. Let me be very clear > one more time: WCIT is not about taking over the Internet. And WCIT is > not about Internet governance." Sorry, that's twisting words and > twisting generally. The resolutions are part of the ITRs, they can be > binding on the secretariat, they are "WICT. So I wonder if Toure's > blown his chance for a legacy. Best, Adam > > Cheers > > Keith > > > On 14/12/2012 4:31 p.m., Adam Peake wrote: > > Toure's words of congratulation (and sound-bites for the media) we hollow. > > > > Adam > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jaryn56 at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 09:26:14 2012 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 09:26:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers [Post WCIT and Analysis of Outcomes] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bueno estoy de acuerdo e interesado en trabajar voluntariamente en investigar y redactar un documento en donde se evalué el impacto de los resultados de la CMTI. Me interesa bastante porque soy investigador social para el desarrollo, en todo lo que implique gobierno digital y las TIC Cordialmente. José Félix Arias Ynche 2012/12/15 Baudouin SCHOMBE > Hello Sala, > > You know you can count on me, I volunteer. > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > > 2012/12/14 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > >> Dear All, >> >> >> This is a call for Volunteers who are interested in working together to >> produce an Impact Assessment of the outcomes from the WCIT. Care will be >> taken to produce a Report that is balanced. This is expected to be >> completed before 2013. >> >> Following the preparation of the Report, the IGC will be issuing a >> Statement to accompany the Report. We will need those who are willing and >> prepared to produce a Report in the shortest amount of time. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Dec 15 09:32:48 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:32:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] CHANGE in Schedule and Call for Nominees for Election [IGC Coordinator Position] and Election Schedule In-Reply-To: <017801cdda7e$24b83980$6e28ac80$@gmail.com> References: <017801cdda7e$24b83980$6e28ac80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121215153248.66930abf@quill.bollow.ch> Michael Gurstein wrote: > I would like to nominate our Swiss colleague Norbert Bollow for the > Co-Coordinator position. Thanks, Michael! I hereby accept the nomination, and commit that if elected, I will be available to serve the needs of IGC - at the WSIS+10 event in Paris in February 2013, including the following IGF Open Consultation - at the 2013 IGF in Bali - by means of day trips to Geneva as appropriate - and similarly also in 2014 Greetings, Norbert > I believe that he will follow up with a brief bio. Nomination By: Michael Gurstein Candidate: Norbert Bollow Brief Bio: I'm 44 years old, male, married, 5 children (three of them young adults), German citizen, living in Switzerland since 1985. I have a technical background with expertise in physics, mathematics, informatics, technical consulting on stuff which is application layer in Internet parlance but still at a relatively low layer. I rarely mention the (rather minimalistic) business website http://bollow.ch here because I want to engage as civil society. However, because many have technical competence but few have good logical systems thinking skills (as per e.g. the Theory of Constraints), I am currently looking into somehow transitioning to working in that latter area. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Dec 15 09:33:42 2012 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 09:33:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <50CC8472.2030203@itforchange.net> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292FC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CC8472.2030203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Dec 15, 2012, at 9:08 AM, parminder wrote: > It seems that 2013 is going to an important year for global IG.... The battle lines are more clearly drawn. I hope civil society contributes in a positive way, in what can in a way be constructed as a 'significant opportunity' having opened up for appropriate agenda framing and insitutional development that is in the best global public interest. One of the most important things the CS can provide is a clear, consistent vision of what participatory multistakeholder Internet governance should look like, including a well-defined role for governments which is consistent with their public policy role and obligations. I imagine this vision is not primarily based on a "1 government, 1 vote" model, but similarly it probably cannot be "all governments sit at the same table as everyone else in all circumstances, and by the way, one government has a unique role due to historical circumstances." FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. No governments were harmed in the preparation of this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Sat Dec 15 09:58:48 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:58:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: <04A0107A-8321-4A36-863B-79CD87662186@istaff.org> References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <50CC3936.3020708@cavebear.com> <04A0107A-8321-4A36-863B-79CD87662186@istaff.org> Message-ID: In message <04A0107A-8321-4A36-863B-79CD87662186 at istaff.org>, at 08:51:35 on Sat, 15 Dec 2012, John Curran writes >If we need controls, then we need them on actual acts of harm, not >the tools or their use. "Guns don't kill people, people do", a very topical observation. Eventually, maybe, someone will call "time" on that theory. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Dec 15 10:09:11 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:09:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292FC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CC8472.2030203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 09:33:42 on Sat, 15 Dec 2012, John Curran writes > >One of the most important things the CS can provide is a >clear, consistent  vision of what participatory multistakeholder >Internet governance should look  like, including a well-defined role >for governments which is consistent with  their public policy role and >obligations.  Agreed. Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any constructive suggestions from that direction. >I imagine this vision is not primarily based on a "1 government, 1 >vote" model, but similarly it probably cannot be "all governments sit >at the same table as  everyone else in all circumstances, and by the >way, one government has a  unique role due to historical circumstances. And why does the "United States of Europe" have 27 votes and the USA only one? You couldn't find more different political objectives between California and Texas if you tried. Elsewhere, why does Monaco with 36k population get the same vote as China with 1.3 billion? -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Dec 15 10:12:54 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:42:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty Message-ID: Facts of life.. Substitute locksmiths and lock picking tools if you want a less loaded analogy --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Roland Perry" To: Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 8:28 PM In message <04A0107A-8321-4A36-863B-79CD87662186 at istaff.org>, at 08:51:35 on Sat, 15 Dec 2012, John Curran writes >If we need controls, then we need them on actual acts of harm, not >the tools or their use. "Guns don't kill people, people do", a very topical observation. Eventually, maybe, someone will call "time" on that theory. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Dec 15 10:23:16 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:23:16 -0200 Subject: [governance] freenet? In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292FC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CC8472.2030203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50CC95E4.3080808@cafonso.ca> Dear people, I invite you to visit: http://www.freenetfilm.org This is the portal of project "FreeNet?", maintained by a number of Brazilian organizations in partnership with international NGOs. Comments very welcome! fraternal regards --c.a. Its is multilingual (English, Brazilian Portuguese, and Spanish). On 12/15/2012 12:33 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 15, 2012, at 9:08 AM, parminder wrote: > >> It seems that 2013 is going to an important year for global IG.... The battle lines are more clearly drawn. I hope civil society contributes in a positive way, in what can in a way be constructed as a 'significant opportunity' having opened up for appropriate agenda framing and insitutional development that is in the best global public interest. > > One of the most important things the CS can provide is a clear, consistent > vision of what participatory multistakeholder Internet governance should look > like, including a well-defined role for governments which is consistent with > their public policy role and obligations. > > I imagine this vision is not primarily based on a "1 government, 1 vote" model, > but similarly it probably cannot be "all governments sit at the same table as > everyone else in all circumstances, and by the way, one government has a > unique role due to historical circumstances." > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. No governments were harmed in the preparation > of this email. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 15 10:25:17 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:25:17 -0200 Subject: [governance] freenet? (resending) In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292FC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CC8472.2030203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50CC965D.30202@cafonso.ca> -- resending, please ignore the other msg -- nothing to do with John Curran's message, I am sorry -- Dear people, I invite you to visit: http://www.freenetfilm.org This is the portal of project "FreeNet?", maintained by a number of Brazilian organizations in partnership with international NGOs. Its is multilingual (English, Brazilian Portuguese, and Spanish). Comments very welcome! fraternal regards --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Dec 15 10:27:24 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 15:27:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 20:42:54 on Sat, 15 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >Facts of life.. Substitute locksmiths and lock picking tools if you >want a less loaded analogy I don't have a problem with locksmiths, but shouldn't we be restricting the sale of lock-picking-tools to the general public? >----- Reply message ----- >From: "Roland Perry" >To: >Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet >treaty >Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 8:28 PM > > >In message <04A0107A-8321-4A36-863B-79CD87662186 at istaff.org>, at >08:51:35 on Sat, 15 Dec 2012, John Curran writes > >>If we need controls, then we need them   on actual acts of harm, not >>the tools or their use. > >"Guns don't kill people, people do", a very topical observation. > >Eventually, maybe, someone will call "time" on that theory. >-- >Roland Perry >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Dec 15 10:31:09 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:31:09 -0200 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50CC97BD.80503@cafonso.ca> Who is "we" and who is the "general public"? --c.a. On 12/15/2012 01:27 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 20:42:54 on Sat, 15 > Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >> Facts of life.. Substitute locksmiths and lock picking tools if you >> want a less loaded analogy > > I don't have a problem with locksmiths, but shouldn't we be restricting > the sale of lock-picking-tools to the general public? > >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Roland Perry" >> To: >> Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet >> treaty >> Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 8:28 PM >> >> >> In message <04A0107A-8321-4A36-863B-79CD87662186 at istaff.org>, at >> 08:51:35 on Sat, 15 Dec 2012, John Curran writes >> >>> If we need controls, then we need them on actual acts of harm, not >>> the tools or their use. >> >> "Guns don't kill people, people do", a very topical observation. >> >> Eventually, maybe, someone will call "time" on that theory. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Dec 15 10:41:01 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:11:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty Message-ID: The problem of course is that a lot of the lock picking tools in the online world tend to be open source, and regulating the sale of lots of these is a non starter when it comes to the sheer burden of compliance --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Roland Perry" To: Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 8:57 PM In message , at 20:42:54 on Sat, 15 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >Facts of life.. Substitute locksmiths and lock picking tools if you >want a less loaded analogy I don't have a problem with locksmiths, but shouldn't we be restricting the sale of lock-picking-tools to the general public? >----- Reply message ----- >From: "Roland Perry" >To: >Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet >treaty >Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 8:28 PM > > >In message <04A0107A-8321-4A36-863B-79CD87662186 at istaff.org>, at >08:51:35 on Sat, 15 Dec 2012, John Curran writes > >>If we need controls, then we need them   on actual acts of harm, not >>the tools or their use. > >"Guns don't kill people, people do", a very topical observation. > >Eventually, maybe, someone will call "time" on that theory. >-- >Roland Perry >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 15 10:56:49 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:26:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292FC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CC8472.2030203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50CC9DC1.1060106@itforchange.net> On Saturday 15 December 2012 08:03 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 15, 2012, at 9:08 AM, parminder > wrote: > >> It seems that 2013 is going to an important year for global IG.... >> The battle lines are more clearly drawn. I hope civil society >> contributes in a positive way, in what can in a way be constructed as >> a 'significant opportunity' having opened up for appropriate agenda >> framing and insitutional development that is in the best global >> public interest. > > One of the most important things the CS can provide is a > clear, consistent > vision of what participatory multistakeholder Internet governance > should look > like, including a well-defined role for governments which is > consistent with > their public policy role and obligations. Can the IGC begin working on such vision and model? I propose we do. > > I imagine this vision is not primarily based on a "1 government, 1 > vote" model, A good start. Then, what alternative do you suggest. And, in this regard, lets not forget the difference between technical standards making (IETF) and technical coordination ( ICANN) kind of tasks on one hand, and substantive public policy making on the other. > but similarly it probably cannot be "all governments sit at the same > table as > everyone else in all circumstances, and by the way, one government has a > unique role due to historical circumstances." Agree... parminder > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. No governments were harmed in the preparation > of this email. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 11:09:13 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:09:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] WCIT Lots of Losers. But Guess Who Won? Message-ID: http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/wcit-lots-of-losers-but-guess-who-won/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 15 11:16:35 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:46:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <20121214181400.GA23727@tarvainen.info> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA766B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293233@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20121214181400.GA23727@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <50CCA263.1020306@itforchange.net> On Friday 14 December 2012 11:44 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:21:06PM +0000, Milton L Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) wrote: > >> Please cite any provisions in the new ITRs that are objectionable or >> dangerous > In the preamble: > > "These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States to > international telecommunication services." Tapani, what is it that you find objectionable and dangerous in this.... I would think that such a statement should be a obvious and necessary part on any treaty on global communication. It is such a basic statement...... parminder > > I was told that was what broke EU's back here, so to speak. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 15 11:34:42 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:34:42 -0200 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <50CCA263.1020306@itforchange.net> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A79@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <0ECC5F4A-472F-423C-B50F-1975E337C46E@istaff.org> <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA766B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293233@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20121214181400.GA23727@tarvainen.info> <50CCA263.1020306@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50CCA6A2.8070005@cafonso.ca> This addition to the preamble is fundamental -- and one of the reasons some of the big ones decided not to sign the treaty (some of them the very same who keep preaching "a free and open Internet to all"). Ask Cuba, for example, how important this insertion is for them. Today Cuba is finally connected (this year!) via fiber thanks to Venezuela. The link is provided by REACCIUN, the academic network of Venezuela. One of the chronic illnesses of the USA is the stupid impossibility of suspending the Cuba blockade. The other is the impossibility of prohibiting the sale of guns ("Bill of Rights"...)... --c.a. On 12/15/2012 02:16 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 14 December 2012 11:44 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 05:21:06PM +0000, Milton L Mueller >> (mueller at syr.edu) wrote: >> >>> Please cite any provisions in the new ITRs that are objectionable or >>> dangerous >> In the preamble: >> >> "These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States to >> international telecommunication services." > > Tapani, what is it that you find objectionable and dangerous in this.... > I would think that such a statement should be a obvious and necessary > part on any treaty on global communication. It is such a basic > statement...... parminder >> >> I was told that was what broke EU's back here, so to speak. >> > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From angelacdaly at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 12:24:08 2012 From: angelacdaly at gmail.com (Angela Daly) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:24:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers [Post WCIT and Analysis of Outcomes] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm interested in helping out on this, at very least I am happy to proof read for English (since native speaker) and at most happy to contribute to the substance too. Angela On 15 December 2012 15:26, José Félix Arias Ynche wrote: > Bueno estoy de acuerdo e interesado en trabajar voluntariamente en > investigar y redactar un documento en donde se evalué el impacto de los > resultados de la CMTI. > > Me interesa bastante porque soy investigador social para el desarrollo, en > todo lo que implique gobierno digital y las TIC > > Cordialmente. José Félix Arias Ynche > > > > 2012/12/15 Baudouin SCHOMBE >> >> Hello Sala, >> >> You know you can count on me, I volunteer. >> >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN >> >> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 >> email : b.schombe at gmail.com >> skype : b.schombe >> blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr >> Site Web : www.ticafrica.net >> >> >> >> >> >> 2012/12/14 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> This is a call for Volunteers who are interested in working together to >>> produce an Impact Assessment of the outcomes from the WCIT. Care will be >>> taken to produce a Report that is balanced. This is expected to be completed >>> before 2013. >>> >>> Following the preparation of the Report, the IGC will be issuing a >>> Statement to accompany the Report. We will need those who are willing and >>> prepared to produce a Report in the shortest amount of time. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Dec 15 13:21:03 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 19:21:03 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] WCIT melt down References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <10E0870B-FB8E-4ED6-960F-26E9C7E8BDC2@hserus.net> <50CACE9E.3060002@itforchange.net> <815ED32D-D827-45DA-8AEE-429DEB323ABD@hserus.net> <50CADDBB.7040901@itforchange.net> <50CBAEE5.5060305@cafonso.ca> <50CBB77B.2040406@well.com> <50CBC3AE.90200@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Sorry does somebody has the link with the final statements/reservations by Member states? 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Dec 15 12:58:33 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:58:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: <50CC97BD.80503@cafonso.ca> References: <50CC97BD.80503@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <3TaEmDGJpLzQFAFo@internetpolicyagency.com> >On 12/15/2012 01:27 PM, Roland Perry wrote: >> In message , at 20:42:54 on Sat, 15 >> Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >>> Facts of life.. Substitute locksmiths and lock picking tools if you >>> want a less loaded analogy >> >> I don't have a problem with locksmiths, but shouldn't we be restricting >> the sale of lock-picking-tools to the general public? In message <50CC97BD.80503 at cafonso.ca>, at 13:31:09 on Sat, 15 Dec 2012, Carlos A. Afonso writes >Who is "we" Society. >and who is the "general public"? Ordinary consumers. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Dec 15 13:12:22 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:12:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 21:11:01 on Sat, 15 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >The problem of course is that a lot of the lock picking tools in the >online world tend to be open source, and regulating the sale of lots of >these is a non starter when it comes to the sheer burden of compliance And you can buy guns and ammunition in Kmart. The excuse seems to be "so you can overthrow the government it that becomes necessary", although I note that threatening the President's life is also an offence. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Dec 15 13:23:24 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 18:23:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <50CC7EB3.2020502@itforchange.net> References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <50CC7EB3.2020502@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <50CC7EB3.2020502 at itforchange.net>, at 19:14:19 on Sat, 15 Dec 2012, parminder writes > I have read McTim and John Curran suggest that they would want non >government stakeholders vote at WCIT kind of platforms. Is this really >what we want (even outside core technical coordination/ policy spaces >like ICANN or IETF)? Voting seems to be an emotive issue. We've seen that in the ITU context this week. I didn't think the IEFT was ever reduced to a vote, and we know the IGF can't vote because it has no formal membership. RIR/ICANN boards vote, as does the ARIN advisory council (as far as I can tell, but corrections welcome). And the RIPE NCC membership votes on policy matters from time to time (in their General Meetings, rather than the RIPE meeting). The problem with democracy is that it's often confused with representative democracy, so are we expecting non-government stakeholders to vote in their own right, or through representatives? Several billion Internet users can easily out-vote 192 governments. -- 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 Sat Dec 15 13:24:23 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:24:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <10E0870B-FB8E-4ED6-960F-26E9C7E8BDC2@hserus.net> <50CACE9E.3060002@itforchange.net> <815ED32D-D827-45DA-8AEE-429DEB323ABD@hserus.net> <50CADDBB.7040901@itforchange.net> <50CBAEE5.5060305@cafonso.ca> <50CBB77B.2040406@well.com> <50CBC3AE.90200@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78C@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: I think here and the video webcast is available , but not text archive as yet (text has been taking a day or two, video almost immediate) Adam On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 3:21 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Sorry does somebody has the link with the final statements/reservations by Member states? > > w > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sat Dec 15 13:25:54 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:25:54 -0200 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292FC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CC8472.2030203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 15/12/2012, at 12:33 PM, John Curran wrote: > One of the most important things the CS can provide is a clear, consistent > vision of what participatory multistakeholder Internet governance should look > like, including a well-defined role for governments which is consistent with > their public policy role and obligations. So with the formation of a CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation now (thanks to WCIT?) formally confirmed (blog at http://jere.my/l/46), this will be a natural and appropriate venue for us to channel our proposals for a positive agenda on the evolution of global Internet governance arrangements, such as many of us (most recently John, Parminder and Norbert) have been talking about, and that several of the civil society WCIT declarations foreshadow. Maybe development of such a proposal is something on which the IGC and Best Bits (since they overlap but aren't the same) could collaborate upon. There is the proposal for a workshop at the WSIS+10 event that precedes the IGF open consultations in February (which I won't be able to make), and work done online could feed into that. If enough progress is made, we will be ready when the Working Group calls for inputs in due course. Also important will be the civil society representatives for the group, and funding to support them. I feel that the IGC's strong suit is discussion, but lately has not been so strong in drafting proposals, which requires more active facilitation and leadership, probably culminating in another face to face Best Bits meeting. We did not respond in a very useful or methodical way to the proposals that have been on the table to date such as the ECTF, the CIRP, etc. There was a lot of thought put into the four WGIG Internet governance proposals, but that also involved meetings in person. I hope to be proved wrong. -- 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 Sat Dec 15 13:55:21 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:55:21 +1300 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers [Post WCIT and Analysis of Outcomes] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you to all those that have volunteered. I will contact you offline so we can begin our work and then present to the IGC for their comments and feedback. Kind Regards, Sala On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Angela Daly wrote: > I'm interested in helping out on this, at very least I am happy to > proof read for English (since native speaker) and at most happy to > contribute to the substance too. > > Angela > > On 15 December 2012 15:26, José Félix Arias Ynche > wrote: > > Bueno estoy de acuerdo e interesado en trabajar voluntariamente en > > investigar y redactar un documento en donde se evalué el impacto de los > > resultados de la CMTI. > > > > Me interesa bastante porque soy investigador social para el desarrollo, > en > > todo lo que implique gobierno digital y las TIC > > > > Cordialmente. José Félix Arias Ynche > > > > > > > > 2012/12/15 Baudouin SCHOMBE > >> > >> Hello Sala, > >> > >> You know you can count on me, I volunteer. > >> > >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > >> > >> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > >> email : b.schombe at gmail.com > >> skype : b.schombe > >> blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > >> Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> 2012/12/14 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> > >>> > >>> This is a call for Volunteers who are interested in working together to > >>> produce an Impact Assessment of the outcomes from the WCIT. Care will > be > >>> taken to produce a Report that is balanced. This is expected to be > completed > >>> before 2013. > >>> > >>> Following the preparation of the Report, the IGC will be issuing a > >>> Statement to accompany the Report. We will need those who are willing > and > >>> prepared to produce a Report in the shortest amount of time. > >>> > >>> Kind Regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>> P.O. Box 17862 > >>> Suva > >>> Fiji > >>> > >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT > >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>> Tel: +679 3544828 > >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >>> To be removed from the list, visit: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >>> > >>> For all other list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> To be removed from the list, visit: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >> > >> For all other list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 14:23:16 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 20:23:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] A digital cold war? (The Economist) Message-ID: <037d01cddaf9$a8a43ca0$f9ecb5e0$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:17 PM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] A digital cold war? A digital cold war? Dec 14th 2012 THE International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has always prided itself on being one of the most pragmatic organisations of the United Nations. Engineers, after all, speak a similar language, regardless where they come from. Even during the cold war they managed to overcome their differences and negotiate the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR), a binding global treaty that even today governs telecommunications between countries. But the internet seems to be an even more divisive than cold-war ideology. The World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai, where the ITU met to renegotiate the ITR, ended in failure in the early hours of November 14th. After a majority of countries approved the new treaty, Terry Kramer, the head of the American delegation, announced that his country is "not able to sign the document in its current form." Shortly thereafter, at least a dozen countries-including Britain, Sweden and Egypt-signalled that they would not support the new treaty either. The main issue was to what extent the internet should feature in the treaty. America and its allies wanted to keep it from being so much as mentioned-mainly out of fear that any reference to it whatsoever would embolden governments to censor the internet and meddle with its infrastructure. For some time a compromise among the more the 600 delegates, who were confined to an oppressive convention hall, seemed possible: the binding ITR would indeed hardly make any mention of the internet, but China, Russia and many Arab countries would get a non-binding resolution on the internet (with the awkward title "To foster an enabling environment for the greater growth of the Internet"). Yet this package did not fly-because for America both the ITR and the resolution crossed several red lines. One section of the draft treaty calls for the regulation of "unsolicited bulk electronic communication", commonly known as "spam". But prohibiting spam in an international treaty, the Americans argue, would require some definition of the kind of content intended-which could thereby limit the freedom of expression. Russia also insisted that the relevant entities in the treaty be defined as "operating agencies", which would include internet services providers (ISPs) and other internet firms. (America wants the entities to be classed as "recognised operating agencies", code for old-style telecommunication carriers.) America's willingness to stand up for the internet should be welcomed. But it has to be said that in doing so it is also defended its interests: no other country benefits as much from the status quo in the online world. Since much of the internet's infrastructure is based in America and most of its traffic zips through it, America is in a unique position to eavesdrop, should it be so inclined. America's internet firms also capture most of the profit pool of the online industry. Only the host country had a larger delegation than America, which sent more than 120 people to Dubai. The American representatives included officials from the department of defence as well as from internet firms like Facebook and Google. It was not just for fear that it might have a chilling effect on freedom of expression that America did not want the word "security" included in the treaty-it also has a stake in keeping other countries from catching up in such matters. And America's negotiators were not just worried about a digital divide when they pushed back hard against any attempts by European telecoms operators to introduce language about internet charges. The proposed changes could have helped the European firms in their efforts to get big internet firms to pay them for passing on their traffic. The immediate impact of the WCIT's failure will be minor. Despite the opposition from America and its allies, the ITU will have the remaining countries sign the new treaty on Friday-in the hope that the other member states will come around eventually. What is more, the treaty may be binding, but a new version will have to be ratified by the ITU's member states, which can take a couple of years. And it is not clear how it can be enforced. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Dec 15 15:33:49 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:33:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Russia References: <50CC97BD.80503@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi back from Dubai I still have to figure out what the main conclusions are. I disagree with Milton both with regard to 5A & 5B as well as with the resolution. 1. Look at the statement from the Russian Federation in the signing ceremony. This what you get if you agree - in the spirit of consensus - to unclear language in a legally binding treaty. 5A & 5B would have been acceptable in a WSIS like (non-binding) political declaration but not in a legally binding treaty where different interpretations (as we know from "enhanced cooperation") will produce not only an endless political discussion but can lead to legal cases. Here is the offocuial text from the RF: The delegation of the Russian Federation "proceeds from the assumption that views the Internet as a new global telecommunication infrastructure, and also as a part of the national telecommunication infrastructure of each Member State, and, accordingly, at ensuring that Internet numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources are considered a critical transnational resource, and reserves for its Government the right to: 1) establish and implement public policy, including international policy, on matters of Internet governance, and ensure security of the national Internet segment, as well as regulate within their territory the activities of operating agencies providing Internet access or carrying Internet traffic; 2) establish policies aimed at meeting public requirements with respect to Internet access and use; 3) take necessary regulatory measures to ensure security and confidence in provision international telecommunications services, provide implementation of these measures by operating agencies; 4) take any action it may deem necessary to protect its sovereign rights and interests in the sphere of telecommunications should violation of the Regulations or reservations, or actions taken by other Member States jeopardize its telecommunication services." The Russian government should raise its problems with "Internet naming and numbering" in ICANNs GAC. But this is not what it wants. It wants to see that it controls not only its own cctLD but also the name of a registrant (living under Russian jurisdiction) wh0o has registered iwan.com via a registrar in Germany. This brings us further down the road into the issue of the extension of national sovereignty into cyberspace. Howe far this will go? The second point is the Internet Resolution. There was no discussion of the varioous elements. When p. 55 of the Tunis agenda was proposed to add to 38, Abdulla from Saudi-Arabia (he was a WGIG member and knows exactly the language) intervened and blocked it. If you refer only to 38 this brings you back to the day of WSIS 1, long before Tunis time. Para. 55 in the Tunis agenda recognized the "existing system". Rejecting para. 55 means non-recognition of the existing Internet Governance Eco-System. Furthermore the "invites" both to the Member States and to the ITU SG in the proposed resolutions did mention the multistakeholder model but it was unclear whether the ITU should become part of the broader IG Eco-System or should develop its own alternative multistakeholder Internet Governance model as an alternative to the existing Eco-System. Before we came to the discussion of the "invites" Iran proposed the voting. The chair wanted before a voting get the "temperature" of the room. Hands were raised but not really counted. In my eyes it was around 60 for the resolution as it stands (without 55 Tunis agenda) and 40 against. A lot of delöegatiopns were confused. And then the chair declared the "temperature measurement" as a decision by the chair to adopt the resolution as it is. The other day he said this was not a formal voting but he decided (in consultaiton with the ITU SG) that the resolution should remain as it was. Germany had prepared additional language for the "invite" part to make clear that ITU should enhance its cooperation with the existing IG eco-system (to avoid that the invitation can be interpreted to start the building of an own (alternative) multistakeholder IG system (under ITU/Member States leadership as we know from the WSIS Forum). But we had no chance to propose the language. This was a classical case for ITU autoracy. We planned also to invite ITU memberstates to patricipate actively in ICANNs GAC. But Abdullas said that Saudi Arabia will never become a member of the GAC. Insofar the rejection of the resolution was well justified. Best wishes wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Sat Dec 15 16:02:03 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:02:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: Russia In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <50CC97BD.80503@cafonso.ca>,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA9082@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Wolfgang, thanks for providing this important level of detail in facts and accurate interpretation of their implications. For the record the friend you mention is Abullah Al-Tarrab (or Al-Darrab) and he has indeed been a significant actor since at least WGIG times. though officially he is in a telecommunications company, he is a government representative, not the least because the company is or was government-owned or controlled. Thanks again. Alejandro Pisanty ! !! !!! !!!! NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Dr. Alejandro Pisanty UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] en nombre de "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Enviado el: sábado, 15 de diciembre de 2012 14:33 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Asunto: [governance] Russia Hi back from Dubai I still have to figure out what the main conclusions are. I disagree with Milton both with regard to 5A & 5B as well as with the resolution. 1. Look at the statement from the Russian Federation in the signing ceremony. This what you get if you agree - in the spirit of consensus - to unclear language in a legally binding treaty. 5A & 5B would have been acceptable in a WSIS like (non-binding) political declaration but not in a legally binding treaty where different interpretations (as we know from "enhanced cooperation") will produce not only an endless political discussion but can lead to legal cases. Here is the offocuial text from the RF: The delegation of the Russian Federation "proceeds from the assumption that views the Internet as a new global telecommunication infrastructure, and also as a part of the national telecommunication infrastructure of each Member State, and, accordingly, at ensuring that Internet numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources are considered a critical transnational resource, and reserves for its Government the right to: 1) establish and implement public policy, including international policy, on matters of Internet governance, and ensure security of the national Internet segment, as well as regulate within their territory the activities of operating agencies providing Internet access or carrying Internet traffic; 2) establish policies aimed at meeting public requirements with respect to Internet access and use; 3) take necessary regulatory measures to ensure security and confidence in provision international telecommunications services, provide implementation of these measures by operating agencies; 4) take any action it may deem necessary to protect its sovereign rights and interests in the sphere of telecommunications should violation of the Regulations or reservations, or actions taken by other Member States jeopardize its telecommunication services." The Russian government should raise its problems with "Internet naming and numbering" in ICANNs GAC. But this is not what it wants. It wants to see that it controls not only its own cctLD but also the name of a registrant (living under Russian jurisdiction) wh0o has registered iwan.com via a registrar in Germany. This brings us further down the road into the issue of the extension of national sovereignty into cyberspace. Howe far this will go? The second point is the Internet Resolution. There was no discussion of the varioous elements. When p. 55 of the Tunis agenda was proposed to add to 38, Abdulla from Saudi-Arabia (he was a WGIG member and knows exactly the language) intervened and blocked it. If you refer only to 38 this brings you back to the day of WSIS 1, long before Tunis time. Para. 55 in the Tunis agenda recognized the "existing system". Rejecting para. 55 means non-recognition of the existing Internet Governance Eco-System. Furthermore the "invites" both to the Member States and to the ITU SG in the proposed resolutions did mention the multistakeholder model but it was unclear whether the ITU should become part of the broader IG Eco-System or should develop its own alternative multistakeholder Internet Governance model as an alternative to the existing Eco-System. Before we came to the discussion of the "invites" Iran proposed the voting. The chair wanted before a voting get the "temperature" of the room. Hands were raised but not really counted. In my eyes it was around 60 for the resolution as it stands (without 55 Tunis agenda) and 40 against. A lot of delöegatiopns were confused. And then the chair declared the "temperature measurement" as a decision by the chair to adopt the resolution as it is. The other day he said this was not a formal voting but he decided (in consultaiton with the ITU SG) that the resolution should remain as it was. Germany had prepared additional language for the "invite" part to make clear that ITU should enhance its cooperation with the existing IG eco-system (to avoid that the invitation can be interpreted to start the building of an own (alternative) multistakeholder IG system (under ITU/Member States leadership as we know from the WSIS Forum). But we had no chance to propose the language. This was a classical case for ITU autoracy. We planned also to invite ITU memberstates to patricipate actively in ICANNs GAC. But Abdullas said that Saudi Arabia will never become a member of the GAC. Insofar the rejection of the resolution was well justified. Best wishes wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 16:06:08 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 22:06:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google's tax avoidance is called 'capitalism', says chairman Eric Schmidt Message-ID: <03fa01cddb08$02eeacf0$08cc06d0$@gmail.com> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9739039/Googles-tax-avoidance-i s-called-capitalism-says-chairman-Eric-Schmidt.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 nne75 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 15 16:12:42 2012 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 13:12:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Follow-up to Milton's blog and my 10 Points on WCIT and the ITRs Message-ID: <1355605962.72749.YahooMailNeo@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>  Hi people, I have sort of put down my 10 WCIT points here: http://nnennaorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-weird-ironic-and-hypocritical-wcit.html Best N 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 ocl at gih.com Sat Dec 15 16:54:32 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:54:32 +0400 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post Message-ID: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> Dear all, I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's blog post here, to widen the discussion. Please find below. --- snip --- snip --- snip --- Dear Milton, many of us on the ground were really sorry not to see you in the room in Dubai. Perhaps then would you have actually understood the situation and tension that was present in the room. Without wanting to go into details, several parts of the ITRs were deeply flawed. 5A needs to be read along with ITU Standard Y.2770 which makes it mandatory to implement deep packet inspection (and not even a mild case of DPI) to all “next generation networks” which could be easily interpreted as the IPv6 network. As a standard it is far from mandatory. But 5A and 5B bring this much closer to make it mandatory – and you’ll notice that the language in Y.2770 is very close to the language of 5A and 5B. 5B is an absolute NO-NO when the beginning of the document says that the ITRs are not about content. In fact, in it is unclear whether later recommendations take precedence over earlier recommendations in a document as is the case in some legislatures. Indeed, you should have seen the opposition from some countries to having the “no content” clause included – which completely killed any remains of trust between the two “sides”. Then you have the Resolution at the end which is a real provocation for some and not enough for others who would have wanted the Internet to be included in the ITRs, including taking over numbering and addressing by States. The EU came very close to signing although many countries had serious reservations about ITRs which simply did NOT make any sense. How can Spam not be content? The Spam debate was fuelled by claims that it flooded some country networks yet email traffic is less that 5% of Internet traffic, less that 3% of all telecom traffic (estimated) and therefore with Spam being at, say 50% of email traffic, countries were arguing for a Regulation to filter traffic and perform DPI on maximum 2% traffic gain? It simply did not make sense. So the strategy of the EU countries, after having made a lot of concessions, was to wait and see the final proposal from the Chair, which although it had all of these inadequate articles, was a real improvement. But for some governments this was not enough! They insisted on the right of States to telecommunication services and put it on a par basis with Human Rights. They argued the Rights of States was the same as the Rights of individuals. One of the most balanced Countries, Switzerland, expressed its outrage. Tension was rising fast. We got lectured by some countries that oppress their people about Human Rights. And then Iran called for an abrupt end to the discussion, after having intervened more than any country in the past 2 weeks, and called for a vote — when I remind you that on many many occasions Dr. Touré and the Chair has assured us there would be no vote. This derailment was self-inflicted and this was the drop that got the vase to overflow. Where the heck was the consensus? What kind of shotgun tactics are those? It was obvious by the numbers that the countries opposing the aggressive manner in which this was conducted, would lose a vote. For me, sitting in this room, this was Game, Set and Match. My country, the UK, did not sign and I am ever so glad they did not. Yes, I had a say in the matter since I was a full UK delegate, one of the many countries which brought multiple stakeholders at the table and guess what, most of these countries have not signed. Does this not tell you something? So that is my personal assessment of what happened and I was at the heart of it. I saw some very ugly stuff going on there, stuff which I would really like the Internet to be preserved from. But I am sad too. I am sad because I also heard some very valid concerns from developing countries that they were not able to participate in the multi-stakeholder model because of lack of funding, lack of understanding and a lack of proactive work from our “own” side. I am planning to report fully to ICANN on the matter – we should do more to bridge the gap. At the moment, these countries only have two fora in which they can participate and that’s the IGF where nobody listens to them and the ITU where they have a voice. During the hour that followed the dramatic vote, I went to see my “opponents”. Many of us did – and whilst not apologizing for not signing, we exchanged business cards and I intend on following up. In fact, many European countries are intent on following up with countries that do not appear to have hidden intentions are are genuine about the level of despair they displayed at this conference. Because sadly, there was despair too. This is the start of a better dialogue, one which we must make efforts in promoting, reaching out, building capacity. In closing, I’d say that this was not only a failure of the ITRs and the ITU, it was a failure of Internet Governance too. Civil Society has the ability to bridge the gap – and I know of several governments that have understood this. Let’s work together to ensure we will never live again a similar WCIT full of mistrust and despair. Olivier (speaking entirely on my own behalf) -- 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 17:00:06 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:00:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] Google's tax avoidance is called 'capitalism', says chairman Eric Schmidt In-Reply-To: <03fa01cddb08$02eeacf0$08cc06d0$@gmail.com> References: <03fa01cddb08$02eeacf0$08cc06d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:06 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9739039/Googles-tax-avoidance-i > s-called-capitalism-says-chairman-Eric-Schmidt.html# is he incorrect? Do you know of another company who would act differently? -- 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Sat Dec 15 19:05:17 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:05:17 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1794595643.66475.1355616317364.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e29> + 1   When I'm reading the mails on this list I'm wondering about the actual status of a certain number of its correspondants/members ... In "historic times", I mean dusring the WSIS process and more specifically its second phase, we -the CS folks- have been invaded by a batalion of tunesian "not really non-governemental orgs" that happened to sabotage our work and debates. At present there is just another brand of those "NR-ONG", namely those who deny state sovereignty and multilateralism in international governance.    Best CS regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 13/12/12 05:33 > De : "parminder" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > > Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. > > Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional questions )   It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its coordinator. > >  parminder > > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > More on Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is almost impeccable with the WCIT.  > Source: http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 > Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in taxes) Posted By TelecomTV One , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments |    (0)  Tags: Google corporate tax Finance As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports.   Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as well.   Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that.   Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level of available State support for the most needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner.   An investigative report by Bloomberg has discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by reporters from Bloomberg.   It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011.   Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral.   Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to Richard Murphy of Tax Research:   “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get cut.”   Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. Advertisement As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes…     The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the tax haven of Bermuda.   Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten Things We Know to be True” page on Google’s website is the following:   “You can make money without doing evil.”   I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically.   And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions.   Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession.   Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for all.   Further reading: The Pearse Trust blog has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it.   > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji > Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >   > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:      http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Dec 15 19:40:25 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:10:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty Message-ID: Well.. If you can come up with a practical set of suggestions to regulate the sale of network security and pen testing gear I am all ears --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Roland Perry" To: , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 11:42 PM In message , at 21:11:01 on Sat, 15 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >The problem of course is that a lot of the lock picking tools in the >online world tend to be open source, and regulating the sale of lots of >these is a non starter when it comes to the sheer burden of compliance And you can buy guns and ammunition in Kmart. The excuse seems to be "so you can overthrow the government it that becomes necessary", although I note that threatening the President's life is also an offence. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Sat Dec 15 20:07:12 2012 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 17:07:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] Google's tax avoidance is called 'capitalism', says chairman Eric Schmidt In-Reply-To: References: <03fa01cddb08$02eeacf0$08cc06d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50CD1EC0.4010000@cavebear.com> On 12/15/2012 02:00 PM, McTim wrote: > Do you know of another company who would act differently? Yes - Apple. Apple maintains an item on its ledgers (and public reports) to indicate that these are deferred taxes and that there is a significant chance that someday taxes will have to be paid. Google and others do not report such an item. Which is a more honest statement of the assets and liabilities of the corporation? --karl-- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Sat Dec 15 20:11:31 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:11:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Google's tax avoidance is called 'capitalism', says chairman Eric Schmidt In-Reply-To: References: <03fa01cddb08$02eeacf0$08cc06d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: It's a very old practice for lobbies to write laws and then buy votes from politicians. A win-win capitalist proposition. Louis - - - On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:00 PM, McTim wrote: > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:06 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9739039/Googles-tax-avoidance-i > > s-called-capitalism-says-chairman-Eric-Schmidt.html# > > is he incorrect? > > Do you know of another company who would act differently? > > -- > 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 Sat Dec 15 20:20:05 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:50:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <1794595643.66475.1355616317364.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e29> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <1794595643.66475.1355616317364.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e29> Message-ID: <4E753FF8-8FF9-4C60-B434-005F73965395@hserus.net> Do name names. --srs (iPad) On 16-Dec-2012, at 5:35, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > + 1 > > > > When I'm reading the mails on this list I'm wondering about the actual status of a certain number of its correspondants/members ... > > In "historic times", I mean dusring the WSIS process and more specifically its second phase, we -the CS folks- have been invaded by a batalion of tunesian "not really non-governemental orgs" that happened to sabotage our work and debates. At present there is just another brand of those "NR-ONG", namely those who deny state sovereignty and multilateralism in international governance. > > > > Best CS regards > > > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > > Message du 13/12/12 05:33 > > De : "parminder" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > > > > > Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. > > > > Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and its coordinator. > > > > parminder > > > > > > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > More on Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > >> >> >> > >> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. >> >> > >> Source: http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >> >> > >> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in taxes) >> Posted By TelecomTV One , 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments | (0) >> Tags: Google corporate tax Finance >> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >> >> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your share as well. >> >> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >> >> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing the level of available State support for the most needy) and could be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that Google is acting in an evil manner. >> >> An investigative report by Bloomberg has discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. >> >> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >> >> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >> >> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >> >> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get cut.” >> >> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. >> Advertisement >> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >> >> >> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the tax haven of Bermuda. >> >> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten Things We Know to be True” page on Google’s website is the following: >> >> “You can make money without doing evil.” >> >> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >> >> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >> >> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of recession. >> >> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for all. >> >> Further reading: The Pearse Trust blog has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. > > > > > > > -- > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sat Dec 15 20:21:34 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:51:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's tax avoidance is called 'capitalism', says chairman Eric Schmidt In-Reply-To: References: <03fa01cddb08$02eeacf0$08cc06d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7DE69C35-FCFE-4768-8A01-6704E37324E6@hserus.net> Sure. Shall we go on to adopt say communism, the very antithesis of capitalism, a people's paradise where "we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us"? --srs (iPad) On 16-Dec-2012, at 6:41, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > It's a very old practice for lobbies to write laws and then buy votes from politicians. > > A win-win capitalist proposition. > > Louis > - - - > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 11:00 PM, McTim wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:06 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9739039/Googles-tax-avoidance-i >> > s-called-capitalism-says-chairman-Eric-Schmidt.html# >> >> is he incorrect? >> >> Do you know of another company who would act differently? >> >> -- >> 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 pouzin at well.com Sat Dec 15 20:40:38 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:40:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Suresh, Could we infer from your post that DRM laws such as Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), (which criminalizes the production and dissemination of technology allowing to circumvent technical copy-restriction methods) are plain futile ? Louis - - - On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Well.. If you can come up with a practical set of suggestions to regulate > the sale of network security and pen testing gear I am all ears > > --srs (htc one x) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 15 21:06:31 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:36:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <72C5F103-16E8-4BE0-B69F-4B7AD18C7B09@hserus.net> As it happens, my opinion is thst st least the dmca makes very little sense and its enforcement is fraught with problems. --srs (iPad) On 16-Dec-2012, at 7:10, "Louis Pouzin (well)" wrote: > Hi Suresh, > > Could we infer from your post that DRM laws such as Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), (which criminalizes the production and dissemination of technology allowing to circumvent technical copy-restriction methods) are plain futile ? > > Louis > - - - > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Well.. If you can come up with a practical set of suggestions to regulate the sale of network security and pen testing gear I am all ears >> >> --srs (htc one x) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 15 21:39:31 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 03:39:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17272A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <051001cddb36$94c24910$be46db30$@gmail.com> +1 M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:17 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Grace Githaiga Subject: Re: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency Only in a twisted society lack of dialogue and understanding will be seen as victory and only irresponsible people celebrate failure. The bright side was that bad proposals about Internet were avoided, at least for now. The bad side is that good proposals from the ITRs seem to be lost, and the meeting proves that the rift is widening between actors. The consequence may be more attempts for national regulation in a myriad of topics, from national firewalls to SOPA, PIPA or domain name seizures from the US gov. But wait: aren't the US the ultimate freedom fighters according to .nxt? Marília On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: Having turned industries and governments upside down, the Internet has claimed its first organizational scalp, subjecting the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to a humiliating failure at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai earlier today. Read on: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-telecoms-a _____ From: lmcknigh at syr.edu To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:53:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/14 0705 Includes nuggets of info, new at least to me. http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/14 0705 Lee ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 15 21:50:42 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:20:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency Message-ID: It is merely a relative concept. Shall we say they have done far more than Russia or Saudi Arabia, let alone Syria, North Korea type regimes? --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: , "'Marilia Maciel'" Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 8:09 AM +1 M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:17 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Grace Githaiga Subject: Re: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency Only in a twisted society lack of dialogue and understanding will be seen as victory and only irresponsible people celebrate failure. The bright side was that bad proposals about Internet were avoided, at least for now. The bad side is that good proposals from the ITRs seem to be lost, and the meeting proves that the rift is widening between actors. The consequence may be more attempts for national regulation in a myriad of topics, from national firewalls to SOPA, PIPA or domain name seizures from the US gov. But wait: aren't the US the ultimate freedom fighters according to .nxt? Marília On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: Having turned industries and governments upside down, the Internet has claimed its first organizational scalp, subjecting the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to a humiliating failure at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai earlier today. Read on: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-telecoms-a _____ From: lmcknigh at syr.edu To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:53:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/14 0705 Includes nuggets of info, new at least to me. http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/14 0705 Lee ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 15 21:56:48 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:26:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency Message-ID: For example in today's newspaper I read that minister sibal is taking the ITR issue before the cabinet and carrying out additional multistakeholder discussion before ratifying specific parts of the ITRs Which indeed is the approach of most countries that have taken the issue back home for consultation rather than completely avoiding the itrs due to the poison pill wording of some innocuous appearing clauses that have already been discussed threadbare on this list and elsewhere. Possibly the best way to salvage anything at all from this situation.. Especially with the existing governance structures of icann and the RIRs still in existence and substantial technical change required across the board, or at least nationwide, if a government decides to exercise some of the options they have claimed for themselves on grounds of sovereignty rather than multistakeholder cooperation --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: , "'Marilia Maciel'" Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 8:09 AM +1 M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:17 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Grace Githaiga Subject: Re: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency Only in a twisted society lack of dialogue and understanding will be seen as victory and only irresponsible people celebrate failure. The bright side was that bad proposals about Internet were avoided, at least for now. The bad side is that good proposals from the ITRs seem to be lost, and the meeting proves that the rift is widening between actors. The consequence may be more attempts for national regulation in a myriad of topics, from national firewalls to SOPA, PIPA or domain name seizures from the US gov. But wait: aren't the US the ultimate freedom fighters according to .nxt? Marília On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Grace Githaiga wrote: Having turned industries and governments upside down, the Internet has claimed its first organizational scalp, subjecting the United Nations' International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to a humiliating failure at the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai earlier today. Read on: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-telecoms-a _____ From: lmcknigh at syr.edu To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:53:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/14 0705 Includes nuggets of info, new at least to me. http://www.multichannel.com/technology/itu-internet-resolution-draws-fire/14 0705 Lee ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Dec 16 01:38:13 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:38:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [kictanet] ITRs what has changed between 2012 and 1988 In-Reply-To: <1838784539-1355639521-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-822910864-@b1.c8.bise7.blackberry> References: <1838784539-1355639521-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-822910864-@b1.c8.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 3:31 PM Subject: [kictanet] ITRs what has changed between 2012 and 1988 To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions Samantha Dickinson has tracked the changes: http://www.linguasynaptica.com/itr-changes/ Best Alice _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Unsubscribe or change your options at https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ajp%40glocom.ac.jp The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled growth and development. KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or qualifications. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 16 01:40:03 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 12:10:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Follow-up to Milton's blog and my 10 Points on WCIT and the ITRs In-Reply-To: <1355605962.72749.YahooMailNeo@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <1355605962.72749.YahooMailNeo@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <50CD6CC3.7080508@itforchange.net> On Sunday 16 December 2012 02:42 AM, Nnenna wrote: > > Hi people, > > I have sort of put down my 10 WCIT points here: > http://nnennaorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-weird-ironic-and-hypocritical-wcit.html Thanks Nnenna. Very useful. Especially for an alternative account of what were seen as the critical moments that precipitated the WCIT meltdown... I am rather inclined to agree with how you see these key moments as against how these are being projected by most others. (Although, I think that the real drivers of the eventual meltdown were written in the larger context - it was a historic thing waiting to happen. However, I do realise that some relatively insignificant looking contingent events and occurrences can cause disproportionately huge impacts, like, in this case the ITRs could well, in fact, have got unanimously adopted, and then the trajectory of global IG from here on would have been somewhat different from what it now will be). parminder > > Best > > N > > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 16 01:53:43 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 12:23:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement In-Reply-To: <00c601cdda72$4da30a70$e8e91f50$@gmail.com> References: <00c601cdda72$4da30a70$e8e91f50$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50CD6FF7.3090206@itforchange.net> On Saturday 15 December 2012 08:43 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1213/DOC-317926A1.pdf > "Unfortunately, a majority of the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) Member States, including many countries that purportedly support Internet freedom, chose to discard long-standing international consensus to keep the Internet insulated from intergovernmental regulation. " Typical US hypocrisy... "long-standing international consensus to keep the Internet insulated from intergovernmental regulation" HA! HA! What about the Internet chapter of ACTA! That is not intergovernmental regulation, right!! Ok lets make a deal. Let US agree to keep the Internet out of all intellectual property regulation, Internet as IP regulation free zone, and we will agree that we will keep it out of all other regulations, whatsoever ... parminder > *//* > > *//* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Dec 16 02:27:00 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:27:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement In-Reply-To: <50CD6FF7.3090206@itforchange.net> References: <00c601cdda72$4da30a70$e8e91f50$@gmail.com> <50CD6FF7.3090206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: "Section 5: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in the Digital Environment" sounds like Internet. Agree with you. It was wrong in ACTA and wrong in WCIT. Adam On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 3:53 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > On Saturday 15 December 2012 08:43 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1213/DOC-317926A1.pdf > > > "Unfortunately, a majority of the International Telecommunication Union’s > (ITU) Member States, including many countries that purportedly support > Internet freedom, chose to discard long-standing international consensus to > keep the Internet insulated from intergovernmental regulation. " > > Typical US hypocrisy... "long-standing international consensus to keep the > Internet insulated from intergovernmental regulation" HA! HA! What about > the Internet chapter of ACTA! That is not intergovernmental regulation, > right!! > > Ok lets make a deal. Let US agree to keep the Internet out of all > intellectual property regulation, Internet as IP regulation free zone, and > we will agree that we will keep it out of all other regulations, whatsoever > ... > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sun Dec 16 02:48:27 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:18:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement Message-ID: Typical parminder commentary ha ha ha --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "parminder" To: Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 12:23 PM On Saturday 15 December 2012 08:43 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1213/DOC-317926A1.pdf > "Unfortunately, a majority of the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) Member States, including many countries that purportedly support Internet freedom, chose to discard long-standing international consensus to keep the Internet insulated from intergovernmental regulation. " Typical US hypocrisy... "long-standing international consensus to keep the Internet insulated from intergovernmental regulation" HA! HA! What about the Internet chapter of ACTA! That is not intergovernmental regulation, right!! Ok lets make a deal. Let US agree to keep the Internet out of all intellectual property regulation, Internet as IP regulation free zone, and we will agree that we will keep it out of all other regulations, whatsoever ... parminder > *//* > > *//* > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Dec 16 02:49:51 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:49:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you've nothing to say, please don't bother to click send. Adam On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Typical parminder commentary ha ha ha > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "parminder" > To: > Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement > Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 12:23 PM > > > > > > On Saturday 15 December 2012 08:43 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> >> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1213/DOC-317926A1.pdf >> > > "Unfortunately, a majority of the International Telecommunication > Union’s (ITU) Member States, including many countries that > purportedly support Internet freedom, chose to discard long-standing > international consensus to keep the Internet insulated from > intergovernmental regulation. " > > Typical US hypocrisy... "long-standing international consensus to keep > the Internet insulated from intergovernmental regulation" HA! HA! What > about the Internet chapter of ACTA! That is not intergovernmental > regulation, right!! > > Ok lets make a deal. Let US agree to keep the Internet out of all > intellectual property regulation, Internet as IP regulation free zone, > and we will agree that we will keep it out of all other regulations, > whatsoever ... > > parminder > > > > >> *//* >> >> *//* >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sun Dec 16 03:31:55 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:01:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement Message-ID: Nothing much at all beyond that I couldn't help laughing at this change in scale Acta is hardly on the same scope and scale as the ITRs are, and a restricted membership multilateral treaty focused on copyright can hardly be compared to an attempted complete change in the governance structures of various Internet coordination bodies So while I am probably not any more of a fan of acta than you are, the comparison parminder drew is ludicrous --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Adam Peake" To: , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 1:19 PM If you've nothing to say, please don't bother to click send. Adam On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Typical parminder commentary ha ha ha > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "parminder" > To: > Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement > Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 12:23 PM > > > > > > On Saturday 15 December 2012 08:43 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> >> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1213/DOC-317926A1.pdf >> > > "Unfortunately, a majority of the International Telecommunication > Union’s (ITU) Member States, including many countries that > purportedly support Internet freedom, chose to discard long-standing > international consensus to keep the Internet insulated from > intergovernmental regulation. " > > Typical US hypocrisy... "long-standing international consensus to keep > the Internet insulated from intergovernmental regulation" HA! HA! What > about the Internet chapter of ACTA! That is not intergovernmental > regulation, right!! > > Ok lets make a deal. Let US agree to keep the Internet out of all > intellectual property regulation, Internet as IP regulation free zone, > and we will agree that we will keep it out of all other regulations, > whatsoever ... > > parminder > > > > >> *//* >> >> *//* >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 03:39:21 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:39:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05a101cddb68$e70727e0$b51577a0$@gmail.com> Rule #1 Don't feed the troll. M -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 8:50 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement If you've nothing to say, please don't bother to click send. Adam On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Typical parminder commentary ha ha ha > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "parminder" > To: > Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement > Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 12:23 PM > > > > > > On Saturday 15 December 2012 08:43 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> >> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1213/D >> OC-317926A1.pdf >> > > "Unfortunately, a majority of the International Telecommunication > Union's (ITU) Member States, including many countries that > purportedly support Internet freedom, chose to discard long-standing > international consensus to keep the Internet insulated from > intergovernmental regulation. " > > Typical US hypocrisy... "long-standing international consensus to keep > the Internet insulated from intergovernmental regulation" HA! HA! > What about the Internet chapter of ACTA! That is not intergovernmental > regulation, right!! > > Ok lets make a deal. Let US agree to keep the Internet out of all > intellectual property regulation, Internet as IP regulation free zone, > and we will agree that we will keep it out of all other regulations, > whatsoever ... > > parminder > > > > >> *//* >> >> *//* >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 03:43:30 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:43:30 +1300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [kictanet] ITRs what has changed between 2012 and 1988 In-Reply-To: References: <1838784539-1355639521-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-822910864-@b1.c8.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: This is really excellent, thanks Adam. Sala On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: > Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 3:31 PM > Subject: [kictanet] ITRs what has changed between 2012 and 1988 > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp > Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions > > > > Samantha Dickinson has tracked the changes: > > http://www.linguasynaptica.com/itr-changes/ > > Best > Alice > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Unsubscribe or change your options at > https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/ajp%40glocom.ac.jp > > The Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet) is a multi-stakeholder > platform for people and institutions interested and involved in ICT > policy and regulation. The network aims to act as a catalyst for > reform in the ICT sector in support of the national aim of ICT enabled > growth and development. > > KICTANetiquette : Adhere to the same standards of acceptable behaviors > online that you follow in real life: respect people's times and > bandwidth, share knowledge, don't flame or abuse or personalize, > respect privacy, do not spam, do not market your wares or > qualifications. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 03:50:05 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:50:05 +1300 Subject: [governance] Follow-up to Milton's blog and my 10 Points on WCIT and the ITRs In-Reply-To: <50CD6CC3.7080508@itforchange.net> References: <1355605962.72749.YahooMailNeo@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <50CD6CC3.7080508@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 7:40 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 16 December 2012 02:42 AM, Nnenna wrote: > > > Hi people, > > I have sort of put down my 10 WCIT points here: > http://nnennaorg.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-weird-ironic-and-hypocritical-wcit.html > > Really excellent commentary...:) > > > Best > > N > > > 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 > > -- 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 Sun Dec 16 03:52:45 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:22:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement Message-ID: As is the relentless US bashing from various people on this thread that seems to pass for acceptable civil society discourse. As a 'moderator' you would be expected to exercise at least some neutrality, which unfortunately does not seem to be happening Feel free to unsubscribe me from this circus, oh I am sorry, caucus, if you wish. For the more balanced and far less extremist folks on this list that I know from elsewhere and respect, see you around on a variety of other forums Thank you --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 2:08 PM On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Typical parminder commentary ha ha ha > > --srs (htc one x) > > Suresh - this commentary is unprofessional and discourteous and contrary > to behaviour accepted of people who subscribe to the IGC. If I have to warn > you again on the same thing, I will have no choice but to suspend your > posting rights. > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "parminder" > To: > Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement > Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 12:23 PM > > > > > > On Saturday 15 December 2012 08:43 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > > http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1213/DOC-317926A1.pdf > > > > "Unfortunately, a majority of the International Telecommunication > Union’s (ITU) Member States, including many countries that > purportedly support Internet freedom, chose to discard long-standing > international consensus to keep the Internet insulated from > intergovernmental regulation. " > > Typical US hypocrisy... "long-standing international consensus to keep > the Internet insulated from intergovernmental regulation" HA! HA! What > about the Internet chapter of ACTA! That is not intergovernmental > regulation, right!! > > Ok lets make a deal. Let US agree to keep the Internet out of all > intellectual property regulation, Internet as IP regulation free zone, > and we will agree that we will keep it out of all other regulations, > whatsoever ... > > parminder > > > > > > *//* > > > > *//* > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Sun Dec 16 04:10:54 2012 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:10:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <1800981407.636333.1355612778287.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> References: <1800981407.636333.1355612778287.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> Message-ID: <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> Thank you, Olivier, for sharing your very passionate and personal, yet balanced experience and viewpoint on the happenings and the mood on the ground in Dubai. Peter H. Hellmonds +49 (160) 360-2852 On 15.12.2012, at 22:55, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" wrote: Dear all, I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's blog post here, to widen the discussion. Please find below. --- snip --- snip --- snip --- Dear Milton, many of us on the ground were really sorry not to see you in the room in Dubai. Perhaps then would you have actually understood the situation and tension that was present in the room. Without wanting to go into details, several parts of the ITRs were deeply flawed. 5A needs to be read along with ITU Standard Y.2770 which makes it mandatory to implement deep packet inspection (and not even a mild case of DPI) to all “next generation networks” which could be easily interpreted as the IPv6 network. As a standard it is far from mandatory. But 5A and 5B bring this much closer to make it mandatory – and you’ll notice that the language in Y.2770 is very close to the language of 5A and 5B. 5B is an absolute NO-NO when the beginning of the document says that the ITRs are not about content. In fact, in it is unclear whether later recommendations take precedence over earlier recommendations in a document as is the case in some legislatures. Indeed, you should have seen the opposition from some countries to having the “no content” clause included – which completely killed any remains of trust between the two “sides”. Then you have the Resolution at the end which is a real provocation for some and not enough for others who would have wanted the Internet to be included in the ITRs, including taking over numbering and addressing by States. The EU came very close to signing although many countries had serious reservations about ITRs which simply did NOT make any sense. How can Spam not be content? The Spam debate was fuelled by claims that it flooded some country networks yet email traffic is less that 5% of Internet traffic, less that 3% of all telecom traffic (estimated) and therefore with Spam being at, say 50% of email traffic, countries were arguing for a Regulation to filter traffic and perform DPI on maximum 2% traffic gain? It simply did not make sense. So the strategy of the EU countries, after having made a lot of concessions, was to wait and see the final proposal from the Chair, which although it had all of these inadequate articles, was a real improvement. But for some governments this was not enough! They insisted on the right of States to telecommunication services and put it on a par basis with Human Rights. They argued the Rights of States was the same as the Rights of individuals. One of the most balanced Countries, Switzerland, expressed its outrage. Tension was rising fast. We got lectured by some countries that oppress their people about Human Rights. And then Iran called for an abrupt end to the discussion, after having intervened more than any country in the past 2 weeks, and called for a vote — when I remind you that on many many occasions Dr. Touré and the Chair has assured us there would be no vote. This derailment was self-inflicted and this was the drop that got the vase to overflow. Where the heck was the consensus? What kind of shotgun tactics are those? It was obvious by the numbers that the countries opposing the aggressive manner in which this was conducted, would lose a vote. For me, sitting in this room, this was Game, Set and Match. My country, the UK, did not sign and I am ever so glad they did not. Yes, I had a say in the matter since I was a full UK delegate, one of the many countries which brought multiple stakeholders at the table and guess what, most of these countries have not signed. Does this not tell you something? So that is my personal assessment of what happened and I was at the heart of it. I saw some very ugly stuff going on there, stuff which I would really like the Internet to be preserved from. But I am sad too. I am sad because I also heard some very valid concerns from developing countries that they were not able to participate in the multi-stakeholder model because of lack of funding, lack of understanding and a lack of proactive work from our “own” side. I am planning to report fully to ICANN on the matter – we should do more to bridge the gap. At the moment, these countries only have two fora in which they can participate and that’s the IGF where nobody listens to them and the ITU where they have a voice. During the hour that followed the dramatic vote, I went to see my “opponents”. Many of us did – and whilst not apologizing for not signing, we exchanged business cards and I intend on following up. In fact, many European countries are intent on following up with countries that do not appear to have hidden intentions are are genuine about the level of despair they displayed at this conference. Because sadly, there was despair too. This is the start of a better dialogue, one which we must make efforts in promoting, reaching out, building capacity. In closing, I’d say that this was not only a failure of the ITRs and the ITU, it was a failure of Internet Governance too. Civil Society has the ability to bridge the gap – and I know of several governments that have understood this. Let’s work together to ensure we will never live again a similar WCIT full of mistrust and despair. Olivier (speaking entirely on my own behalf) -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 04:37:25 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:37:25 +1300 Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Suresh, Believe it or not, there are people that I have had to warn even offlist on the IGC and who hold views that are diametrically opposed to yours. Diversity is "critical" for "growth" but there is an acceptable standard of decorum expected on the list. Kind Regards, Sala On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > As is the relentless US bashing from various people on this thread that > seems to pass for acceptable civil society discourse. > > As a 'moderator' you would be expected to exercise at least some > neutrality, which unfortunately does not seem to be happening > > Feel free to unsubscribe me from this circus, oh I am sorry, caucus, if > you wish. > > For the more balanced and far less extremist folks on this list that I > know from elsewhere and respect, see you around on a variety of other > forums > > Thank you > > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement > Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 2:08 PM > > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > > Typical parminder commentary ha ha ha > > > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > Suresh - this commentary is unprofessional and discourteous and contrary > > to behaviour accepted of people who subscribe to the IGC. If I have to > warn > > you again on the same thing, I will have no choice but to suspend your > > posting rights. > > > > > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > > From: "parminder" > > To: > > Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement > > Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 12:23 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday 15 December 2012 08:43 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1213/DOC-317926A1.pdf > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, a majority of the International Telecommunication > > Union’s (ITU) Member States, including many countries that > > purportedly support Internet freedom, chose to discard long-standing > > international consensus to keep the Internet insulated from > > intergovernmental regulation. " > > > > Typical US hypocrisy... "long-standing international consensus to keep > > the Internet insulated from intergovernmental regulation" HA! HA! What > > about the Internet chapter of ACTA! That is not intergovernmental > > regulation, right!! > > > > Ok lets make a deal. Let US agree to keep the Internet out of all > > intellectual property regulation, Internet as IP regulation free zone, > > and we will agree that we will keep it out of all other regulations, > > whatsoever ... > > > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > > *//* > > > > > > *//* > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > -- 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 Sun Dec 16 04:44:09 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:14:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement Message-ID: That clarification is much appreciated Thank you --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 3:07 PM Hi Suresh, Believe it or not, there are people that I have had to warn even offlist on the IGC and who hold views that are diametrically opposed to yours. Diversity is "critical" for "growth" but there is an acceptable standard of decorum expected on the list. Kind Regards, Sala On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > As is the relentless US bashing from various people on this thread that > seems to pass for acceptable civil society discourse. > > As a 'moderator' you would be expected to exercise at least some > neutrality, which unfortunately does not seem to be happening > > Feel free to unsubscribe me from this circus, oh I am sorry, caucus, if > you wish. > > For the more balanced and far less extremist folks on this list that I > know from elsewhere and respect, see you around on a variety of other > forums > > Thank you > > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> > To: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement > Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 2:08 PM > > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > > Typical parminder commentary ha ha ha > > > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > Suresh - this commentary is unprofessional and discourteous and contrary > > to behaviour accepted of people who subscribe to the IGC. If I have to > warn > > you again on the same thing, I will have no choice but to suspend your > > posting rights. > > > > > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > > From: "parminder" > > To: > > Subject: [governance] McDowell (USG) Statement > > Date: Sun, Dec 16, 2012 12:23 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday 15 December 2012 08:43 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db1213/DOC-317926A1.pdf > > > > > > > "Unfortunately, a majority of the International Telecommunication > > Union’s (ITU) Member States, including many countries that > > purportedly support Internet freedom, chose to discard long-standing > > international consensus to keep the Internet insulated from > > intergovernmental regulation. " > > > > Typical US hypocrisy... "long-standing international consensus to keep > > the Internet insulated from intergovernmental regulation" HA! HA! What > > about the Internet chapter of ACTA! That is not intergovernmental > > regulation, right!! > > > > Ok lets make a deal. Let US agree to keep the Internet out of all > > intellectual property regulation, Internet as IP regulation free zone, > > and we will agree that we will keep it out of all other regulations, > > whatsoever ... > > > > parminder > > > > > > > > > > > *//* > > > > > > *//* > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To 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 > -- 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 05:04:06 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 12:04:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google's tax avoidance is called 'capitalism', says chairman Eric Schmidt In-Reply-To: <03fa01cddb08$02eeacf0$08cc06d0$@gmail.com> References: <03fa01cddb08$02eeacf0$08cc06d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50CD9C96.5010507@gmail.com> And here is the nub... does the pursuit of self-interest lead to the common good, necessarily; as neoclassical or market-orientated types posit? And why is the tax system skewed in such a way that ordinary workers pay more taxes proportionately than corporations? Is this fair or equitable? And is it "natural" that capitalism (of which there are many, many varieties) is shaped this particular way, rather than another way? On 2012/12/15 11:06 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/google/9739039/Googles-tax-avoidance-i > s-called-capitalism-says-chairman-Eric-Schmidt.html# > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 05:06:10 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 12:06:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <1794595643.66475.1355616317364.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e29> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <1794595643.66475.1355616317364.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e29> Message-ID: <50CD9D12.3090808@gmail.com> Thanks for this. +1 On 2012/12/16 02:05 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > > + 1 > > When I'm reading the mails on this list I'm wondering about the actual > status of a certain number of its correspondants/members ... > > In "historic times", I mean dusring the WSIS process and more > specifically its second phase, we -the CS folks- have been invaded by > a batalion of tunesian "not really non-governemental orgs" that > happened to sabotage our work and debates. At present there is just > another brand of those "NR-ONG", namely those who deny state > sovereignty and multilateralism in international governance. > > Best CS regards > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > > Message du 13/12/12 05:33 > > De : "parminder" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > > > > > Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas > profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in > lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its > unlettered operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, > German legislature, and so on. > > > > Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion > policy is anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes > its profit. (Or is it that the IG civil society does not go into > such re-distributional questions ) It is not rhetorical but a > real question to the list, and its coordinator. > > > > parminder > > > > > > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. > Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > > More on Bloomberg: > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > wrote: > > > > > > > Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign > out against the likes of Google and other mncs - the > timing of the release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. > > > > Source: > http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 > > > > > > Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades > $2bn in taxes) > > Posted By TelecomTV One > , > 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments > | > (0) > Tags: /Google > / > /corporate > / > /tax > / > /Finance > / > > As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid > paying corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn > by routing income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, > paying tax of just 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. > Guy Daniels reports. > > Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of > tax avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals > and corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of > tax. By fair, we mean whatever respective governments rule > to be the legal requirement (after all, in most countries, > we voted the politicians in to office). By all means try > and mitigate the amount of tax you have to pay, using > whatever accepted mechanisms are available. But avoidance? > That just means somebody else (with far less access to > expensive and clever advisors) has to contribute to your > share as well. > > Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford > English Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and > wicked” or “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In > my book, that means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. > > Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe > that avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive > and mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if > you believe that depriving society of tax revenues is > wrong (and so reducing the level of available State > support for the most needy) and could be described as an > evil act, then surely you must conclude that Google is > acting in an evil manner. > > An investigative report by Bloomberg > has > discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in > worldwide income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in > revenues into a Bermuda shell company – almost double its > total from three years ago. The information was disclosed > in a November filing by a Google subsidiary in the > Netherlands, which was discovered by reporters from Bloomberg. > > It appears that Google legally routed profits from > overseas subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a > corporate income tax, thereby enabling it to cut its > overall tax rate almost in half. Bloomberg says the amount > moved to Bermuda is equivalent to about 80 per cent of > Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. > > Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a > staggering €1 trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on > for a moment longer…. €1 trillion. No wonder politicians > are now acting to try and prevent this financial loss and > branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. > > Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, > which pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the > moment. According to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: > > “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a > deep embarrassment to governments around Europe. The > political awareness now being created in the UK, and to a > lesser degree elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. > People understand that if Google doesn’t pay, somebody > else has to pay or services get cut.” > > Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public > discovered the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK > (yes, absolutely nothing at all), it started to boycott > the chain. > > Advertisement > As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay > taxes… > > The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for > about 11 per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it > turned over last year, it paid UK corporation tax of less > than $10 million. Bloomberg says Google avoids tax by > using an Irish subsidiary to collects revenues from ads > sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to another Irish > subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. Payments > are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the Netherlands > (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the tax > haven of Bermuda. > > Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against > the internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly > on the “Ten Things We Know to be True” page on Google > ’s > website is the following: > > “You can make money without doing evil.” > > I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is > anything but evil. Of course you – and all companies – > have a duty to shareholders to maximise profits. But there > are rules. Some of these are merely ethical, whilst some > are legal. There is no indication or suggestion that > Google has acted illegally, but there is every suggestion > that it has acted unethically. > > And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course > you can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint > that corporations will only act in self-interest and never > “do the right thing” or pay their fair share. If their > customers start to boycott their services, then they’ll > change. It happened with the sudden emergence of all the > so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ positions that all > featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see why it > can’t happen with fair tax positions. > > Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this > complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean > ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, > Microsoft and Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the > others, who no doubt will soon be named and shamed – will > continue their sharp practices until they are forced to > make a change. If governments can’t do that through the > legal process, then it’s up to customers to vote with > their feet and walk away from Google services. As Richard > Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message > that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed > by the many austerity measures that are in effect to drag > us out of recession. > > Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some > leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the > ICT industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous > and out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website > once and for all. > > Further reading: The Pearse Trust > blog > has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish > Dutch Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. > > > > > > > > -- > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sana.pryhod at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 07:40:06 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:40:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> References: <1800981407.636333.1355612778287.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> Message-ID: Dear Olivier, Thank you very-very-very much for all your work at all and for this letter especially. My country signed (according to official information on ITU web-site) ITRs. But there were some chances they would not do it. And I am sure that we just lacked some pressure on our official delegates at this moment, so physical absence of Ukrainian CS was wery negative. I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not do it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure that they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had nothing to answer to them. I had real chance to participate in this conference as a journalist (by the way, Ukrainian media absolutely ignored this event). I am sure that it might have some impact, but again I did not have money. In Baku I participated on my own expences, and it was real financial disaster for me. But the workshop I organized (thousand of thanks to all who participated in it) and a lot of other discussions are priceless for me. I like very much the word multistakeholderism, but let us stop just to talk about it! We have to analyze where it works and where and when it does not work and why. I am sure that in developing countries it nearly does not work, while exactly multistakeholderism (in all sheres) and informational technologies can transform developing countries into developed one. Just few remarks on it. 1. Respective roles of each stakeholder. Our former prime-minister Yulia Timoshenko is in prison now for signing international treaty without enough seal. I am not saying that I support such treatment, but I am sure that dozens of Ukrainian officials HAVE to be in prison for signing international treaties without enough seal.Very often the only one reason to sign any treaty for them is to put money into their own pockets. Our government concerns with Internet issues. Our Communication Administration (State Service of Special Communication and Information Protection of Ukraine !!!!!) ignored my propositions because they could not open my file in .odt (!!!!!). They use only Windows, and 70 % of this software (in governmental agencies!!!) are steal. And they will protect cybersecurity and dictate to me what to do and what not to do in Internet! 2. Transparency - Ukraine is the member of GAC (on paper). But now I am said that ICANN is not international organization, so why Ukraine has to be the member of it? But WE ARE the member! But it is impossible now to find documents who and when apllied for GAC from Ukraine. I am not even talking on WCIT - no ANY information on official site of Ukrainian agency. 3. Accountability - no words at all( 4. Consensus - some opponents in prison or Hudson, a few to buy. What to do? Yes, of course, we urgently need literacy, capacity buiding, awareness raising, engagement, and in this case the role of ICANN is nearly zero. I extremely thankful to Olivier, Sebastien, Wolf, Bertrand, Sandra, Wolfgang, Yulia (I hope I did not miss anybody) for coming to Ukraine and participating in our events. They realy did great job, and influence a lot on many discussions! But on institutional level ICANN did not ever participate in them! With OFFICIAL meetings with Ukrainian officials, with discussions of the most critical issues, with organizing some educational programs! That is why a lot of in Ukraine really don't know what is ICANN, and a lot of prefer to make show that they don't know. I talk about Ukraine, but I mention all post-Soviet Russian-speaking culture. That is why during teleconference call with Ambassador Kramer I proposed to organize in Ukraine sub-regional Forum and to initiate standing discussion on multistakeholderism and freedom of Internet. I can not imagine it without pro-active role of ICANN. I am sorry for such long letter, but I would like to add some words about trust. I do not trust to my government, so there is no dissapointment with their activity in Dubai. But now how I can trust to Dr. Toure and to Chair of the conference, if they can't keep their words (about consensus instead of voting)? How can I trust to ITU at all, which fully demonstrates its absurdism? How can I trust to UN at all, if by mouth it defends human rights and democracy, but by hands it puts me behind the bars of criminal regime and close before me the door to open and prosperious informational society? Once again sorry for bothering you with our problems, Best regards, Oksana 2012/12/16 Peter H. Hellmonds : > Thank you, Olivier, for sharing your very passionate and personal, yet balanced experience and viewpoint on the happenings and the mood on the ground in Dubai. > > Peter H. Hellmonds > > +49 (160) 360-2852 > > On 15.12.2012, at 22:55, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" wrote: > > Dear all, > > I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's blog post > here, to widen the discussion. Please find below. > > --- snip --- snip --- snip --- > > Dear Milton, > many of us on the ground were really sorry not to see you in the room in > Dubai. Perhaps then would you have actually understood the situation and > tension that was present in the room. > Without wanting to go into details, several parts of the ITRs were > deeply flawed. > 5A needs to be read along with ITU Standard Y.2770 which makes it > mandatory to implement deep packet inspection (and not even a mild case > of DPI) to all “next generation networks” which could be easily > interpreted as the IPv6 network. As a standard it is far from mandatory. > But 5A and 5B bring this much closer to make it mandatory – and you’ll > notice that the language in Y.2770 is very close to the language of 5A > and 5B. > 5B is an absolute NO-NO when the beginning of the document says that the > ITRs are not about content. In fact, in it is unclear whether later > recommendations take precedence over earlier recommendations in a > document as is the case in some legislatures. Indeed, you should have > seen the opposition from some countries to having the “no content” > clause included – which completely killed any remains of trust between > the two “sides”. > Then you have the Resolution at the end which is a real provocation for > some and not enough for others who would have wanted the Internet to be > included in the ITRs, including taking over numbering and addressing by > States. > The EU came very close to signing although many countries had serious > reservations about ITRs which simply did NOT make any sense. How can > Spam not be content? The Spam debate was fuelled by claims that it > flooded some country networks yet email traffic is less that 5% of > Internet traffic, less that 3% of all telecom traffic (estimated) and > therefore with Spam being at, say 50% of email traffic, countries were > arguing for a Regulation to filter traffic and perform DPI on maximum 2% > traffic gain? It simply did not make sense. > So the strategy of the EU countries, after having made a lot of > concessions, was to wait and see the final proposal from the Chair, > which although it had all of these inadequate articles, was a real > improvement. > But for some governments this was not enough! They insisted on the right > of States to telecommunication services and put it on a par basis with > Human Rights. They argued the Rights of States was the same as the > Rights of individuals. One of the most balanced Countries, Switzerland, > expressed its outrage. Tension was rising fast. We got lectured by some > countries that oppress their people about Human Rights. And then Iran > called for an abrupt end to the discussion, after having intervened more > than any country in the past 2 weeks, and called for a vote — when I > remind you that on many many occasions Dr. Touré and the Chair has > assured us there would be no vote. > This derailment was self-inflicted and this was the drop that got the > vase to overflow. Where the heck was the consensus? What kind of shotgun > tactics are those? It was obvious by the numbers that the countries > opposing the aggressive manner in which this was conducted, would lose a > vote. > For me, sitting in this room, this was Game, Set and Match. My country, > the UK, did not sign and I am ever so glad they did not. Yes, I had a > say in the matter since I was a full UK delegate, one of the many > countries which brought multiple stakeholders at the table and guess > what, most of these countries have not signed. Does this not tell you > something? > > So that is my personal assessment of what happened and I was at the > heart of it. I saw some very ugly stuff going on there, stuff which I > would really like the Internet to be preserved from. > > But I am sad too. I am sad because I also heard some very valid concerns > from developing countries that they were not able to participate in the > multi-stakeholder model because of lack of funding, lack of > understanding and a lack of proactive work from our “own” side. > I am planning to report fully to ICANN on the matter – we should do more > to bridge the gap. At the moment, these countries only have two fora in > which they can participate and that’s the IGF where nobody listens to > them and the ITU where they have a voice. During the hour that followed > the dramatic vote, I went to see my “opponents”. Many of us did – and > whilst not apologizing for not signing, we exchanged business cards and > I intend on following up. In fact, many European countries are intent on > following up with countries that do not appear to have hidden intentions > are are genuine about the level of despair they displayed at this > conference. Because sadly, there was despair too. This is the start of a > better dialogue, one which we must make efforts in promoting, reaching > out, building capacity. > > In closing, I’d say that this was not only a failure of the ITRs and the > ITU, it was a failure of Internet Governance too. Civil Society has the > ability to bridge the gap – and I know of several governments that have > understood this. Let’s work together to ensure we will never live again > a similar WCIT full of mistrust and despair. > > Olivier > (speaking entirely on my own behalf) > > > -- > 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 07:42:05 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:42:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <1794595643.66475.1355616317364.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e29> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <1794595643.66475.1355616317364.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e29> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > + 1 > > > > When I'm reading the mails on this list I'm wondering about the actual > status of a certain number of its correspondants/members ... > > In "historic times", I mean dusring the WSIS process and more specifically > its second phase, we -the CS folks- have been invaded by a batalion of > tunesian "not really non-governemental orgs" that happened to sabotage our > work and debates. At present there is just another brand of those "NR-ONG", > namely those who deny state sovereignty and multilateralism in > international governance. > Are you suggesting that CS give up our role in IG to states and the type of "multilateralism" we saw in Dubai? -- 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 avri at ella.com Sun Dec 16 07:57:44 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:57:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: References: <1800981407.636333.1355612778287.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> Message-ID: <4C4A9EDD-1200-451C-A449-DAA565688BE4@ella.com> On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not do > it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure that > they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had nothing > to answer to them. i think that most of the non government types on the delegations found their funding elsewhere. i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but perhaps I am uninformed. anyone else know of any? they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere. and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option. 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 vanda at uol.com.br Sun Dec 16 07:58:43 2012 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:58:43 -0200 Subject: [governance] Season Greetings Message-ID: <038801cddb8d$16bbf1e0$4433d5a0$@uol.com.br> Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Avenida Paulista 1159 cj 1004 01311-200 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 98181.1464 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2817 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 102552 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1020 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sun Dec 16 08:14:10 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:14:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> References: <1800981407.636333.1355612778287.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> Message-ID: > In closing, I’d say that this was not only a failure of the ITRs and the > ITU, it was a failure of Internet Governance too. Civil Society has the > ability to bridge the gap – and I know of several governments that have > understood this. Let’s work together to ensure we will never live again > a similar WCIT full of mistrust and despair. I do not see it as a failure. This was but one scene in a long play. As I read the analyses, as in most complex issues i think most of them have glimmers of truth and most miss at least some points. It will take a while to move out of the immediate reaction phase of analysis to considered analysis. I think MM is right in adding yet another contributing issue to the reason for non-signing. But I think he is wrong when he calls all the reasons he disagrees with hypocritical. Given that this is a MM piece we are talking about, we need to sort of overlook that bit of hyperbole, and find the good point he makes and add it to the overall analysis. I did not see more mistrust than is normal in an international setting. Or any human setting; get more than 1000+ people in a room arguing about stuff they beleive in for weeks, there is going to be a bit of stress. And as for despair, i think that was mostly sleep deprivation. I think there was very little real despair, except perhaps in those given to despair. The fighters and players in the room are tallying up their wins, losses and ties and gearing up for the next act. I do not think we can call this a failure, for any of the perspectives. The negotiations for the items in this ITR will continue for another few years, and the offending resolution will be much discussed between now and PP-14. It will be impossible to judge it a success or failure until 2015 when it takes effect. I think the discussion was a draw, everybody got a bit of what they wanted, a treaty was agreed to and the discussions continue. What is there to despair about? 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 Sun Dec 16 08:23:08 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:53:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai Message-ID: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> New York Times Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World * /by/ ERIC PFANNER * Dec. 14, 2012 At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff. What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now has many more users in the rest of the world? It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network. The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks of talks here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to engage in a public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they did near midnight on Thursday as the signing deadline approached. The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that it was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement in its current form.” United States delegates said the pact could encourage censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet oversight and replace it with government control. Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page text, which deals mostly with matters like the fees that telecommunications networks should charge one another for connecting calls across borders. After being excised from the pact at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty. The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” That convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to the Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by name so no one could call it an Internet treaty. A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the regulations “in a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations.” Both of these provisions were added during the final days of haggling in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If anything, the new treaty appears to make it more intellectually challenging for governments like China and Iran to justify their current censorship of the Internet. What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty signers should share control over the Internet address-assignment system — a function now handled by an international group based in the United States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to pay telecommunications networks for delivering material to users. Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in the negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like Britain and Canada? In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. Kramer cited a few remaining objections, like references to countering spam and to ensuring “the security and robustness of international telecommunications networks.” This wording, he argued, could be used by nefarious governments to justify crackdowns on free speech. But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that had mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other words, saw a chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong statement about the importance of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty and boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that even to talk about the appearance of global rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter. It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand would underline the importance of keeping the Internet open. “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of Internet freedom,” said Jochem de Groot, senior policy officer for the Internet and human rights in the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands, which joined the United States in opposition to the pact. That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency, the International Telecommunication Union — took place in this economically liberal but socially and politically battened-down emirate underscored the symbolism of the United States boycott of the final treaty. “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries around the world,” said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of the Tunisian Internet Agency, in an interview. “It’s a good message to start the debate.” Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian government of President Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of Tunisia, that country has taken a strong stand in support of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, Mr. Chakchouk said his government would sign the telecommunications treaty because he was satisfied with the free-speech guarantees that had been written into it. “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he said. “It’s not good when one country doesn’t understand the issues.” Working together could become more challenging as the Internet — especially bandwidth-hungry video applications — accounts for an ever greater share of global telecommunications traffic, and as more people in developing countries go online. According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the telecommunication union, the goal of the treaty was not to take control of the Internet — as critics had contended — but to narrow the digital divide. While the United States was talking about the open Internet, Mr. Touré and developing countries were talking about opening the Internet to more of the 4.5 billion people around the world who remain offline. Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating investment in broadband networks, for reducing cellphone roaming costs and for extending Internet access to disabled people in developing countries. The goal was to expand broadband at an affordable cost, not to regulate the content that travels on the Internet, he said. “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no highways for them to drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news conference on Friday, where the telecommunication union tried to put a positive spin on the messy pileup of the previous evening. As developing countries gain better access, the numbers game will continue to tilt against the United States and other developed countries that have championed the cause of an open Internet. The Internet population of China — 538 million as of June, according to the Chinese government — is already nearly double that of the United States. Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in developing countries, governments and citizens of these countries might also grow more tolerant of it. “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in its view of the Internet and its relationship to society in the coming century,” Mr. Kramer said. By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would not, Mr. Touré said, with the rest still undecided or undeclared. Holdouts could change their minds and sign later. Mr. Touré said he was hopeful that the United States would eventually do so, though Mr. Kramer said this was unlikely. Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious prospect of a treaty largely negotiated to suit the United States’ position and applying mostly to developing countries, many of which seemed perfectly happy with the outcome. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1110 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Sun Dec 16 09:12:21 2012 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:12:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Not defending Google per se, but... Leaving out the cyberspace part for the moment, ALL companies seek to reduce costs, including taxes. Mattel, DuPont, GE, Pfizer all pay little or no tax. Some even get tax rebates based on billion dollar profits. (Yes, that's madness, for a company to have a -57% effective tax rate, on profits in the billions, but it's the law.) Google legally routed profits and reduced their tax bill. It's the fault of the UK tax regime that allowed them to shift profit overseas and not pay taxes on it. Yes, this is a problem for countries, but it is not incumbent on a company to fix the tax regime of a country in which it operates. The Govts need to make sure that the routing of profits that companies currently do legally, to reduce the tax that is owed, is no longer legal. Taxation regimes around the world are complex, full of loopholes put in to support "friends of govt" which are then are used by others, and oops! we've got no tax revenue coming in, and the companies that filled out their tax bill according to the law are suddenly evil. CS can and should work on the governments to close these loopholes that they create for their friends and for the lobbyists. But is this totally IG? I don't think so. I understand where Parminder is coming from, with the idea that small and developing countries do not have the size/power to say - pay our taxes or else. But this isn't IG, in my opinion. The IG part is figuring out what portion of value and business, and hence tax revenue, goes where in a mutli -national/multi-jurisdictional cyber transaction. And to that, the IGC can, and should, look at this issue, look at the harmonisation efforts going on in Europe and elsewhere, and suggest workable mechanisms for collection and fair/equitable division of revenues from these transactions. Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Dear Parm, unfortunately (again) I am unable to follow up closely on the thread. But one point intrigues me: taxes are determined by governments within their geopolitical boundaries. Why don't governments charge appropriate taxes (if any) on services such as Google's? > > The point is: I do not think a corporation of that size just evades taxes and keeps an eye for what may happen. The certainly know about tax legislation in the countries they have operations. > > What is the proper way to define a policy on this for us? > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > On 12/13/2012 02:33 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! >> It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and >> advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered >> operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, >> and so on. >> >> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is >> anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or >> is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional >> questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and >> its coordinator. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>> More on Bloomberg: >>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out >>> against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the >>> release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. >>> >>> Source: >>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>> >>> >>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >>> taxes) >>> >>> Posted By TelecomTV One >>> , >>> >>> 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >>> | >>> [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an >>> average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] (0) >>> Tags: /Google >>> / >>> /corporate >>> / /tax >>> / >>> /Finance >>> / >>> >>> >>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >>> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing >>> income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just >>> 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>> >>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >>> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and >>> corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, >>> we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal >>> requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the >>> politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the >>> amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms >>> are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with >>> far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to >>> contribute to your share as well. >>> >>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >>> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >>> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that >>> means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >>> >>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >>> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >>> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe >>> that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing >>> the level of available State support for the most needy) and could >>> be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that >>> Google is acting in an evil manner. >>> >>> An investigative report by Bloomberg >>> has >>> >>> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide >>> income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a >>> Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years >>> ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a >>> Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by >>> reporters from Bloomberg. >>> >>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >>> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income >>> tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in >>> half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to >>> about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >>> >>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >>> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >>> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent >>> this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >>> >>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >>> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According >>> to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >>> >>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >>> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political >>> awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree >>> elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that >>> if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get cut.” >>> >>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered >>> the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely >>> nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. >>> >>> Advertisement >>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>> >>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 >>> per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, >>> it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg >>> says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects >>> revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to >>> another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. >>> Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >>> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the >>> tax haven of Bermuda. >>> >>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >>> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >>> Things We Know to be True” page on Google >>> ’s website is the >>> >>> following: >>> >>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>> >>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything >>> but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to >>> shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of >>> these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no >>> indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but >>> there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >>> >>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you >>> can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that >>> corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the >>> right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to >>> boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the >>> sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ >>> positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see >>> why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>> >>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >>> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >>> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and >>> Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt >>> will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp >>> practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments >>> can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers >>> to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As >>> Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message >>> that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the >>> many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of >>> recession. >>> >>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some >>> leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT >>> industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and >>> out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for all. >>> >>> _Further reading: _The Pearse Trust >>> blog >>> >>> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch >>> Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>> >>> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 16 09:21:49 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:51:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4485D7D0-3DD8-4E88-80DE-A6D8B1847B75@hserus.net> At least, a matter for a different part of the UN that you would not particularly consider cyber .. http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/manual.htm And OECD does have a working set of best practices, despite some people on this list detesting it as a rich countries club, dubbing their policy recommendations "forcing regulation" on other countries. http://www.oecd.org/tax/fightingtaxevasion.htm --srs (iPad) On 16-Dec-2012, at 19:42, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > Not defending Google per se, but... > > Leaving out the cyberspace part for the moment, ALL companies seek to > reduce costs, including taxes. Mattel, DuPont, GE, Pfizer all pay > little or no tax. Some even get tax rebates based on billion dollar > profits. (Yes, that's madness, for a company to have a -57% effective > tax rate, on profits in the billions, but it's the law.) > Google legally routed profits and reduced their tax bill. It's the > fault of the UK tax regime that allowed them to shift profit overseas > and not pay taxes on it. > > Yes, this is a problem for countries, but it is not incumbent on a > company to fix the tax regime of a country in which it operates. The > Govts need to make sure that the routing of profits that companies > currently do legally, to reduce the tax that is owed, is no longer > legal. Taxation regimes around the world are complex, full of > loopholes put in to support "friends of govt" which are then are used > by others, and oops! we've got no tax revenue coming in, and the > companies that filled out their tax bill according to the law are > suddenly evil. CS can and should work on the governments to close > these loopholes that they create for their friends and for the > lobbyists. But is this totally IG? I don't think so. > > I understand where Parminder is coming from, with the idea that small > and developing countries do not have the size/power to say - pay our > taxes or else. But this isn't IG, in my opinion. > > The IG part is figuring out what portion of value and business, and > hence tax revenue, goes where in a mutli > -national/multi-jurisdictional cyber transaction. And to that, the IGC > can, and should, look at this issue, look at the harmonisation efforts > going on in Europe and elsewhere, and suggest workable mechanisms for > collection and fair/equitable division of revenues from these > transactions. > > > Jacqueline A. Morris > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and > Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> Dear Parm, unfortunately (again) I am unable to follow up closely on the thread. But one point intrigues me: taxes are determined by governments within their geopolitical boundaries. Why don't governments charge appropriate taxes (if any) on services such as Google's? >> >> The point is: I do not think a corporation of that size just evades taxes and keeps an eye for what may happen. The certainly know about tax legislation in the countries they have operations. >> >> What is the proper way to define a policy on this for us? >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> On 12/13/2012 02:33 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! >>> It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and >>> advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered >>> operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, >>> and so on. >>> >>> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is >>> anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or >>> is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional >>> questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and >>> its coordinator. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>> More on Bloomberg: >>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out >>>> against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the >>>> release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. >>>> >>>> Source: >>>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>>> >>>> >>>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >>>> taxes) >>>> >>>> Posted By TelecomTV One >>>> , >>>> >>>> 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >>>> | >>>> [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an >>>> average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] (0) >>>> Tags: /Google >>>> / >>>> /corporate >>>> / /tax >>>> / >>>> /Finance >>>> / >>>> >>>> >>>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >>>> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing >>>> income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just >>>> 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>>> >>>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >>>> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and >>>> corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, >>>> we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal >>>> requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the >>>> politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the >>>> amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms >>>> are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with >>>> far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to >>>> contribute to your share as well. >>>> >>>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >>>> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >>>> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that >>>> means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >>>> >>>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >>>> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >>>> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe >>>> that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing >>>> the level of available State support for the most needy) and could >>>> be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that >>>> Google is acting in an evil manner. >>>> >>>> An investigative report by Bloomberg >>>> has >>>> >>>> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide >>>> income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a >>>> Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years >>>> ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a >>>> Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by >>>> reporters from Bloomberg. >>>> >>>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >>>> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income >>>> tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in >>>> half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to >>>> about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >>>> >>>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >>>> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >>>> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent >>>> this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >>>> >>>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >>>> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According >>>> to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >>>> >>>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >>>> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political >>>> awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree >>>> elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that >>>> if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get cut.” >>>> >>>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered >>>> the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely >>>> nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. >>>> >>>> Advertisement >>>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>>> >>>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 >>>> per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, >>>> it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg >>>> says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects >>>> revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to >>>> another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. >>>> Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >>>> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the >>>> tax haven of Bermuda. >>>> >>>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >>>> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >>>> Things We Know to be True” page on Google >>>> ’s website is the >>>> >>>> following: >>>> >>>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>>> >>>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything >>>> but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to >>>> shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of >>>> these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no >>>> indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but >>>> there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >>>> >>>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you >>>> can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that >>>> corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the >>>> right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to >>>> boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the >>>> sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ >>>> positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see >>>> why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>>> >>>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >>>> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >>>> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and >>>> Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt >>>> will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp >>>> practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments >>>> can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers >>>> to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As >>>> Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message >>>> that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the >>>> many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of >>>> recession. >>>> >>>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some >>>> leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT >>>> industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and >>>> out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for all. >>>> >>>> _Further reading: _The Pearse Trust >>>> blog >>>> >>>> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch >>>> Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Sun Dec 16 10:06:28 2012 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:06:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Concerns regarding WCIT process and content In-Reply-To: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> References: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> Message-ID: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C17B4EC@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> On Dec 15, 2012, at 4:54 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Dear all, > > I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's blog post > here, to widen the discussion. Please find below. > ... Olivier - Thank you for posting here. Note that the Regional Internet Registries, (via the NRO) issued also a post-WCIT statement citing many of the same concerns: FYI, /John John Curran Chair, Number Resource Organization (President and CEO, ARIN) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Dec 16 10:15:32 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:15:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Russia In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <50CC97BD.80503@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <1e9UV2lUWezQFA0F@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78E at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de >, at 21:33:49 on Sat, 15 Dec 2012, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" writes >The Russian government should raise its problems with "Internet naming >and numbering" in ICANNs GAC. The GAC does very little with regard to Internet Numbering, the Russian Government needs to engage with the various arms of RIPE NCC in order to be able to influence that. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Dec 16 10:19:57 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:19:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: <72C5F103-16E8-4BE0-B69F-4B7AD18C7B09@hserus.net> References: <72C5F103-16E8-4BE0-B69F-4B7AD18C7B09@hserus.net> Message-ID: In message <72C5F103-16E8-4BE0-B69F-4B7AD18C7B09 at hserus.net>, at 07:36:31 on Sun, 16 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >As it happens, my opinion is thst st least the dmca makes very little >sense and its enforcement is fraught with problems The DMCA was a very interesting experiment, in that the vast majority of content taken down as a result of complaints was never asked to be reinstated by the original culprit. What that tells me is (1) That they knew they should never have posted the infringing content in the first place and (2) The DMCA has not been used to censor very much legitimate content - because it's so easy to get it put back. -- 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 10:26:08 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:26:08 -0200 Subject: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: This is a good article because every story can be interpreted in many ways and all of them deserve to be told. NYT presents some interesting reflections, at least to balance a very monolithic media analysis so far. Marilia On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 11:23 AM, parminder wrote: > > > > [image: New York Times] > Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World > > - *by* ERIC PFANNER > - ** Dec. 14, 2012 ** > > ** > ** ** > > At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United > States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document > and left in a huff. > > What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the > Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now has > many more users in the rest of the world? > > It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming > years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal to > acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network. > > The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided > the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed > it. And other participants in the two weeks of talks here were left > wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been negotiating in good > faith or had planned all along to engage in a public debate only to make a > dramatic exit, as they did near midnight on Thursday as the signing > deadline approached. > > The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that it was > “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement in its current > form.” United States delegates said the pact could encourage censorship and > undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet oversight and > replace it with government control. > > Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these assertions. > “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page text, which deals mostly > with matters like the fees that telecommunications networks should charge > one another for connecting calls across borders. After being excised from > the pact at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a > soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty. > > The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do not > address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” That convoluted > phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to the Internet, delegates > said, but without referring to it by name so no one could call it an > Internet treaty. > > A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the regulations “in > a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations.” > > Both of these provisions were added during the final days of haggling in > Dubai, with the support of the United States. If anything, the new treaty > appears to make it more intellectually challenging for governments like > China and Iran to justify their current censorship of the Internet. > > What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the United > States were removed. One of those stated that treaty signers should share > control over the Internet address-assignment system — a function now > handled by an international group based in the United States. The other, > also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for Internet companies like > Google and Facebook to pay telecommunications networks for delivering > material to users. > > Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in the > negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour intervention > that had clearly been coordinated with allies like Britain and Canada? > > In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. Kramer > cited a few remaining objections, like references to countering spam and to > ensuring “the security and robustness of international telecommunications > networks.” This wording, he argued, could be used by nefarious governments > to justify crackdowns on free speech. > > But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less > tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that had > mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other words, saw a > chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong statement about the > importance of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty and > boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that even to talk about > the appearance of global rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter. > > It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in Europe > were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand would underline > the importance of keeping the Internet open. > > “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of Internet freedom,” > said Jochem de Groot, senior policy officer for the Internet and human > rights in the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands, which joined the United > States in opposition to the pact. > > That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency, the International > Telecommunication Union — took place in this economically liberal but > socially and politically battened-down emirate underscored the symbolism of > the United States boycott of the final treaty. > > “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries around the world,” > said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of the Tunisian Internet Agency, in an > interview. “It’s a good message to start the debate.” > > Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian government of President > Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of Tunisia, that country has taken a strong stand > in support of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, Mr. Chakchouk said his > government would sign the telecommunications treaty because he was > satisfied with the free-speech guarantees that had been written into it. > > “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he said. “It’s not good > when one country doesn’t understand the issues.” > > Working together could become more challenging as the Internet — > especially bandwidth-hungry video applications — accounts for an ever > greater share of global telecommunications traffic, and as more people in > developing countries go online. > > According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the telecommunication > union, the goal of the treaty was not to take control of the Internet — as > critics had contended — but to narrow the digital divide. > > While the United States was talking about the open Internet, Mr. Touré and > developing countries were talking about opening the Internet to more of the > 4.5 billion people around the world who remain offline. > > Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating investment in > broadband networks, for reducing cellphone roaming costs and for extending > Internet access to disabled people in developing countries. The goal was to > expand broadband at an affordable cost, not to regulate the content that > travels on the Internet, he said. > > “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no highways for them to > drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news conference on Friday, where the > telecommunication union tried to put a positive spin on the messy pileup of > the previous evening. > > As developing countries gain better access, the numbers game will continue > to tilt against the United States and other developed countries that have > championed the cause of an open Internet. The Internet population of China > — 538 million as of June, according to the Chinese government — is already > nearly double that of the United States. > > Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in developing countries, > governments and citizens of these countries might also grow more tolerant > of it. > > “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in its view of the > Internet and its relationship to society in the coming century,” Mr. Kramer > said. > > By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had > signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would not, > Mr. Touré said, with the rest still undecided or undeclared. Holdouts could > change their minds and sign later. Mr. Touré said he was hopeful that the > United States would eventually do so, though Mr. Kramer said this was > unlikely. > > Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious prospect of a treaty > largely negotiated to suit the United States’ position and applying mostly > to developing countries, many of which seemed perfectly happy with the > outcome. > ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1110 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 peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Sun Dec 16 10:32:19 2012 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:32:19 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <00af01cddba2$8931ce60$9b956b20$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> The New York Times wrote: “The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it.” Guess we need to send the NY Times reporter some real statistics and correct the reporting: Regarding the “handful of Western allies”: Of the 42 European countries, 35 countries refused to sign the treaty. Of the 35 countries in The Americas, 6 countries refused to sign the treaty. So, while the American delegation was joined by only a handful of allies in The Americas, it was forcefully supported by seven handfuls of European allies, plus 3 handfuls of allies from African, Asian and CIS countries. And it is clear that the European countries were not merely following the lead of the US, but had very clearly stated in prior consultations what they would stand for and what not. The “what not” was that Europe did not want the ITRs to extend to the Internet or content, including spam, or security issues. Regarding the “most other nations signed it”: Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital. How could this reporter claim that “most other nations signed it”?? Peter H. Hellmonds Public & International Affairs peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu +49 (160) 360-2852 Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: 16 December 2012 14:23 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai New York Times Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World * by ERIC PFANNER * Dec. 14, 2012 At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff. What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now has many more users in the rest of the world? It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network. The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks of talks here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to engage in a public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they did near midnight on Thursday as the signing deadline approached. The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that it was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement in its current form.” United States delegates said the pact could encourage censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet oversight and replace it with government control. Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page text, which deals mostly with matters like the fees that telecommunications networks should charge one another for connecting calls across borders. After being excised from the pact at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty. The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” That convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to the Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by name so no one could call it an Internet treaty. A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the regulations “in a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations.” Both of these provisions were added during the final days of haggling in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If anything, the new treaty appears to make it more intellectually challenging for governments like China and Iran to justify their current censorship of the Internet. What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty signers should share control over the Internet address-assignment system — a function now handled by an international group based in the United States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to pay telecommunications networks for delivering material to users. Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in the negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like Britain and Canada? In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. Kramer cited a few remaining objections, like references to countering spam and to ensuring “the security and robustness of international telecommunications networks.” This wording, he argued, could be used by nefarious governments to justify crackdowns on free speech. But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that had mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other words, saw a chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong statement about the importance of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty and boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that even to talk about the appearance of global rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter. It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand would underline the importance of keeping the Internet open. “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of Internet freedom,” said Jochem de Groot, senior policy officer for the Internet and human rights in the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands, which joined the United States in opposition to the pact. That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency, the International Telecommunication Union — took place in this economically liberal but socially and politically battened-down emirate underscored the symbolism of the United States boycott of the final treaty. “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries around the world,” said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of the Tunisian Internet Agency, in an interview. “It’s a good message to start the debate.” Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian government of President Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of Tunisia, that country has taken a strong stand in support of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, Mr. Chakchouk said his government would sign the telecommunications treaty because he was satisfied with the free-speech guarantees that had been written into it. “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he said. “It’s not good when one country doesn’t understand the issues.” Working together could become more challenging as the Internet — especially bandwidth-hungry video applications — accounts for an ever greater share of global telecommunications traffic, and as more people in developing countries go online. According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the telecommunication union, the goal of the treaty was not to take control of the Internet — as critics had contended — but to narrow the digital divide. While the United States was talking about the open Internet, Mr. Touré and developing countries were talking about opening the Internet to more of the 4.5 billion people around the world who remain offline. Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating investment in broadband networks, for reducing cellphone roaming costs and for extending Internet access to disabled people in developing countries. The goal was to expand broadband at an affordable cost, not to regulate the content that travels on the Internet, he said. “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no highways for them to drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news conference on Friday, where the telecommunication union tried to put a positive spin on the messy pileup of the previous evening. As developing countries gain better access, the numbers game will continue to tilt against the United States and other developed countries that have championed the cause of an open Internet. The Internet population of China — 538 million as of June, according to the Chinese government — is already nearly double that of the United States. Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in developing countries, governments and citizens of these countries might also grow more tolerant of it. “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in its view of the Internet and its relationship to society in the coming century,” Mr. Kramer said. By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would not, Mr. Touré said, with the rest still undecided or undeclared. Holdouts could change their minds and sign later. Mr. Touré said he was hopeful that the United States would eventually do so, though Mr. Kramer said this was unlikely. Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious prospect of a treaty largely negotiated to suit the United States’ position and applying mostly to developing countries, many of which seemed perfectly happy with the outcome. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1110 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 Sun Dec 16 10:40:07 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:10:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Russia In-Reply-To: <1e9UV2lUWezQFA0F@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <50CC97BD.80503@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1e9UV2lUWezQFA0F@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <964000AA-413C-44AC-9FF0-E6728BCFAA42@hserus.net> With the ripe NCC for their local area of coverage yes. And for naming with the .ru ccTLD and with local registrars. But has there been any indication of the scope here? This seems to be targeted at Russian citizens that buy a domain from just about anywhere, and possibly to at least get themselves the equivalent of a nationwide LIR,ostensibly under the RIPE framework but more or less completely independent. This viewpoint isn't something that is very unique. Various indian government officials seem to have conflated a rather long and recently accomplished attempt to get an APNIC NIR in India (an attempt accompanied by a great deal of acrimony shall we say) as some form of national control over IP address allocation, solely for the convenience of local law enforcement. Which is kind of short sighted as I say in my comment to the article (you have to click the comments link for them to open, not visible by default) http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/government-to-come-up-with-latest-version-of-net-addresses-to-combat-cyber-crime/articleshow/17394621.cms --srs (iPad) On 16-Dec-2012, at 20:45, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78E at server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de > >, at 21:33:49 on Sat, 15 Dec 2012, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" writes > >> The Russian government should raise its problems with "Internet naming >> and numbering" in ICANNs GAC. > > The GAC does very little with regard to Internet Numbering, the Russian > Government needs to engage with the various arms of RIPE NCC in order to be able to influence that. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 16 10:46:32 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:16:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: <72C5F103-16E8-4BE0-B69F-4B7AD18C7B09@hserus.net> Message-ID: There are of course amusing stories about an IP address that's assigned to, say, a scanner being claimed as a downloader of the hobbit movie or whatever. And not so amusing stories about ISPs that receive dmca demands asking them to reveal a user's identity, in bulk lots of a few thousand a time, with the barest accompanying detail. And courts cracking down on vendors of these bulk dmca takedown notice technology. Yes there is a vast majority of people who download and upload random copyrighted contents on the "everybody does it" and "the chances of my being caught are slim" principles .. Only to find out just how heavily automated the entire process is. ISPs who, believe it or not, do have a privacy policy that they balance their terms of use policy against, and are just as averse to litigation and bad press from a botched dmca takedown as they are to facing the consequences of disregarding a valid takedown request, tend to be caught in a cleft stick, and best practices for handling such requests is a fairly evolving area. --srs (iPad) On 16-Dec-2012, at 20:49, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <72C5F103-16E8-4BE0-B69F-4B7AD18C7B09 at hserus.net>, at 07:36:31 on Sun, 16 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >> As it happens, my opinion is thst st least the dmca makes very little sense and its enforcement is fraught with problems > > The DMCA was a very interesting experiment, in that the vast majority of content taken down as a result of complaints was never asked to be reinstated by the original culprit. > > What that tells me is (1) That they knew they should never have posted the infringing content in the first place and (2) The DMCA has not been used to censor very much legitimate content - because it's so easy to get it put back. > -- > 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 10:48:44 2012 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:48:44 -0200 Subject: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: <50cde9c2.6763b40a.32fa.ffffe62dSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <50cde9c2.6763b40a.32fa.ffffe62dSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Peter, good point about the figures. Most coverages are messing up on that regard, both when they try to talk about the numbers or when they try make generalizations such as "all democratic countries were against the regulation, whereas the dictatorships supported it". But another thing that has been bothering me is the use of words like "Western allies". It seems that media - which always needs drama to sell papers - want to re-criate a "cold-war" or, even worse a West x East clash of civilizations. All these concepts can be very harmful to the interests of the peoples of the world. Words can be power forces that act on our deep unconcious minds, we need to be very careful on the way we employ them. Marília On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds < peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu> wrote: > The New York Times wrote:**** > > ** ** > > “The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided > the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed > it.”**** > > ** ** > > Guess we need to send the NY Times reporter some real statistics and > correct the reporting:**** > > ** ** > > *Regarding the “handful of Western allies”:* > > Of the 42 European countries, 35 countries refused to sign the treaty.**** > > Of the 35 countries in The Americas, 6 countries refused to sign the > treaty.**** > > ** ** > > So, while the American delegation was joined by only a handful of allies > in The Americas, it was forcefully supported by seven handfuls of European > allies, plus 3 handfuls of allies from African, Asian and CIS countries.** > ** > > ** ** > > And it is clear that the European countries were not merely following the > lead of the US, but had very clearly stated in prior consultations what > they would stand for and what not. The “what not” was that Europe did not > want the ITRs to extend to the Internet or content, including spam, or > security issues.**** > > ** ** > > *Regarding the “most other nations signed it”:* > > Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed the > treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the countries were > undecided or needed to consult with their capital. How could this reporter > claim that “most other nations signed it”?? **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Peter H. Hellmonds**** > > Public & International Affairs**** > > peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu**** > > +49 (160) 360-2852**** > > ** ** > > *Von:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder > *Gesendet:* 16 December 2012 14:23 > *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Betreff:* [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in > Dubai**** > > ** ** > > > > > [image: New York Times]**** > Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World**** > > - *by* ERIC PFANNER **** > - Dec. 14, 2012 **** > > At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United > States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document > and left in a huff. **** > > What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the > Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now has > many more users in the rest of the world? **** > > It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming > years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal to > acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network. **** > > The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided > the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed > it. And other participants in the two weeks of talks here were left > wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been negotiating in good > faith or had planned all along to engage in a public debate only to make a > dramatic exit, as they did near midnight on Thursday as the signing > deadline approached. **** > > The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that it was > “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement in its current > form.” United States delegates said the pact could encourage censorship and > undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet oversight and > replace it with government control. **** > > Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these assertions. > “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page text, which deals mostly > with matters like the fees that telecommunications networks should charge > one another for connecting calls across borders. After being excised from > the pact at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a > soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty. **** > > The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do not > address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” That convoluted > phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to the Internet, delegates > said, but without referring to it by name so no one could call it an > Internet treaty. **** > > A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the regulations “in > a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations.” **** > > Both of these provisions were added during the final days of haggling in > Dubai, with the support of the United States. If anything, the new treaty > appears to make it more intellectually challenging for governments like > China and Iran to justify their current censorship of the Internet. **** > > What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the United > States were removed. One of those stated that treaty signers should share > control over the Internet address-assignment system — a function now > handled by an international group based in the United States. The other, > also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for Internet companies like > Google and Facebook to pay telecommunications networks for delivering > material to users. **** > > Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in the > negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour intervention > that had clearly been coordinated with allies like Britain and Canada? *** > * > > In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. Kramer > cited a few remaining objections, like references to countering spam and to > ensuring “the security and robustness of international telecommunications > networks.” This wording, he argued, could be used by nefarious governments > to justify crackdowns on free speech. **** > > But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less > tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that had > mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other words, saw a > chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong statement about the > importance of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty and > boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that even to talk about > the appearance of global rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter. **** > > It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in Europe > were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand would underline > the importance of keeping the Internet open. **** > > “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of Internet freedom,” > said Jochem de Groot, senior policy officer for the Internet and human > rights in the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands, which joined the United > States in opposition to the pact. **** > > That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency, the International > Telecommunication Union — took place in this economically liberal but > socially and politically battened-down emirate underscored the symbolism of > the United States boycott of the final treaty. **** > > “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries around the world,” > said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of the Tunisian Internet Agency, in an > interview. “It’s a good message to start the debate.” **** > > Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian government of President > Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of Tunisia, that country has taken a strong stand > in support of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, Mr. Chakchouk said his > government would sign the telecommunications treaty because he was > satisfied with the free-speech guarantees that had been written into it. * > *** > > “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he said. “It’s not good > when one country doesn’t understand the issues.” **** > > Working together could become more challenging as the Internet — > especially bandwidth-hungry video applications — accounts for an ever > greater share of global telecommunications traffic, and as more people in > developing countries go online. **** > > According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the telecommunication > union, the goal of the treaty was not to take control of the Internet — as > critics had contended — but to narrow the digital divide. **** > > While the United States was talking about the open Internet, Mr. Touré and > developing countries were talking about opening the Internet to more of the > 4.5 billion people around the world who remain offline. **** > > Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating investment in > broadband networks, for reducing cellphone roaming costs and for extending > Internet access to disabled people in developing countries. The goal was to > expand broadband at an affordable cost, not to regulate the content that > travels on the Internet, he said. **** > > “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no highways for them to > drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news conference on Friday, where the > telecommunication union tried to put a positive spin on the messy pileup of > the previous evening. **** > > As developing countries gain better access, the numbers game will continue > to tilt against the United States and other developed countries that have > championed the cause of an open Internet. The Internet population of China > — 538 million as of June, according to the Chinese government — is already > nearly double that of the United States. **** > > Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in developing countries, > governments and citizens of these countries might also grow more tolerant > of it. **** > > “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in its view of the > Internet and its relationship to society in the coming century,” Mr. Kramer > said. **** > > By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had > signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would not, > Mr. Touré said, with the rest still undecided or undeclared. Holdouts could > change their minds and sign later. Mr. Touré said he was hopeful that the > United States would eventually do so, though Mr. Kramer said this was > unlikely. **** > > Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious prospect of a treaty > largely negotiated to suit the United States’ position and applying mostly > to developing countries, many of which seemed perfectly happy with the > outcome. **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1110 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 10:55:25 2012 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:55:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] Russia In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA9082@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> References: <50CC97BD.80503@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA9082@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Message-ID: Dear Alejandro & Wolfgang: Just for an update: Abdullah AlDarrab is currently the head of the TRA in Saudi Arabia. Qusai On Sunday, December 16, 2012, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Wolfgang, > > thanks for providing this important level of detail in facts and accurate > interpretation of their implications. > > For the record the friend you mention is Abullah Al-Tarrab (or Al-Darrab) > and he has indeed been a significant actor since at least WGIG times. > though officially he is in a telecommunications company, he is a government > representative, not the least because the company is or was > government-owned or controlled. > > Thanks again. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org ] en nombre de > "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > ] > Enviado el: sábado, 15 de diciembre de 2012 14:33 > Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Asunto: [governance] Russia > > Hi > > back from Dubai I still have to figure out what the main conclusions are. > > I disagree with Milton both with regard to 5A & 5B as well as with the > resolution. > > 1. Look at the statement from the Russian Federation in the signing > ceremony. This what you get if you agree - in the spirit of consensus - to > unclear language in a legally binding treaty. 5A & 5B would have been > acceptable in a WSIS like (non-binding) political declaration but not in a > legally binding treaty where different interpretations (as we know from > "enhanced cooperation") will produce not only an endless political > discussion but can lead to legal cases. Here is the offocuial text from the > RF: > > The delegation of the Russian Federation "proceeds from the assumption > that views the Internet as a new global telecommunication infrastructure, > and also as a part of the national telecommunication infrastructure of each > Member State, and, accordingly, at ensuring that Internet numbering, > naming, addressing and identification resources are considered a critical > transnational resource, and reserves for its Government the right to: > > 1) establish and implement public policy, including international policy, > on matters of Internet governance, and ensure security of the national > Internet segment, as well as regulate within their territory the activities > of operating agencies providing Internet access or carrying Internet > traffic; > > 2) establish policies aimed at meeting public requirements with respect to > Internet access and use; > > 3) take necessary regulatory measures to ensure security and confidence in > provision international telecommunications services, provide implementation > of these measures by operating agencies; > > 4) take any action it may deem necessary to protect its sovereign rights > and interests in the sphere of telecommunications should violation of the > Regulations or reservations, or actions taken by other Member States > jeopardize its telecommunication services." > > The Russian government should raise its problems with "Internet naming and > numbering" in ICANNs GAC. But this is not what it wants. It wants to see > that it controls not only its own cctLD but also the name of a registrant > (living under Russian jurisdiction) wh0o has registered iwan.com via a > registrar in Germany. This brings us further down the road into the issue > of the extension of national sovereignty into cyberspace. Howe far this > will go? > > The second point is the Internet Resolution. There was no discussion of > the varioous elements. When p. 55 of the Tunis agenda was proposed to add > to 38, Abdulla from Saudi-Arabia (he was a WGIG member and knows exactly > the language) intervened and blocked it. If you refer only to 38 this > brings you back to the day of WSIS 1, long before Tunis time. Para. 55 in > the Tunis agenda recognized the "existing system". Rejecting para. 55 means > non-recognition of the existing Internet Governance Eco-System. Furthermore > the "invites" both to the Member States and to the ITU SG in the proposed > resolutions did mention the multistakeholder model but it was unclear > whether the ITU should become part of the broader IG Eco-System or should > develop its own alternative multistakeholder Internet Governance model as > an alternative to the existing Eco-System. Before we came to the discussion > of the "invites" Iran proposed the voting. The chair wanted before a voting > get the "temperature" of the room. Hands were raised but not really > counted. In my eyes it was around 60 for the resolution as it stands > (without 55 Tunis agenda) and 40 against. A lot of delöegatiopns were > confused. And then the chair declared the "temperature measurement" as a > decision by the chair to adopt the resolution as it is. The other day he > said this was not a formal voting but he decided (in consultaiton with the > ITU SG) that the resolution should remain as it was. Germany had prepared > additional language for the "invite" part to make clear that ITU should > enhance its cooperation with the existing IG eco-system (to avoid that the > invitation can be interpreted to start the building of an own (alternative) > multistakeholder IG system (under ITU/Member States leadership as we know > from the WSIS Forum). But we had no chance to propose the language. This > was a classical case for ITU autoracy. We planned also to invite ITU > memberstates to patricipate actively in ICANNs GAC. But Abdullas said that > Saudi Arabia will never become a member of the GAC. Insofar the rejection > of the resolution was well justified. > > Best wishes > > wolfgang > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Sun Dec 16 10:59:41 2012 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:59:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] WCIT and Democracy Infographic Message-ID: Infographic on correlation between democracy and support for WCIT ITRs updated with final results. http://infogr.am/-mebuell_1355447340 Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 11:03:15 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:33:15 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: <00af01cddba2$8931ce60$9b956b20$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <00af01cddba2$8931ce60$9b956b20$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <12AA85B5-FF9D-42E3-9A24-DBE7538658AB@hserus.net> I agree. This is not simply brushed aside as OECD economies against the developing world, or a Cold War traditional enemies squaring off. The dynamics are entirely different here and it is unfair, not to mention disingenuous to try and cast the debate in these terms. Several countries that do sign tend to sign with reservations, stipulating their treaty or other obligations as overriding anything in the ITRs, as well as doing a line by line reading with thir government and evolving a partial acceptance of various causes in the ITRs. Consequences? * Countries that already have repressive Internet controls in place and signed the ITRs merely have one more shot in their locker to claim legitimacy of their measures, and one more ongoing venue in what promises to be a messy political battle. * The ITU cybersecurity division and various ITU-T study groups get a wonderful new source of funding and a broader mandate (at least within ITU circles) to continue whatever cybersecurity work they have pursued. Manna from heaven, so to speak [1] " ... any more? [1] To be fair, till 2007..08 - or just before and in the early days of the Toure regime, ITU did produce several documents and hosted open conferences (free entry and interventions to industry and civil society) that broadly advocated multistakeholder cooperation and best practices, inviting a variety of mostly apolitical external consultants. Not very much since then, sadly. --srs (iPad) On 16-Dec-2012, at 21:02, "Peter H. Hellmonds" wrote: > The New York Times wrote: > > “The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it.” > > Guess we need to send the NY Times reporter some real statistics and correct the reporting: > > Regarding the “handful of Western allies”: > Of the 42 European countries, 35 countries refused to sign the treaty. > Of the 35 countries in The Americas, 6 countries refused to sign the treaty. > > So, while the American delegation was joined by only a handful of allies in The Americas, it was forcefully supported by seven handfuls of European allies, plus 3 handfuls of allies from African, Asian and CIS countries. > > And it is clear that the European countries were not merely following the lead of the US, but had very clearly stated in prior consultations what they would stand for and what not. The “what not” was that Europe did not want the ITRs to extend to the Internet or content, including spam, or security issues. > > Regarding the “most other nations signed it”: > Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital. How could this reporter claim that “most other nations signed it”?? > > > Peter H. Hellmonds > Public & International Affairs > peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu > +49 (160) 360-2852 > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder > Gesendet: 16 December 2012 14:23 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Betreff: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai > > > > > > Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World > > by ERIC PFANNER > Dec. 14, 2012 > At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff. > > What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now has many more users in the rest of the world? > > It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network. > > The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks of talks here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to engage in a public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they did near midnight on Thursday as the signing deadline approached. > > The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that it was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement in its current form.” United States delegates said the pact could encourage censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet oversight and replace it with government control. > > Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page text, which deals mostly with matters like the fees that telecommunications networks should charge one another for connecting calls across borders. After being excised from the pact at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty. > > The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” That convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to the Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by name so no one could call it an Internet treaty. > > A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the regulations “in a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations.” > > Both of these provisions were added during the final days of haggling in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If anything, the new treaty appears to make it more intellectually challenging for governments like China and Iran to justify their current censorship of the Internet. > > What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty signers should share control over the Internet address-assignment system — a function now handled by an international group based in the United States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to pay telecommunications networks for delivering material to users. > > Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in the negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like Britain and Canada? > > In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. Kramer cited a few remaining objections, like references to countering spam and to ensuring “the security and robustness of international telecommunications networks.” This wording, he argued, could be used by nefarious governments to justify crackdowns on free speech. > > But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that had mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other words, saw a chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong statement about the importance of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty and boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that even to talk about the appearance of global rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter. > > It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand would underline the importance of keeping the Internet open. > > “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of Internet freedom,” said Jochem de Groot, senior policy officer for the Internet and human rights in the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands, which joined the United States in opposition to the pact. > > That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency, the International Telecommunication Union — took place in this economically liberal but socially and politically battened-down emirate underscored the symbolism of the United States boycott of the final treaty. > > “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries around the world,” said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of the Tunisian Internet Agency, in an interview. “It’s a good message to start the debate.” > > Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian government of President Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of Tunisia, that country has taken a strong stand in support of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, Mr. Chakchouk said his government would sign the telecommunications treaty because he was satisfied with the free-speech guarantees that had been written into it. > > “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he said. “It’s not good when one country doesn’t understand the issues.” > > Working together could become more challenging as the Internet — especially bandwidth-hungry video applications — accounts for an ever greater share of global telecommunications traffic, and as more people in developing countries go online. > > According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the telecommunication union, the goal of the treaty was not to take control of the Internet — as critics had contended — but to narrow the digital divide. > > While the United States was talking about the open Internet, Mr. Touré and developing countries were talking about opening the Internet to more of the 4.5 billion people around the world who remain offline. > > Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating investment in broadband networks, for reducing cellphone roaming costs and for extending Internet access to disabled people in developing countries. The goal was to expand broadband at an affordable cost, not to regulate the content that travels on the Internet, he said. > > “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no highways for them to drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news conference on Friday, where the telecommunication union tried to put a positive spin on the messy pileup of the previous evening. > > As developing countries gain better access, the numbers game will continue to tilt against the United States and other developed countries that have championed the cause of an open Internet. The Internet population of China — 538 million as of June, according to the Chinese government — is already nearly double that of the United States. > > Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in developing countries, governments and citizens of these countries might also grow more tolerant of it. > > “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in its view of the Internet and its relationship to society in the coming century,” Mr. Kramer said. > > By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would not, Mr. Touré said, with the rest still undecided or undeclared. Holdouts could change their minds and sign later. Mr. Touré said he was hopeful that the United States would eventually do so, though Mr. Kramer said this was unlikely. > > Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious prospect of a treaty largely negotiated to suit the United States’ position and applying mostly to developing countries, many of which seemed perfectly happy with the outcome. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sun Dec 16 11:04:05 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:34:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <50cde9c2.6763b40a.32fa.ffffe62dSMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <345DA041-A131-4634-AE36-08BAB9C14B82@hserus.net> Is it just the media? I have seen a lot of comments right here that equate this to a straight north vs south conflict --srs (iPad) On 16-Dec-2012, at 21:18, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Peter, good point about the figures. Most coverages are messing up on that regard, both when they try to talk about the numbers or when they try make generalizations such as "all democratic countries were against the regulation, whereas the dictatorships supported it". > > But another thing that has been bothering me is the use of words like "Western allies". It seems that media - which always needs drama to sell papers - want to re-criate a "cold-war" or, even worse a West x East clash of civilizations. All these concepts can be very harmful to the interests of the peoples of the world. > > Words can be power forces that act on our deep unconcious minds, we need to be very careful on the way we employ them. > > Marília > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >> The New York Times wrote: >> >> >> >> “The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it.” >> >> >> >> Guess we need to send the NY Times reporter some real statistics and correct the reporting: >> >> >> >> Regarding the “handful of Western allies”: >> >> Of the 42 European countries, 35 countries refused to sign the treaty. >> >> Of the 35 countries in The Americas, 6 countries refused to sign the treaty. >> >> >> >> So, while the American delegation was joined by only a handful of allies in The Americas, it was forcefully supported by seven handfuls of European allies, plus 3 handfuls of allies from African, Asian and CIS countries. >> >> >> >> And it is clear that the European countries were not merely following the lead of the US, but had very clearly stated in prior consultations what they would stand for and what not. The “what not” was that Europe did not want the ITRs to extend to the Internet or content, including spam, or security issues. >> >> >> >> Regarding the “most other nations signed it”: >> >> Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital. How could this reporter claim that “most other nations signed it”?? >> >> >> >> >> >> Peter H. Hellmonds >> >> Public & International Affairs >> >> peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu >> >> +49 (160) 360-2852 >> >> >> >> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder >> Gesendet: 16 December 2012 14:23 >> An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Betreff: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World >> >> by ERIC PFANNER >> Dec. 14, 2012 >> At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff. >> >> What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now has many more users in the rest of the world? >> >> It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network. >> >> The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks of talks here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to engage in a public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they did near midnight on Thursday as the signing deadline approached. >> >> The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that it was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement in its current form.” United States delegates said the pact could encourage censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet oversight and replace it with government control. >> >> Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page text, which deals mostly with matters like the fees that telecommunications networks should charge one another for connecting calls across borders. After being excised from the pact at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty. >> >> The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” That convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to the Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by name so no one could call it an Internet treaty. >> >> A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the regulations “in a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations.” >> >> Both of these provisions were added during the final days of haggling in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If anything, the new treaty appears to make it more intellectually challenging for governments like China and Iran to justify their current censorship of the Internet. >> >> What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty signers should share control over the Internet address-assignment system — a function now handled by an international group based in the United States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to pay telecommunications networks for delivering material to users. >> >> Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in the negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like Britain and Canada? >> >> In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. Kramer cited a few remaining objections, like references to countering spam and to ensuring “the security and robustness of international telecommunications networks.” This wording, he argued, could be used by nefarious governments to justify crackdowns on free speech. >> >> But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that had mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other words, saw a chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong statement about the importance of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty and boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that even to talk about the appearance of global rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter. >> >> It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand would underline the importance of keeping the Internet open. >> >> “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of Internet freedom,” said Jochem de Groot, senior policy officer for the Internet and human rights in the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands, which joined the United States in opposition to the pact. >> >> That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency, the International Telecommunication Union — took place in this economically liberal but socially and politically battened-down emirate underscored the symbolism of the United States boycott of the final treaty. >> >> “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries around the world,” said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of the Tunisian Internet Agency, in an interview. “It’s a good message to start the debate.” >> >> Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian government of President Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of Tunisia, that country has taken a strong stand in support of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, Mr. Chakchouk said his government would sign the telecommunications treaty because he was satisfied with the free-speech guarantees that had been written into it. >> >> “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he said. “It’s not good when one country doesn’t understand the issues.” >> >> Working together could become more challenging as the Internet — especially bandwidth-hungry video applications — accounts for an ever greater share of global telecommunications traffic, and as more people in developing countries go online. >> >> According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the telecommunication union, the goal of the treaty was not to take control of the Internet — as critics had contended — but to narrow the digital divide. >> >> While the United States was talking about the open Internet, Mr. Touré and developing countries were talking about opening the Internet to more of the 4.5 billion people around the world who remain offline. >> >> Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating investment in broadband networks, for reducing cellphone roaming costs and for extending Internet access to disabled people in developing countries. The goal was to expand broadband at an affordable cost, not to regulate the content that travels on the Internet, he said. >> >> “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no highways for them to drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news conference on Friday, where the telecommunication union tried to put a positive spin on the messy pileup of the previous evening. >> >> As developing countries gain better access, the numbers game will continue to tilt against the United States and other developed countries that have championed the cause of an open Internet. The Internet population of China — 538 million as of June, according to the Chinese government — is already nearly double that of the United States. >> >> Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in developing countries, governments and citizens of these countries might also grow more tolerant of it. >> >> “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in its view of the Internet and its relationship to society in the coming century,” Mr. Kramer said. >> >> By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would not, Mr. Touré said, with the rest still undecided or undeclared. Holdouts could change their minds and sign later. Mr. Touré said he was hopeful that the United States would eventually do so, though Mr. Kramer said this was unlikely. >> >> Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious prospect of a treaty largely negotiated to suit the United States’ position and applying mostly to developing countries, many of which seemed perfectly happy with the outcome. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Dec 16 11:14:01 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:14:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] Russia In-Reply-To: <964000AA-413C-44AC-9FF0-E6728BCFAA42@hserus.net> References: <50CC97BD.80503@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1e9UV2lUWezQFA0F@internetpolicyagency.com> <964000AA-413C-44AC-9FF0-E6728BCFAA42@hserus.net> Message-ID: In message <964000AA-413C-44AC-9FF0-E6728BCFAA42 at hserus.net>, at 21:10:07 on Sun, 16 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >With the ripe NCC for their local area of coverage yes.   RIPE NCC covers numbering in Russia. >And for naming with the .ru ccTLD and with local registrars.   RIPE NCC has nothing to do with governance of ccTLDs. >But has there been any indication of the scope here?  This seems to be >targeted at Russian citizens that buy a domain from just about >anywhere, and possibly to at least get themselves the equivalent of a >nationwide LIR,ostensibly under the RIPE framework but more or less >completely independent. That's what's known as an NIR. I have no insight into any such ambitions. -- 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Sun Dec 16 11:15:30 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:15:30 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> Sorry for coming in too late ... but I'd strongly support Parminder's view and therefore vote "+1" although the letter would have a minor effect as Ian thinks. However, at least CS would express its commitment on actual accountability and social responsibility of an Internet corporation, especially when this corporation extends its activities (and a lot more ...) on the whole world ... and eans heavy money in most of its countries.   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 13/12/12 06:23 > De : "Ian Peter" > A : "Louis Pouzin (well)" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > Copie à : "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" , "parminder" > Objet : Re: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes > > Yes, I agree with the sentiments expressed by Parminder and Louis. Google is behaving badly in many ways, and its tax avoidance is a prime example. This being raised now is not some sort of anti-Internet conspiracy, its an expression of frustration that they are able to get away with this.   But I don’t really think much will be achieved by a letter.       From: Louis Pouzin (well) Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:07 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro ; parminder Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes   + 1 > Louis > - - - > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > A strong -1 > --srs (iPad) > On 13-Dec-2012, at 10:10, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 5:33 PM, parminder wrote: > > Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, and so on. What does the list think? +1 if you think the IGC should write a letter to Google -1 if the IGC should not write a letter to Google   As always the IGC decides   > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >      http://www.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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Dec 16 11:15:16 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:15:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 06:10:25 on Sun, 16 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >Well.. If you can come up with a practical set of suggestions to >regulate the sale of network security and pen testing gear I am all >ears To the general public? >----- Reply message ----- >From: "Roland Perry" >To: , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > >Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet >treaty >Date: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 11:42 PM > > >In message , at 21:11:01 on Sat, 15 >Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >>The problem of course is that a lot of the lock picking tools in the >>online world tend to be open source, and regulating the sale of lots >of >>these is a non starter when it comes to the sheer burden of compliance > >And you can buy guns and ammunition in Kmart. The excuse seems to be >"so >you can overthrow the government it that becomes necessary", although I >note that threatening the President's life is also an offence. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Dec 16 11:17:13 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:17:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: <72C5F103-16E8-4BE0-B69F-4B7AD18C7B09@hserus.net> Message-ID: <6NKnhTtJQfzQFAlv@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 21:16:32 on Sun, 16 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >Yes there is a vast majority of people who download and upload random copyrighted contents on the "everybody does it" and "the chances of my >being caught are slim" principles .. You appear to be talking about P2P, whereas DMCA was more aimed at client/server. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 12:14:37 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 12:14:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] Russia In-Reply-To: <964000AA-413C-44AC-9FF0-E6728BCFAA42@hserus.net> References: <50CC97BD.80503@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1e9UV2lUWezQFA0F@internetpolicyagency.com> <964000AA-413C-44AC-9FF0-E6728BCFAA42@hserus.net> Message-ID: Suresh, On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > With the ripe NCC for their local area of coverage yes. And for naming with > the .ru ccTLD and with local registrars. But has there been any indication > of the scope here? This seems to be targeted at Russian citizens that buy a > domain from just about anywhere, and possibly to at least get themselves the > equivalent of a nationwide LIR,ostensibly under the RIPE framework but more > or less completely independent. They already have (or at least had) something very similar in that Rosniiros (sp?) acted as a sort of "LIR of LIRs" without being a NIR. I think the Russians wanted to control all numbering, naming and identification inside their borders, making up laws in willful ignorance of reality. > > This viewpoint isn't something that is very unique. > > Various indian government officials seem to have conflated a rather long and > recently accomplished attempt to get an APNIC NIR in India (an attempt > accompanied by a great deal of acrimony shall we say) as some form of > national control over IP address allocation, solely for the convenience of > local law enforcement. Which is kind of short sighted as I say in my comment > to the article (you have to click the comments link for them to open, not > visible by default) short-sighted, and untrue! Indian LE already has access to WHOIS. -- 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 dl at panamo.eu Sun Dec 16 13:07:00 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:07:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] How cooperation could be defined ? Message-ID: <50CE0DC4.1030805@panamo.eu> Helloworld :-) Fadi Chehadé explains : There is no war between ITU and ICANN, and there will not. We must engage in a new season of cooperation, in the respect of each role. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16sC6-e8hk4 The first part of the WCIT shows disagrementbetween North and South. Because Northern governments and companies would be satisfied without regulation, as in the great era of the free seas and freedom of commerce. And South cannot access and build Net services in such conditions. Too expensive... How to help the second part of the WCIT path to succeed? Regards, -- 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 kovenronald at aol.com Sun Dec 16 13:26:19 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 13:26:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Russia In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <50CC97BD.80503@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <8CFA9D1FA52F87C-1F64-16E28@webmail-d150.sysops.aol.com> Thank you, Wolfgang. That's very valuable. I would be very interested in your rundown of what happened in Dubai. I'm afraid that if I try to read what you have sent in German that I could understand the opposite of what you say. I (as well as others) value your balanced approach (in contrast to much else on this list). Bests, Rony -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolf gang" To: governance Sent: Sat, Dec 15, 2012 9:34 pm Subject: [governance] Russia Hi back from Dubai I still have to figure out what the main conclusions are. I disagree with Milton both with regard to 5A & 5B as well as with the resolution. 1. Look at the statement from the Russian Federation in the signing ceremony. This what you get if you agree - in the spirit of consensus - to unclear language in a legally binding treaty. 5A & 5B would have been acceptable in a WSIS like (non-binding) political declaration but not in a legally binding treaty where different interpretations (as we know from "enhanced cooperation") will produce not only an endless political discussion but can lead to legal cases. Here is the offocuial text from the RF: The delegation of the Russian Federation "proceeds from the assumption that views the Internet as a new global telecommunication infrastructure, and also as a part of the national telecommunication infrastructure of each Member State, and, accordingly, at ensuring that Internet numbering, naming, addressing and identification resources are considered a critical transnational resource, and reserves for its Government the right to: 1) establish and implement public policy, including international policy, on matters of Internet governance, and ensure security of the national Internet segment, as well as regulate within their territory the activities of operating agencies providing Internet access or carrying Internet traffic; 2) establish policies aimed at meeting public requirements with respect to Internet access and use; 3) take necessary regulatory measures to ensure security and confidence in provision international telecommunications services, provide implementation of these measures by operating agencies; 4) take any action it may deem necessary to protect its sovereign rights and interests in the sphere of telecommunications should violation of the Regulations or reservations, or actions taken by other Member States jeopardize its telecommunication services." The Russian government should raise its problems with "Internet naming and numbering" in ICANNs GAC. But this is not what it wants. It wants to see that it controls not only its own cctLD but also the name of a registrant (living under Russian jurisdiction) wh0o has registered iwan.com via a registrar in Germany. This brings us further down the road into the issue of the extension of national sovereignty into cyberspace. Howe far this will go? The second point is the Internet Resolution. There was no discussion of the varioous elements. When p. 55 of the Tunis agenda was proposed to add to 38, Abdulla from Saudi-Arabia (he was a WGIG member and knows exactly the language) intervened and blocked it. If you refer only to 38 this brings you back to the day of WSIS 1, long before Tunis time. Para. 55 in the Tunis agenda recognized the "existing system". Rejecting para. 55 means non-recognition of the existing Internet Governance Eco-System. Furthermore the "invites" both to the Member States and to the ITU SG in the proposed resolutions did mention the multistakeholder model but it was unclear whether the ITU should become part of the broader IG Eco-System or should develop its own alternative multistakeholder Internet Governance model as an alternative to the existing Eco-System. Before we came to the discussion of the "invites" Iran proposed the voting. The chair wanted before a voting get the "temperature" of the room. Hands were raised but not really counted. In my eyes it was around 60 for the resolution as it stands (without 55 Tunis agenda) and 40 against. A lot of delöegatiopns were confused. And then the chair declared the "temperature measurement" as a decision by the chair to adopt the resolution as it is. The other day he said this was not a formal voting but he decided (in consultaiton with the ITU SG) that the resolution should remain as it was. Germany had prepared additional language for the "invite" part to make clear that ITU should enhance its cooperation with the existing IG eco-system (to avoid that the invitation can be interpreted to start the building of an own (alternative) multistakeholder IG system (under ITU/Member States leadership as we know from the WSIS Forum). But we had no chance to propose the language. This was a classical case for ITU autoracy. We planned also to invite ITU memberstates to patricipate actively in ICANNs GAC. But Abdullas said that Saudi Arabia will never become a member of the GAC. Insofar the rejection of the resolution was well justified. Best wishes wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 13:33:48 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:33:48 +1300 Subject: [governance] How cooperation could be defined ? In-Reply-To: <50CE0DC4.1030805@panamo.eu> References: <50CE0DC4.1030805@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 7:07 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Hello world :-) > > Fadi Chehadé explains : > There is no war between ITU and ICANN, and there will not. > We must engage in a new season of cooperation, in the respect of each > role. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16sC6-e8hk4 > > The first part of the WCIT shows disagrement between North and South. > Because Northern governments and companies would be satisfied without > regulation, as in the great era of the free seas and freedom of commerce. > And South cannot access and build Net services in such conditions. Too > expensive... > > How to help the second part of the WCIT path to succeed? > Thank you Dominique, you raise a very important reminder of the need for reflection. There have been numerous subtle and not so subtle nuances about this thing they call "Balance". I also like how you greeted us with "Hello world" - reminding us that the world is bigger and far more diverse than any one single viewpoint. If we are to truly journey to a place of common and shared understanding then it is a necessary to hear the concerns from all the stakeholders around the table. It is important that we continue these engagements and discussions and dialogue. > > > Regards, > > -- > Dominique Lacroixhttp://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr > > Société européenne de l'Internethttp://www.ies-france.eu+33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro 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 dl at panamo.eu Sun Dec 16 15:07:07 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:07:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status In-Reply-To: References: <50CB2DF0.3000506@isoc.org> <50cb3723.4a13c20a.14ad.59d3SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <50CE29EB.9010808@panamo.eu> Thanks Marilia. Brazil gave the world a great lesson of democracy. Best greetings, @+, 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 14/12/12 15:49, Marilia Maciel a écrit : > For those interested, Brazilian final declaration + list of 11 > latin-american countries that signed the document: > > http://observatoriodainternet.br/declaracao-final-do-brasil-na-conferencia-mundial-de-telecomunicacoes-da-uit > > Marília > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Mawaki Chango > wrote: > > ... And I don't see Japan in here, while I thought it has clearly > taken one of these positions. Russian Federation is in two columns -- > while that is not impossible, it still signals that the lines of this > categorization are a little fuzzy. Thanks for the effort anyway... > we'll wait and learn more. > Thanks, > > mawaki > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds > > wrote: > > I’m surprised to see the majority of European countries being in > the “Will > > sign” category. I also see Kenya, Egypt and Poland in that > column, which is > > equally surprising given the earlier statements that they would > not sign. > > What has happened to sway their minds in that direction? > > > > > > > > Peter H. Hellmonds > > > > Public & International Affairs > > > > peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu > > > > +49 (160) 360-2852 > > > > > > > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > ] Im Auftrag von > Grace Githaiga > > Gesendet: 14 December 2012 15:05 > > An: hfeld at publicknowledge.org > ; wcit12 at cdt.org > ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > Betreff: [governance] Rough List of WCIT Signing Status > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.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 > > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Dec 16 15:06:06 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:06:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] UNGA References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Jeremys link (IGF Watch) to the UNGA Resolution does not work. Has somebody the full text? UN General Assembly's resolution on Information and communications technologies for development (A/C.2/67/L.61). Thanks wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Dec 16 15:20:50 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 05:20:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] UNGA In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang, here Better than the earlier drafts, so perhaps lobbying works. Good. The first CSTD meeting will be in Peru, 07-09 January 2013 But that it too early to begin substantive discussion, modalities and membership? (I'm interested this time around) Adam On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:06 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi > > Jeremys link (IGF Watch) to the UNGA Resolution does not work. Has somebody the full text? > > UN General Assembly's resolution on Information and communications technologies for development > (A/C.2/67/L.61). > > Thanks > > wolfgang > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 15:29:16 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 15:29:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] How cooperation could be defined ? In-Reply-To: <50CE0DC4.1030805@panamo.eu> References: <50CE0DC4.1030805@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Hello world :-) > > Fadi Chehadé explains : > There is no war between ITU and ICANN, and there will not. > We must engage in a new season of cooperation, in the respect of each role. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16sC6-e8hk4 > > The first part of the WCIT shows disagrement between North and South. > Because Northern governments and companies would be satisfied without > regulation, as in the great era of the free seas and freedom of commerce. > And South cannot access and build Net services in such conditions. Too > expensive... Do you have any evidence of this assertion? I'm currently wearing a t-shirt that says "Ushahidi", an example (one of hundreds I could name) of net services coming from Africa. -- 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Dec 16 15:41:28 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 20:41:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] How cooperation could be defined ? In-Reply-To: References: <50CE0DC4.1030805@panamo.eu>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17315E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I don't have the t-shirt, but do have a doc student writing about Ushahidi: Marsden, Janet. "Stigmergic self-organization and the improvisation of Ushahidi ". Cognitive Systems Research 13 (2012). [PDF] downloadable at: http://wigit.ischool.syr.edu ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 3:29 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Dominique Lacroix Subject: Re: [governance] How cooperation could be defined ? On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Hello world :-) > > Fadi Chehadé explains : > There is no war between ITU and ICANN, and there will not. > We must engage in a new season of cooperation, in the respect of each role. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16sC6-e8hk4 > > The first part of the WCIT shows disagrement between North and South. > Because Northern governments and companies would be satisfied without > regulation, as in the great era of the free seas and freedom of commerce. > And South cannot access and build Net services in such conditions. Too > expensive... Do you have any evidence of this assertion? I'm currently wearing a t-shirt that says "Ushahidi", an example (one of hundreds I could name) of net services coming from Africa. -- 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 eiriarte at alfa-redi.org Sun Dec 16 16:42:33 2012 From: eiriarte at alfa-redi.org (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:42:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] UNGA In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2C35964A-2C17-455C-81BA-783C34D7A3BC@alfa-redi.org> Is somebody come to lima for the meeting anything that you need me and my team will be at your orders. Erick El 16/12/2012, a las 15:20, Adam Peake escribió: > Hi Wolfgang, here > > > Better than the earlier drafts, so perhaps lobbying works. Good. > > The first CSTD meeting will be in Peru, 07-09 January 2013 > But > that it too early to begin substantive discussion, modalities and > membership? (I'm interested this time around) > > Adam > > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:06 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wrote: >> Hi >> >> Jeremys link (IGF Watch) to the UNGA Resolution does not work. Has somebody the full text? >> >> UN General Assembly's resolution on Information and communications technologies for development >> (A/C.2/67/L.61). >> >> Thanks >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 16:30:04 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:00:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am sorry, it is late here and I didn't quite understand. To whatever target market that you wish to regulate and restrict / prevent the sale of such software or hardware, shall we say. Of course this is different from an OFAC blacklist of Iran, Syria etc, or from classifying high grade encryption as munitions to restrict its export --srs (iPad) On 16-Dec-2012, at 21:45, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 06:10:25 on Sun, 16 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >> Well.. If you can come up with a practical set of suggestions to >> regulate the sale of network security and pen testing gear I am all >> ears > > To the general public? > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 16:31:43 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:01:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: <6NKnhTtJQfzQFAlv@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <72C5F103-16E8-4BE0-B69F-4B7AD18C7B09@hserus.net> <6NKnhTtJQfzQFAlv@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: Not always. And even server based, a lot of large colo farms received their fair share of notices for improbable IPs --srs (iPad) On 16-Dec-2012, at 21:47, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 21:16:32 on Sun, 16 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >> Yes there is a vast majority of people who download and upload random copyrighted contents on the "everybody does it" and "the chances of my >> being caught are slim" principles .. > > You appear to be talking about P2P, whereas DMCA was more aimed at client/server. > -- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Sun Dec 16 16:32:12 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:32:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] How cooperation could be defined ? In-Reply-To: References: <50CE0DC4.1030805@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <50CE3DDC.907@panamo.eu> Dear McTim, I'm going to answer also to a former post where you said that you saw how Isoc makes great efforts to help developping countries, in the field of capacity building and GIX creation. I beg your pardon. I could not find time enough to answer earlier. Please, don't understand what I'm saying as a personal reproach. A big part of my family was colonial actors in Vietnam at the beginning of the XXth century. I can insure that the most part of the colons were absolutely sure that they were helping the country where they were living. US IT companies do have great interests in the growth of the African market. After all these efforts to help African countries to get into a connected way, how is it that Africa connected people number is 15,6% compared to 78,6% in North America? You can verify the stats there: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats1.htm It's not incompatible with a handful advanced countries, some great IT companies and a lot of excellent researchers. Plethora of graduates is actually a sign of contemporary "underdevelopment". Did you ever try to subscribe an Internet connection at an African ISP? Or to buy African domain names? Send me 693 EUR, I'll buy for you a mctim.cg. Sorry, mctim.cd is cheaper: only 115 EUR. @+, cheers, 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 16/12/12 21:29, McTim a écrit : > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> Hello world :-) >> >> Fadi Chehadé explains : >> There is no war between ITU and ICANN, and there will not. >> We must engage in a new season of cooperation, in the respect of each role. >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16sC6-e8hk4 >> >> The first part of the WCIT shows disagrement between North and South. >> Because Northern governments and companies would be satisfied without >> regulation, as in the great era of the free seas and freedom of commerce. >> And South cannot access and build Net services in such conditions. Too >> expensive... > > Do you have any evidence of this assertion? > > I'm currently wearing a t-shirt that says "Ushahidi", an example (one > of hundreds I could name) of net services coming from Africa. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 16:34:47 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:34:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <1794595643.66475.1355616317364.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e29> Message-ID: I did not read it that way... It is a statement about bth substance and description... It fits in with my view that the location of certain views is not politically sound, despite the normative claims made In support of these positions... A more granulated understanding of the role and potential of MSG, including its pitfalls, may not be remiss.... ...,... On 16 Dec 2012, at 2:42 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: >> + 1 >> >> >> >> When I'm reading the mails on this list I'm wondering about the actual status of a certain number of its correspondants/members ... >> >> In "historic times", I mean dusring the WSIS process and more specifically its second phase, we -the CS folks- have been invaded by a batalion of tunesian "not really non-governemental orgs" that happened to sabotage our work and debates. At present there is just another brand of those "NR-ONG", namely those who deny state sovereignty and multilateralism in international governance. >> > > Are you suggesting that CS give up our role in IG to states and the type of "multilateralism" we saw in Dubai? > > > -- > 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 Sun Dec 16 16:38:12 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:38:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <93746F07-EE5E-4374-8E90-4BAEAF393E43@gmail.com> The problem with framing it this way is that it precludes the possibility of assessing the law... Taxation is also about fairness... And while food stamp people are to get cuts these corporations are abiding by the law and that is it.. Simply will not do. Perhaps it would not be unfair of thirdworlders to have higher expectations of or northern brothers and sisters in the advanced democracies on issues like this.... ...,... On 16 Dec 2012, at 4:12 PM, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > Not defending Google per se, but... > > Leaving out the cyberspace part for the moment, ALL companies seek to > reduce costs, including taxes. Mattel, DuPont, GE, Pfizer all pay > little or no tax. Some even get tax rebates based on billion dollar > profits. (Yes, that's madness, for a company to have a -57% effective > tax rate, on profits in the billions, but it's the law.) > Google legally routed profits and reduced their tax bill. It's the > fault of the UK tax regime that allowed them to shift profit overseas > and not pay taxes on it. > > Yes, this is a problem for countries, but it is not incumbent on a > company to fix the tax regime of a country in which it operates. The > Govts need to make sure that the routing of profits that companies > currently do legally, to reduce the tax that is owed, is no longer > legal. Taxation regimes around the world are complex, full of > loopholes put in to support "friends of govt" which are then are used > by others, and oops! we've got no tax revenue coming in, and the > companies that filled out their tax bill according to the law are > suddenly evil. CS can and should work on the governments to close > these loopholes that they create for their friends and for the > lobbyists. But is this totally IG? I don't think so. > > I understand where Parminder is coming from, with the idea that small > and developing countries do not have the size/power to say - pay our > taxes or else. But this isn't IG, in my opinion. > > The IG part is figuring out what portion of value and business, and > hence tax revenue, goes where in a mutli > -national/multi-jurisdictional cyber transaction. And to that, the IGC > can, and should, look at this issue, look at the harmonisation efforts > going on in Europe and elsewhere, and suggest workable mechanisms for > collection and fair/equitable division of revenues from these > transactions. > > > Jacqueline A. Morris > Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and > Free. (after Chris Lehmann ) > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> Dear Parm, unfortunately (again) I am unable to follow up closely on the thread. But one point intrigues me: taxes are determined by governments within their geopolitical boundaries. Why don't governments charge appropriate taxes (if any) on services such as Google's? >> >> The point is: I do not think a corporation of that size just evades taxes and keeps an eye for what may happen. The certainly know about tax legislation in the countries they have operations. >> >> What is the proper way to define a policy on this for us? >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> On 12/13/2012 02:33 AM, parminder wrote: >>> >>> >>> Rather shameful that google paid 3 percent tax on its overseas profit!! >>> It surely leaves it with a lot of money to spend in lobbying and >>> advocacy efforts to keep global markets free for its unlettered >>> operations... Like organising campaigns against ITU, German legislature, >>> and so on. >>> >>> Would IGC write an open letter to Google that its tax evasion policy is >>> anti people, and it should pays its taxes where it makes its profit. (Or >>> is it that the IG civil society does not go into such re-distributional >>> questions ) It is not rhetorical but a real question to the list, and >>> its coordinator. >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 09:37 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>> More on Bloomberg: >>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-10/google-revenues-sheltered-in-no-tax-bermuda-soar-to-10-billion.html >>>> >>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Somehow it feels that there is a targeted media campaign out >>>> against the likes of Google and other mncs - the timing of the >>>> release is almost impeccable with the WCIT. >>>> >>>> Source: >>>> http://www.telecomtv.com/comspace_newsDetail.aspx?n=49763&id=e9381817-0593-417a-8639-c4c53e2a2a10 >>>> >>>> >>>> Google “can make money without doing evil” (as it evades $2bn in >>>> taxes) >>>> >>>> Posted By TelecomTV One >>>> , >>>> >>>> 12 December 2012 | 1 Comments >>>> | >>>> [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an >>>> average of 3/5] [0 people rated this an average of 3/5] (0) >>>> Tags: /Google >>>> / >>>> /corporate >>>> / /tax >>>> / >>>> /Finance >>>> / >>>> >>>> >>>> As the net closes around the multinationals that avoid paying >>>> corporation taxes, Google is accused of saving $2bn by routing >>>> income through a “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich”, paying tax of just >>>> 3.2 per cent on its overseas profits. Guy Daniels reports. >>>> >>>> Three questions. One; where do you stand on the subject of tax >>>> avoidance? We at TelecomTV believe that individuals and >>>> corporations have a duty to pay their fair share of tax. By fair, >>>> we mean whatever respective governments rule to be the legal >>>> requirement (after all, in most countries, we voted the >>>> politicians in to office). By all means try and mitigate the >>>> amount of tax you have to pay, using whatever accepted mechanisms >>>> are available. But avoidance? That just means somebody else (with >>>> far less access to expensive and clever advisors) has to >>>> contribute to your share as well. >>>> >>>> Second question: how do you define evil? The Oxford English >>>> Dictionary defines evil as “profoundly immoral and wicked” or >>>> “something which is harmful or undesirable”. In my book, that >>>> means tax avoidance is evil, simple as that. >>>> >>>> Third and final question: Is Google evil? If you believe that >>>> avoiding tax is wrong (especially through aggressive and >>>> mind-boggling complicated avoidance schemes) and if you believe >>>> that depriving society of tax revenues is wrong (and so reducing >>>> the level of available State support for the most needy) and could >>>> be described as an evil act, then surely you must conclude that >>>> Google is acting in an evil manner. >>>> >>>> An investigative report by Bloomberg >>>> has >>>> >>>> discovered that Google avoided about $2 billion in worldwide >>>> income taxes in 2011 by shifting $9.8 billion in revenues into a >>>> Bermuda shell company – almost double its total from three years >>>> ago. The information was disclosed in a November filing by a >>>> Google subsidiary in the Netherlands, which was discovered by >>>> reporters from Bloomberg. >>>> >>>> It appears that Google legally routed profits from overseas >>>> subsidiaries into Bermuda, which doesn’t have a corporate income >>>> tax, thereby enabling it to cut its overall tax rate almost in >>>> half. Bloomberg says the amount moved to Bermuda is equivalent to >>>> about 80 per cent of Google’s total pretax profit in 2011. >>>> >>>> Tax evasion and avoidance costs the European Union a staggering €1 >>>> trillion a year. That’s worth dwelling on for a moment longer…. €1 >>>> trillion. No wonder politicians are now acting to try and prevent >>>> this financial loss and branding such acts as scandalous and immoral. >>>> >>>> Bloomberg has a good quote from a UK-based tax accountant, which >>>> pretty much sums up the feeling in Europe at the moment. According >>>> to Richard Murphy of Tax Research: >>>> >>>> “The tax strategy of Google and other multinationals is a deep >>>> embarrassment to governments around Europe. The political >>>> awareness now being created in the UK, and to a lesser degree >>>> elsewhere in Europe, is: It’s us or them. People understand that >>>> if Google doesn’t pay, somebody else has to pay or services get cut.” >>>> >>>> Just look what happened to Starbucks. When the public discovered >>>> the US coffee giant paid zero taxes in the UK (yes, absolutely >>>> nothing at all), it started to boycott the chain. >>>> >>>> Advertisement >>>> As a result, Starbucks was forced to “volunteer” to pay taxes… >>>> >>>> The UK is Google’s second-biggest market, responsible for about 11 >>>> per cent of its sales. Of the $4 billion it turned over last year, >>>> it paid UK corporation tax of less than $10 million. Bloomberg >>>> says Google avoids tax by using an Irish subsidiary to collects >>>> revenues from ads sold in the UK, which then pays royalties to >>>> another Irish subsidiary whose legal residence is in Bermuda. >>>> Payments are then sent to yet another subsidiary in the >>>> Netherlands (with no employees, note) before finally reaching the >>>> tax haven of Bermuda. >>>> >>>> Sounds pretty ‘evil’ to me. And if so, then that’s against the >>>> internet company’s guiding principles. Stated clearly on the “Ten >>>> Things We Know to be True” page on Google >>>> ’s website is the >>>> >>>> following: >>>> >>>> “You can make money without doing evil.” >>>> >>>> I’m sorry, Google, but I don’t see how avoiding tax is anything >>>> but evil. Of course you – and all companies – have a duty to >>>> shareholders to maximise profits. But there are rules. Some of >>>> these are merely ethical, whilst some are legal. There is no >>>> indication or suggestion that Google has acted illegally, but >>>> there is every suggestion that it has acted unethically. >>>> >>>> And who said you can’t have ‘ethical companies’? Of course you >>>> can. I don’t buy the ‘extreme capitalist’ viewpoint that >>>> corporations will only act in self-interest and never “do the >>>> right thing” or pay their fair share. If their customers start to >>>> boycott their services, then they’ll change. It happened with the >>>> sudden emergence of all the so-called ‘corporate responsibility’ >>>> positions that all featured heavily in annual reports. I don’t see >>>> why it can’t happen with fair tax positions. >>>> >>>> Other ICT companies reported in the media to be using this >>>> complicated tax evasion (sorry lawyers, of course I mean >>>> ‘mitigation’…) structure include Apple, Facebook, Microsoft and >>>> Oracle. Unfortunately, Google – and all the others, who no doubt >>>> will soon be named and shamed – will continue their sharp >>>> practices until they are forced to make a change. If governments >>>> can’t do that through the legal process, then it’s up to customers >>>> to vote with their feet and walk away from Google services. As >>>> Richard Murphy said, consumers are beginning to get the message >>>> that it’s “us or them”, and we’re already being squeezed by the >>>> many austerity measures that are in effect to drag us out of >>>> recession. >>>> >>>> Come on Google, time to step up to the plate and show some >>>> leadership. Pay your fair share. And then the rest of the ICT >>>> industry can do likewise. Or else remove that fatuous and >>>> out-dated “don’t do evil” slogan from your website once and for all. >>>> >>>> _Further reading: _The Pearse Trust >>>> blog >>>> >>>> has a detailed explanation of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch >>>> Sandwich” tax scheme. Please don’t try and implement it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 16 16:39:12 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:09:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Russia In-Reply-To: References: <50CC97BD.80503@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <1e9UV2lUWezQFA0F@internetpolicyagency.com> <964000AA-413C-44AC-9FF0-E6728BCFAA42@hserus.net> Message-ID: Indian LE des have Whois access and moreover you need ISP logs for anything beyond, that is true. And sometimes it is all about legitimising and/or nailing down loopholes in any such sort of overreach that you already are deeply engaged in. --srs (iPad) On 16-Dec-2012, at 22:44, McTim wrote: > Suresh, > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> With the ripe NCC for their local area of coverage yes. And for naming with >> the .ru ccTLD and with local registrars. But has there been any indication >> of the scope here? This seems to be targeted at Russian citizens that buy a >> domain from just about anywhere, and possibly to at least get themselves the >> equivalent of a nationwide LIR,ostensibly under the RIPE framework but more >> or less completely independent. > > They already have (or at least had) something very similar in that > Rosniiros (sp?) > acted as a sort of "LIR of LIRs" without being a NIR. > > I think the Russians wanted to control all numbering, naming and > identification inside > their borders, making up laws in willful ignorance of reality. > > > >> >> This viewpoint isn't something that is very unique. >> >> Various indian government officials seem to have conflated a rather long and >> recently accomplished attempt to get an APNIC NIR in India (an attempt >> accompanied by a great deal of acrimony shall we say) as some form of >> national control over IP address allocation, solely for the convenience of >> local law enforcement. Which is kind of short sighted as I say in my comment >> to the article (you have to click the comments link for them to open, not >> visible by default) > > short-sighted, and untrue! Indian LE already has access to WHOIS. > > -- > 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 Sun Dec 16 17:06:50 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:36:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] How cooperation could be defined ? In-Reply-To: <50CE3DDC.907@panamo.eu> References: <50CE0DC4.1030805@panamo.eu> <50CE3DDC.907@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <5A19E580-1F13-4168-9FA5-558214DE3487@hserus.net> Sometimes it is about taking horses to water vs making it drink. Such as pricing distortions introduced by government enforced monopolies, possibly combined with lack of market demand that pushes up costs by not allowing the provider of such services to leverage economies of scale. Which are both a significant factor in the high Internet access and domain name prices that you see across large parts of Africa. The other factor, a sort of more legitimate reason, is the difficulty that landlocked African countries face in getting access to any other than expensive satellite connectivity. Sometimes because of financial reasons and other times because it is much more difficult to run terrestrial buried fiber cables through difficult terrain and possibly across some highly unsafe national borders due to civil war and/or other reasons. Over nd above that, there are astonishingly high levels of corruption that makes deep inroads into any sort of available budget. Please don't over stress your family's colonial background. In this day and age, whatever is wrong today in Africa is, to a great extent, a problem of purely local manufacture, and this is the same in other former colonies such as say India and Pakistan. --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 3:02, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Dear McTim, > > I'm going to answer also to a former post where you said that you saw how Isoc makes great efforts to help developping countries, in the field of capacity building and GIX creation. > I beg your pardon. I could not find time enough to answer earlier. > > Please, don't understand what I'm saying as a personal reproach. A big part of my family was colonial actors in Vietnam at the beginning of the XXth century. I can insure that the most part of the colons were absolutely sure that they were helping the country where they were living. > > US IT companies do have great interests in the growth of the African market. > > After all these efforts to help African countries to get into a connected way, how is it that Africa connected people number is 15,6% compared to 78,6% in North America? > You can verify the stats there: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats1.htm > > It's not incompatible with a handful advanced countries, some great IT companies and a lot of excellent researchers. > Plethora of graduates is actually a sign of contemporary "underdevelopment". > > Did you ever try to subscribe an Internet connection at an African ISP? Or to buy African domain names? > > Send me 693 €, I'll buy for you a mctim.cg. Sorry, mctim.cd is cheaper: only 115 €. > > @+, cheers, 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 16/12/12 21:29, McTim a écrit : >> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>> Hello world :-) >>> >>> Fadi Chehadé explains : >>> There is no war between ITU and ICANN, and there will not. >>> We must engage in a new season of cooperation, in the respect of each role. >>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16sC6-e8hk4 >>> >>> The first part of the WCIT shows disagrement between North and South. >>> Because Northern governments and companies would be satisfied without >>> regulation, as in the great era of the free seas and freedom of commerce. >>> And South cannot access and build Net services in such conditions. Too >>> expensive... >> >> Do you have any evidence of this assertion? >> >> I'm currently wearing a t-shirt that says "Ushahidi", an example (one >> of hundreds I could name) of net services coming from Africa. >> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sun Dec 16 17:13:07 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:43:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Telecom TV on Google and Taxes In-Reply-To: <93746F07-EE5E-4374-8E90-4BAEAF393E43@gmail.com> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <50C9C20D.4070405@cafonso.ca> <93746F07-EE5E-4374-8E90-4BAEAF393E43@gmail.com> Message-ID: <617A7062-BFE3-4785-B8CE-03769DA55DC9@hserus.net> On 17-Dec-2012, at 3:08, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote: > The problem with framing it this way is that it precludes the possibility of assessing the law... Taxation is also about fairness... And while food stamp people are to get cuts these corporations are abiding by the law and that is it.. Simply will not do. Perhaps it would not be unfair of thirdworlders to have higher expectations of or northern brothers and sisters in the advanced democracies on issues like this.... You find me a Pakistani, Indian or other similar corporation that doesn't make as full use of such tricks as their counterparts from the USA .. or fuller in some cases. Things like multiple sets of books, bribery of tax auditors, illicit money transfer through hawala and such. Or do you really mean to tell me this is all because of those evil first world corporations? And can we please get back to Internet governance once you are done bashing America and/or google? --srs (ipad) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 17:20:59 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:20:59 -0800 Subject: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT Message-ID: <06a101cddbdb$d8768860$89639920$@gmail.com> For anyone who hasn't yet read this, it is a very interesting document... One quick content analysis observation--the term "free" is used 6 times, "markets" 6 times, "Freedom" once, "Internet Freedom" not at all, and "multi-stakeholder" 17 times! M World Conference on International Telecommunications Remarks Terry Kramer Ambassador U.S. Head of Delegation, World Conference on International Telecommunications Via Teleconference Dubai, United Arab Emirates December 13, 2012 ------------------------------ *MODERATOR:* Yes, good evening everyone. We're here in Dubai and with Ambassador Kramer. We've just finished a session at the World Conference on International Telecommunications, and I'm going to turn it over to Ambassador Kramer now to give us the latest developments that happened at the WCIT 2012. Ambassador. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Great. Megan, thank you, and thank all of you for joining us today. I want to thank you for your attention and patience as we've worked through the last two weeks at this conference, and I appreciate your diligence and persistence in reporting on the WCIT. I also want to take this opportunity to thank and commend the ITU Secretary General Hamadoun Toure and our Conference Chairman, Mr. Mohamed Al-Ghanim, for their efforts and skills in working to guide this meeting. Our gratitude also goes to the United Arab Emirates for their hospitality during these two weeks. The United States today has announced that it cannot sign the revised international telecommunication regulations in their current form. Throughout the WCIT, the U.S. and other likeminded governments have worked consistently and unwaveringly to maintain and enhance an environment for success for the international telecommunications and internet sectors. The United States has consistently believed, and continues to believe, that the ITRs should be a high-level document and that the scope of the treaty does not extend to internet governance or content. Other administrations have made it clear that they believe the treaty should be extended to cover those issues, and so we cannot be part of that consensus. There are a number of issues that were critical to the United States in these negotiations. Number one, recognized operating agencies versus operating agencies. The United States consistently sought to clarify that the treaty would not apply to internet service providers or governments or private network operators. Number two, spam. The United States position remains that spam is a form of content and that regulating it inevitably opens the door to regulation of other forms of content, including political and cultural speech. Number three, network security. The United States continues to believe that the ITRs are not a useful venue for addressing security issues and cannot accede to vague commitments that would have significant implications but few practical improvements on security. Number four, internet governance. In several proposals, it was clear that some administrations were seeking to insert government control over internet governance, specifically internet naming and addressing functions. We continue to believe these issues can only be legitimately handled through multi-stakeholder organizations. And finally, number five, the internet resolution. This document represented a direct extension of scope into the internet and of the ITU's role therein despite earlier assertions from Secretary General Hamadoun Toure that the WCIT would not address internet issues. The United States has been willing to engage in good-faith discussions regarding these issues, and we'd like to thank and commend the other delegates for engaging with us. However, while we have consistently maintained our positions regarding the scope of the conference, other administrations have continually filed out-of-scope proposals that unacceptably altered the nature of the discussions, and ultimately of the ITRs. It is clear that the world community is at a crossroads in its collective view of the internet and of the most optimal environment for the flourishing of the internet in this century. The internet is a global phenomenon that is providing enormous personal, social, and economic benefits to consumers, citizens, and societies in all areas of the world. It has grown exponentially over the past decade and continues to flourish and adapt to human needs everywhere. The entire world has benefited from this growth, and the developing countries are seeing higher growth rates than the developed world. The infrastructure of the global internet is shifting rapidly away from the transatlantic routes that formerly carried most traffic. The internet is becoming more regional and national and less centered in the U.S. and other Western countries. This is a welcome development. All of the benefits and growth of the internet have come as a result not of government action or of intergovernmental treaty. They are an organic expression of consumer demand and societal needs, along with other multi-stakeholder governance. We have every expectation that the internet will continue to grow and provide enormous benefits worldwide. The United States will continue to uphold and advance the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance, standards development, and management. No single organization or government can or should attempt to control the internet or dictate its future development. In addition, the United States remains fully committed to the values of freedom of expression and the free flow of information and ideas on the internet. While there was no consensus at WCIT-12, the conference served a valuable purpose in clarifying views and building a foundation for continued dialogue. The United States will continue to work not only within the ITU but in multiple forums to achieve the universal goals of further growth of advanced network infrastructure in developing countries. The United States continues to believe that multi-stakeholder governance of the internet, coupled with liberalized telecommunication markets and the growth of network infrastructure in all countries, will accelerate growth and spread of the international telecommunications and internet throughout the world. The U.S. will remain engaged in a global dialogue on the role of governments and other stakeholders in the growth and development of international telecommunications and the internet sectors. This conversation will not be over when WCIT-12 ends. Rather, the discussion will continue for many months and years. I'd like to now open the floor for your questions. *OPERATOR:* Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, please press * then 1 on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone indicating you have been placed in queue. You may remove yourself from the queue at any time by pressing the # key. If you are using a speakerphone, please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. One moment, please, for our first question. Our first question is from Rob Lever with AFP. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION: *Yes, Ambassador, thank you. You said at the start that the United States cannot sign these ITRs in their current form. And does that mean that it's not quite over and that you still have some hope of reaching some compromise, or is - you believe that proposal is on the table? And secondly, what does it mean if there is no consensus or no treaty that's signed? What does that mean? Do we even need this at all? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. Thank you for the question. So first of all, the discussions in the main plenary right now are in the final stages. And the chairman has gone through - the chairman of the conference has gone through several rounds of changes to the ITRs to try and meet a variety of needs. And that's been a lot of our negotiations that have gone on over the last few days. The version that's out there now looks like it's the near-final one. There could still be some very small ones, but it's looking near final. And the level of support from a variety of other nations looks strong enough that it looks unlikely it will materially change. So I just made a public commentary on the plenary floor to let the audience know there that we were not going to sign the agreement. And obviously, we talked about our fundamental belief in multi-stakeholder governance. So while there's still a chance things could change, I'd say it's highly unlikely. The plenary will meet for another hour or two, and then there's formalities tomorrow with signatures and other things. So what can happen is your second question. So what's likely is if there's enough consensus to proceed, there'll be an actual signing ceremony where the countries that do agree with the ITRs will formally sign them. Obviously we are not going to be signing them. There may be some nations that will take reservations. So they may sign the agreement, but they will identify several areas that they don't like about the treaty. So it's a way of expressing opposition to it. So the final part of your question is why does all this matter, how does it matter, et cetera. At the end of the day, these ITRs are not legally binding terms. They're much more normative and values oriented. It really kind of drives what the public discussion is. The actual ITRs officially don't take effect until January of 2015, and again, there's not a legally binding nature to it. But what is very fundamental about all this discussion is this is - we've had a very explicit discussion about views on the internet, and how it should be managed. And that - it was an explicit discussion on the plenary floor, and with our bilaterals, et cetera. And as you know, the divergence of views is significant. And we're going to continue to advocate the multi-stakeholder model. I'd like to think that as time progresses and people see the benefit of the internet, that the belief in liberalized markets and a multi-stakeholder model that frankly is much more practical in terms of advancing the internet, that that will take hold. But that will take a period of time, that discussion. *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from Eliza Krigman. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION: *Hi. This is Eliza Krigman with Politico. Thanks for taking my call. What does this mean for the commercial arrangement between carriers, and specifically within payments from - or sending party pay payments, will there - if some countries ratify this treaty, does that mean they're going to then send Google a bill for sending their subscribers YouTube content? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So, Eliza, fortunately the sending party pays elements have been removed through negotiations. They have been removed from the agreements here. So we're obviously very pleased about that. There's obviously still - you have a lot of organizations that do business globally. But the way the treaty works is there's national sovereignty rights, so countries can do whatever they want to do in their own country. But obviously we don't want to have agreements globally that set a tone. So we're going to have to continue to advocate the importance of the global nature of the internet. And there's a natural momentum where the world is becoming more interconnected, and the commercial opportunities are significant. So that's where there's a continued kind of momentum to keep negotiations going between countries, between network operators. *QUESTION: *Thank you. *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from John Eggerton with Broadcasting & Cable. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION: *Yes, Ambassador. Can you identify any of the other countries you think might not sign, or is it just going to be the U.S.? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah, so there were several - after I made my statement, there were a variety of other nations that then started to share their views, their concerns about the treaty. And they were either acknowledging that they would not sign or they acknowledged they had significant reservations and wanted to talk to their capitals overnight, or they identified specific areas that they want to take a reservation on. And matter of fact, once I spoke, there was a variety of nations, and I'll read them off to you here, and then we went to a break immediately afterwards. So the countries that have already spoken and we'll hear from more, but it is the United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Denmark, Egypt, Sweden, Netherlands, Kenya, the Czech Republic, Canada, New Zealand, and Poland. And again, that was just the group that spoke before we went on a break. So we'll know more after this. One of the reasons, obviously, that I put my statement out is we wanted to clearly signal that this is the United States position. There's a lot of countries, as you can imagine, that are waiting to see where the U.S. comes out. But on this issue, candidly, we are resolute on this. We had to go in understanding that we may have nobody else supporting us, because these issues are so fundamental. And fortunately, as I mentioned with that list of countries, a lot of other countries see the same issues we do. *QUESTION: *All right. But that's a mix. You don't know which specifically have said they're not going to sign; that's a mix of all three of those? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* That's right. That's right. But all of them - the tone in which they shared it were all concerns. There isn't anybody in that group saying, "We love it." They are all either going to be taking some sort of reservation or they're going to not sign. I mean, it was pretty clear from their comments. *QUESTION: *Okay. Thanks. *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from Richard Waters with *Financial Times*. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Yes, hello. The fact that so many countries haven't - sorry, are going to sign this suggests that - or does it suggest that actually the trend is away from the kind of open, free internet that you've been discussing here? And particularly if you bear in mind what happened at earlier conferences in 2003 and '5 where the kind of worst outcomes were headed off from your point of view, is what we're seeing now a trend away from the kind of web and the internet that the U.S. would like? And what gives you the confidence to think that if things will swing around? You seem to be suggesting that when countries see the benefit of an open internet, they will adjust their point of view, but it seems to be exactly the opposite here, isn't it? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yes. So first of all, we don't know yet who's going to vote in favor, because we won't know, literally, till tomorrow on that. There could be a lot of countries that abstain, et cetera. So it's, I think, premature for us to say who's going to agree or not agree. But a couple of things on this. A lot of the countries that are expressing points of view different than ours are newer and less experienced in the whole internet play. It's a newer phenomenon. The penetration rates are still growing, et cetera. Many of them are dealing with political issues in their home countries where there's political instability and there's a different mindset to what the benefits of the internet bring. So the context, first of all, is very different in a lot of the countries that have expressed points of view different to ours. The second comment, Richard, is, as you know, I've got a mobile background. I used to work with Vodafone. It is amazing as technology rolls from country to country how it looks in different places. It carries its own life and customizes to the local market. I actually think even more than the mobile sector, the internet looks different in different places from a content standpoint, an application standpoint, et cetera. And in turn, as that customization occurs, growth tends to increase. So I'm a fundamental believer over the long term you will see a lot more interest, economic activity, et cetera. Are there going to be political issues where certain countries don't want free expression? Absolutely, but if you say over a long period of time, I think people will see a lot of the benefits, and this is a long game that we're playing here. *QUESTION:* But as more countries join the internet, as you say, it could be that they will change the internet rather than the internet changing them. So this just might be the way (inaudible) countries that have a different approach to the medium changing the internet. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* I don't know. I mean, it depends what you mean by changing the internet. If you mean they're going to look to make it look different and customize it to their environment, then yeah, I would agree with you. If it's governments are going to, on the long term, control the internet and decide what it looks and how, I don't know that's going to happen yet. Certainly, people talk about it in a futuristic way, but I've not seen kind of a concrete piece of it. And take an example of Kenya. I think Kenya is a great example from the internet and mobile and they're one of the supporters of our activity. They see a clear benefit in their society because it creates economic value, it reduces the digital divide, it creates more demand for services, it connects them with the world. And I think as you see more of those case examples of success, you get more and more people that say this is a good thing. And that's, again, the long game that we see. *QUESTION:* All right, thanks. *OPERATOR:* Okay, our next question is from Joseph Menn with Reuters. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Hi, Ambassador. I wasn't tracking all of it as well as I might have been, but it looked like 3.8, the addressing thing, came out, which seemed like a very clear stumbling block. If that's right, then was the last straw the provision on countries pledging not to disconnect each other? Because if so, that sort of makes it look like the U.S. is an outlier and wants the ability to disconnect other countries in times of conflict. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So you know, candidly, there were several items that really were the things that turned this over. What was interesting about this negotiation is sometimes there's this impression, well, you're negotiating ten items; one or two matter a lot, and seven or eight are kind of moderate, they don't matter a huge amount, you can give and take. In this negotiation, candidly, there's like five, six, seven things that were huge issues that had a lot to do, again, with different aspects of controlling the internet, and any one of these would have been a trip for us, would have been us saying no, we don't want to do this. And so when I read those off at the beginning of the call, each of those would have been a big issue. So there was an internet resolution, as I mentioned. The internet resolution specifically talks about governance, about governments involved in governance of the internet. Now, what happened in the negotiations, they said, well, we'll take that internet resolution, we'll move it from the body of the articles which are binding in nature and they'll move it to a resolution which is nonbinding. And they said, well, isn't that great? The reality is it's still in the ITRs and people are going to look at it and say the ITU and this WCIT conference got into internet governance. So that was a fundamental issue that would have tripped, again, our position. The second one is on spam. There's a provision on spam in this. And again, there was a lot of effort to try and water it down with saying we're going to mitigate, the focus on content, et cetera. But at the end of the day, if you're saying you want to reduce the spam problem, you're getting into a content issue there. And somebody, especially if you're talking amongst governments, you're giving the government the right to look at those issues. A third issue was the issue of security. When you put security mixed in here with the internet and content, again, you open the door for an organization to say, listen, in the quest of dealing with cyber security issues, I'm going to have to look at content and I'm going to make it okay to review that content. So again, there's all these kind of circuitous ways to get into these things. The final thing is just the agencies that are subject to this. We don't want lack of clarity about the agencies that are subject to this. We're very clear on this that public providers of telecomm services should be the ones that are affected but not any others, not private networks, not internet players, not cloud computing players, not government networks, et cetera. There's a lot of players in this kind of converged world that, again, indirectly or directly could be subject to these regulations. So candidly, the decision to do a no-sign - there wasn't a lot of consternation on it. There were too many issues here that were problematic for us, and it made the decision clear. *QUESTION:* Thank you. *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from David Gewirtz with CBS Interactive. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Hi. This is David Gewirtz calling. So Ambassador, what happens now? Will other countries essentially route around the U.S. desires for an open net? Will this lead to what might essentially become two internets, one open and one closed? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, we obviously hope that doesn't happen here. And again, from my own technology and mobile background, there's a natural momentum to players that have scale, that are first-movers, et cetera, that create lower costs, they create greater inoperability, et cetera. So there's a natural, I think, bias or advantage to that. And that benefits, by the way - we talk about Richard's question earlier about when technology rolls to successive markets, many of those later markets get the better end of the technology, because infrastructure costs come down, or handset costs come down, or unique contents available, et cetera, they get the benefit of it. Now, if a country says, listen, I want to have a different standard, I'm going to have a different approach, then they can go proceed with that. Candidly, they could still do that under national sovereignty. But they're going to have to deal, again, with a more and more interconnected environment. And so I think our job in all of this is to continue to espouse the benefits of an open internet, of free content, of low costs here, of all the things that entrepreneurs do with the internet. We have to keep advocating that, and that will create a natural bias or momentum in favor of it. And again, at the end of the day, if somebody wants to develop a different standard approach, it's obviously that's country's prerogative. But we're hoping that's not an easy task. *QUESTION:* Thank you. *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from Grant Gross with IDG News Service. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Hello, Ambassador. Thanks for taking our calls. Kind of following up on that, what is the danger of this kind of resolution now as you see it coming out? What problems could it cause, even with the U.S. and the UK and other countries not adopting it? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, so I don't see a lot of near-term or intermediate-term risks here, because it's not a legally binding document. It doesn't carry that risk. I think we've also maintained good relationships and enough kind of openness that companies that do business abroad have got a good environment. I do think that it does set up for a much more direct conversation that's going to have to happen on multi-stakeholder governance, that that is really the only model that's been proven to be effective, where, again, you've got civil society and industry and others there addressing fundamental internet issues. And in turn, multi-stakeholder organizations are going to have to continue to focus on outreach and being global in nature. And if you - there's issues in Africa. A lot of our African colleagues here are saying, listen, we've got cyber issues; we need help with that. Then we need to make sure there are multi-stakeholder organizations available to help then with those issues. The United States, in addition, does a variety of bilaterals with individual countries to help them with their own cyber work and other issues related to the internet. But again, our fundamental view on this thing is you've got to be pragmatic. No one government can solve fundamental issues and deal with the internet, so you've got to have that expertise, that agility. And importantly, you've got to be customized in your approach. So again, to bring up the cyber security issue, when you ask a lot of countries what is the cyber security issue, at the end of the day, it's heavily a regional issue; it's not a global issue. There's kind of one or two countries there are cyber issues with. So then you kind of ask the question, well, why exactly would you want to put terms in a global agreement on cyber. And there's not a very good answer. So the net net of all this is we need to continue to advance the argument and the benefits of multi-stakeholder organizations. We need to put a lot of energy into the effectiveness of those organizations and make sure we continue to kind of build that global opportunity. So I think that's the charter going forward. And again, coming from the mobile industry, I've seen that in my own life with the associations and standards bodies that work very well in that environment. So I do think it will happen. It's just a period of time. *QUESTION:* Thanks. *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from Adam Popescu with ReadWrite.com. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Hi, Mr. Ambassador. Thanks for your time. A lot of my questions have already been answered by my peers, but going forward, what I'm - what I understand from what you're saying is because of the fact that other nations are going to be putting forth a lot of this stuff in terms of the ROA versus OA, basically my question is, sort of dovetailing on one of the last questions about the two internets, are we going to see a different view of a certain site for international, when they're here in the U.S.? And what's going to happen globally? And you mentioned January 2015 as the day when these are supposed to take effect, so maybe you could speak on that a little bit. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. So first of all, I mean on a second internet, again, anything is possible. And you see on the content side there are social media sites, for example, in Russia that are unique in Russia. But again, what happens in this space, as you know - take a Facebook, right, with over a billion users. There's a natural advantage to having that type of user base globally. And that creates a momentum for that to spread further. So I think, again, with the momentum that's going on, that it's kind of a natural that having some unique standard and setup somewhere else is going to be an easy task. There's countries, again, in the mobile space that have tried to set up a different standard for 3G, 4G, the latest network technologies - very difficult to pull off. So I don't know necessarily there's some ulterior motive at this point. We're seeing some nation want create some new effort. But we are going to need to continue to do this global outreach so we don't inadvertently allow a Balkanization of the internet. And in terms of the January 15th date, nothing happens until then. And there's a lot of activities and conferences that are going to happen between now and January of 2015. So a lot of different reviews are going to happen. And candidly, in these situations a lot of people may have buyer's remorse. It's interesting; even when we do our bilats, et cetera, there are a lot of nations that are still kind of getting their head around what the internet is, the opportunity, what are the issues with spam, and what are the issues with roaming related to this et cetera. And that's been the benefit of this conference and our bilaterals, is we can have that discussion with people. And I think from that information, that education, you get a much better outcome. And I think people will come to the conclusion that multi-stakeholder governance is the right approach. *QUESTION: *One quick follow-up question: When is the next major internet conference where we can kind of take up some of these matters? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Well, there's WTPF, a policy forum that's in May of next year. So that's going to be a place where some internet issues will be discussed. There's an IGF, an Internet Governance Forum meeting that's every year. I think their - it's tentatively targeted for Indonesia next year in the fall. So these happen literally every few months or so. But again, what we don't want to see is have these in the form of a treaty negotiating conference. There's a huge amount to be done in best practice sharing, and fora that talk about ideas and approaches, but just not setting up regulations. *QUESTION: *And then my final question: Is this conference, then, and the fact that we're not signing, is this a failure? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Not at all. It's an interesting question, because I would talk with our U.S. delegation - success - and we always set this out with the goals of our delegation in the U.S. effort. Our end goal here is to create an environment where we can say there's going to be success for the internet and telecom. And it is so easy in this setting here where you're dealing with a lot of technical rules and regulations, you're dealing with other regulators here, et cetera, to lose sight of the plot in life. The plot here is to make sure that these sectors do well. And if you can't definitively say that an ITR is going to help that future of success, then you shouldn't put the ITR in. You shouldn't put regulation in. So I very much look at this - this is success. We've had a chance in this conference to communicate what success, we think, looks like, the importance of the internet globally. There's been a connection between different countries and different people, et cetera, that I think all of that is a benefit. And on any issue that you have that's a deep kind of philosophical or technical issue, you don't have kind of one conversation and people's minds change. It happens over a period of time. It happens when you can point to success. It happens when you can say, look at what's happened in Kenya with broadband and the internet. Look what's happened in India with mobile penetration. You start pointing to success, and people say, "Now I know this isn't some theoretical, philosophical argument. This is a model that works." And so I think those things will happen. I'm optimistic about it. But it's the beginning of several steps. And so I do think this was a success, and there are going to be more of them. *QUESTION: *Thank you. *OPERATOR: *Our next question is from Cyrus Farivar with ARS Technica. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION: *Hello Mr. Ambassador, and thank you very much for my taking question. I had two questions. First of all, I'm wondering - you talked about how the United States is not going to be supporting these agreements. I'm wondering why these agreements are even necessary in the first place. As you know, and I think as pretty much all of my colleagues know, lots of countries out there already conduct their own national internets to varying degrees. I'm talking most notably of China, Iran, certainly North Korea, that has probably the most restrictive internet policy of anyone in the world. So I wonder: Why are these even kind of national-based agreements even necessary to begin with when this practice is already going on? That's my first question. And then my second question is: I'm wondering what was the role of lobbying to your delegation, particularly by corporations such as Google and particularly by prominent internet technical experts, like Vint Cerf, who, as you know, was the architect of some of the fundamental foundations of the protocols behind the internet itself. *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. No. Great questions. So first of all, on your first question on the global nature, you're absolutely right. Countries have national sovereignty rights, so they can do what they want. But what we don't want over time is a set of global agreements that people can point to and say, listen, this treaty gave us the right to impose these terms on global operators of some sort. Now, again, we don't' think that's going to happen with this per se because it's a normative approach, it's not legally binding. But you sure don't want to kind of just allow something to happen that people can think is a binding term on an increasingly global environment. So that's why we don't want it to happen. Our argument specifically on the ITU is the ITU does great work in a lot of the radio areas, in spectrum work, in coordination work, they do a lot of great work in developing markets, et cetera. But in the internet, it's not the charter. It's not the place. It's not going to be able to do the things that are going to really add value. And so that's why we say, continue with the ITU and interact with a lot of other delegates, but make sure it's on the right topics. Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a good question, but I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. They - as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're representing national interests. So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed our positions more broadly on a national basis. A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our delegation. But finally I'll say - and I don't know if you call - it's a bit of the irony of all this is we - people said, "Geez, you guys have a large delegation." The fact we had a large delegation with the type of engagement we had is the beauty of our system - is you have a lot of people that are taking their ideas - some of them are their own self-interest, but a lot of it is much broader than that, and they're contributing to a greater outcome here. And as I did bilaterals with other nations, it was interesting how many countries I would go to where a member of industry or civil society said, could you tell my government this, this and this? And I said, well, isn't there a delegation in their own country sharing it? Well, the reality is a lot of countries don't have that type of inclusive nature. Certainly the democratic ones do, but there are a lot of ones that aren't. And it was a very stark message to me of exactly what we're talking about when we talk about multi-stakeholder governance and how you collect the best wisdom and energy to create something bigger. So a long-winded answer to your question, but that - those representatives were a very essential part of our delegation. *QUESTION:* Thank you. *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from David McAuley with Bloomberg BNA. Go ahead, please. *QUESTION:* Thank you. Ambassador Kramer, my questions, too, have been answered, but let me ask this: What will happen to the U.S. delegation now and to your role between now and, let's say, WTPF in May? And what are the U.S. plans going forward between now and January of 2015? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. Thank you, David. And so a couple of things. People will all go into their own worlds again in the coming weeks and months. So our delegation - obviously a lot of them are in civil society or industry, et cetera. They'll, obviously, go back into that. I'll eventually go back into probably academia and the work that I was doing before, and maybe industry again. You never know. But importantly, what should be happening in the next month or two is what are the learnings from the conference, what are the implications going forward, how do we advance multi-stakeholder governance. All of those things, I think, are going to be very, very helpful. And I think, again, to the earlier question about was this successful, there's a lot of success in understanding points of view of other nations, of really honing in on our arguments, and importantly how do you advance these ideas about liberalized markets and about multi-stakeholder governance. So the next couple of months, my mind is going to be on that and sharing insights as well as a lot of my colleagues. *QUESTION:* Thank you. *OPERATOR:* Next question comes from Jennifer Martinez, The Hill. Please go ahead. *QUESTION:* Hi. Thanks so much for taking my call. Appreciate it. You've kind of touched on this in previous questions, so apologies if this is somewhat of a repeat. But with the countries that are signing the ITRs, I guess, would they be treating a company like Google or Facebook differently in the future, or is it too early to tell, since the treaty hasn't gone into effect yet? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. I think it's too early to tell. A lot of the countries that would sign, that would have policies very different than ours, are already creating a very different environment. So I don't think that's likely to happen near term. And again, I think from a legally binding standpoint, these ITRs don't have teeth in them. But I do think we have to continually be vigilant on this issue about not erecting barriers. And some of the arguments on this, Jennifer, it's interesting. You may have governments that have different political views than us. They may have different practices on censorship, et cetera. But many of them are fundamentally concerned about commercial issues. They want to see commerce; they want to see people using the internet effectively, et cetera. And so there's always that argument that helps advance keeping the internet free and open. So that's kind of the mindset from here. And again, I don't expect any big change in any of this. But we are going to have a continued effort to make sure this multi-stakeholder model and the global opportunity is made clear. *MODERATOR:* All right. We have time for one more question. *OPERATOR:* Okay. Last question comes from Josh Peterson, The Daily Caller. *QUESTION:* Hi, Ambassador. Thank you for your time and thank you for taking my question. I just wanted to go back and talk a little bit about what brought the proceedings to a vote. Because from what I understand, the event operates on consensus, but - and a vote was unlikely. So what was it that prompted this to happen? *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, so first of all, what happened last night and what also happened this evening is there was an indication of interest. People hold up placards. They did one vote, I think, later on to try and move things along. So some of what's happening is the views on these issues are so heartfelt and so significant, and it slowed down a lot of the negotiations. I mean, here we are Thursday night, and it's almost midnight here, and people are still trying to work away. So the chairman has really tried to move things along. And one of the tools was to do this vote on the human rights element. But in general, they've tried to really stick to consensus. So I don't feel, per se, that this indication of interest or a nominal vote has been the big issue. I think the bigger issue is there's a variety of nations out there that do hold different views than our own, and we're going to have to continue to engage so that we don't find that that continues to be an area of disagreement. *MODERATOR:* All right. Well, thank you, everyone, for joining us this evening. And as a reminder, we will not be having another call. This was our press briefing that we had mentioned in our media note previously. Thank you, everyone. Have a good night. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 17:20:59 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:20:59 -0800 Subject: [governance] WCIT melt down In-Reply-To: References: <95C997E6-9D06-4803-A252-0946F70F0F86@uzh.ch> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22929EF@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292ADA@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CAA192.5020008@internetnz.net.nz> <50CABBE5.8050202@itforchange.net> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1729EC@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292FC8@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <50CC8472.2030203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <06bb01cddbdb$da430b00$8ec92100$@gmail.com> +1. And by getting on the speeding IG train some other things follow along. There is a need for some very serious (theoretical/academic) work on multistakeholderism and democracy--multistakeholderism, which everyone seems to be espousing these days necessarily redefines traditional democracy in some quite significant and unanticipated ways and these need to be sorted out theoretically if they are going to make any sense in practice. There is also some very serious practical work that needs to be done by CS as a "stakeholder" -- figuring out how it can usefully function as a stakeholder in the variety of roles and venues where it is now being expected (even in some sense required) to participate. And how CS can do this in the absence of any reasonable funding model is a major major challenge--where is PER in all this BTW. There are the rules of operation--including issues of functional inclusion/exclusion (dealing with trolls and defining conflicts of interest for example), challenges to broaden the socio-economic base not only of the participants but perhaps more important around the issues from those that are of interest primarily in the "North" to include those that have much more resonance to the broad base of CS in the "South"--digital inclusion, broadband for all, equity of Interent (economic) outcomes--that sort of thing. And we need some sort of structuring and roadmaps for moving forward to take up these responsibilities--frameworks for achieving normative concensus, opportunities for face to face gatherings along with transparent means for remote participation. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 3:34 PM To: parminder Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] WCIT melt down On Dec 15, 2012, at 9:08 AM, parminder wrote: It seems that 2013 is going to an important year for global IG.... The battle lines are more clearly drawn. I hope civil society contributes in a positive way, in what can in a way be constructed as a 'significant opportunity' having opened up for appropriate agenda framing and insitutional development that is in the best global public interest. One of the most important things the CS can provide is a clear, consistent vision of what participatory multistakeholder Internet governance should look like, including a well-defined role for governments which is consistent with their public policy role and obligations. I imagine this vision is not primarily based on a "1 government, 1 vote" model, but similarly it probably cannot be "all governments sit at the same table as everyone else in all circumstances, and by the way, one government has a unique role due to historical circumstances." FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. No governments were harmed in the preparation of this email. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 16 17:32:43 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:02:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT In-Reply-To: <06a101cddbdb$d8768860$89639920$@gmail.com> References: <06a101cddbdb$d8768860$89639920$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <639F9911-3812-40E4-9909-A7BBBE0520FD@hserus.net> So, by your enclosing those terms in quotes, are we to understand that in your opinion Amb Kramer was being hypocritical? You might be confusing a hostile response to an overly political debate to trolling by the way. I would invite you to spend a few years on usenet to recognise trolling for what it actually is. In my case, a response that is not driven by any commercial consideration at all. Simply an allergic reaction to what I would term "uncivil society" --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 3:50, "michael gurstein" wrote: > For anyone who hasn't yet read this, it is a very interesting document... > > One quick content analysis observation--the term "free" is used 6 times, > "markets" 6 times, "Freedom" once, "Internet Freedom" not at all, and > "multi-stakeholder" 17 times! > > M > > World Conference on International Telecommunications > > Remarks > Terry Kramer > Ambassador U.S. Head of Delegation, World Conference on International > Telecommunications Via Teleconference Dubai, United Arab Emirates December > 13, 2012 > > ------------------------------ > > *MODERATOR:* Yes, good evening everyone. We're here in Dubai and with > Ambassador Kramer. We've just finished a session at the World Conference on > International Telecommunications, and I'm going to turn it over to > Ambassador Kramer now to give us the latest developments that happened at > the WCIT 2012. > > Ambassador. > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Great. Megan, thank you, and thank all of you for > joining us today. I want to thank you for your attention and patience as > we've worked through the last two weeks at this conference, and I appreciate > your diligence and persistence in reporting on the WCIT. > > I also want to take this opportunity to thank and commend the ITU Secretary > General Hamadoun Toure and our Conference Chairman, Mr. Mohamed Al-Ghanim, > for their efforts and skills in working to guide this meeting. Our gratitude > also goes to the United Arab Emirates for their hospitality during these two > weeks. > > The United States today has announced that it cannot sign the revised > international telecommunication regulations in their current form. > Throughout the WCIT, the U.S. and other likeminded governments have worked > consistently and unwaveringly to maintain and enhance an environment for > success for the international telecommunications and internet sectors. The > United States has consistently believed, and continues to believe, that the > ITRs should be a high-level document and that the scope of the treaty does > not extend to internet governance or content. Other administrations have > made it clear that they believe the treaty should be extended to cover those > issues, and so we cannot be part of that consensus. > > There are a number of issues that were critical to the United States in > these negotiations. Number one, recognized operating agencies versus > operating agencies. The United States consistently sought to clarify that > the treaty would not apply to internet service providers or governments or > private network operators. > > Number two, spam. The United States position remains that spam is a form of > content and that regulating it inevitably opens the door to regulation of > other forms of content, including political and cultural speech. > > Number three, network security. The United States continues to believe that > the ITRs are not a useful venue for addressing security issues and cannot > accede to vague commitments that would have significant implications but few > practical improvements on security. > > Number four, internet governance. In several proposals, it was clear that > some administrations were seeking to insert government control over internet > governance, specifically internet naming and addressing functions. > We continue to believe these issues can only be legitimately handled through > multi-stakeholder organizations. > > And finally, number five, the internet resolution. This document represented > a direct extension of scope into the internet and of the ITU's role therein > despite earlier assertions from Secretary General Hamadoun Toure that the > WCIT would not address internet issues. > > The United States has been willing to engage in good-faith discussions > regarding these issues, and we'd like to thank and commend the other > delegates for engaging with us. However, while we have consistently > maintained our positions regarding the scope of the conference, other > administrations have continually filed out-of-scope proposals that > unacceptably altered the nature of the discussions, and ultimately of the > ITRs. > > It is clear that the world community is at a crossroads in its collective > view of the internet and of the most optimal environment for the flourishing > of the internet in this century. The internet is a global phenomenon that is > providing enormous personal, social, and economic benefits to consumers, > citizens, and societies in all areas of the world. > It has grown exponentially over the past decade and continues to flourish > and adapt to human needs everywhere. The entire world has benefited from > this growth, and the developing countries are seeing higher growth rates > than the developed world. The infrastructure of the global internet is > shifting rapidly away from the transatlantic routes that formerly carried > most traffic. The internet is becoming more regional and national and less > centered in the U.S. and other Western countries. This is a welcome > development. > > All of the benefits and growth of the internet have come as a result not of > government action or of intergovernmental treaty. They are an organic > expression of consumer demand and societal needs, along with other > multi-stakeholder governance. We have every expectation that the internet > will continue to grow and provide enormous benefits worldwide. The United > States will continue to uphold and advance the multi-stakeholder model of > internet governance, standards development, and management. No single > organization or government can or should attempt to control the internet or > dictate its future development. > > In addition, the United States remains fully committed to the values of > freedom of expression and the free flow of information and ideas on the > internet. While there was no consensus at WCIT-12, the conference served a > valuable purpose in clarifying views and building a foundation for continued > dialogue. The United States will continue to work not only within the ITU > but in multiple forums to achieve the universal goals of further growth of > advanced network infrastructure in developing countries. > > The United States continues to believe that multi-stakeholder governance of > the internet, coupled with liberalized telecommunication markets and the > growth of network infrastructure in all countries, will accelerate growth > and spread of the international telecommunications and internet throughout > the world. The U.S. will remain engaged in a global dialogue on the role of > governments and other stakeholders in the growth and development of > international telecommunications and the internet sectors. This conversation > will not be over when WCIT-12 ends. Rather, the discussion will continue for > many months and years. > > I'd like to now open the floor for your questions. > > *OPERATOR:* Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, > please press * then 1 on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone > indicating you have been placed in queue. You may remove yourself from the > queue at any time by pressing the # key. If you are using a speakerphone, > please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. One moment, please, > for our first question. > > Our first question is from Rob Lever with AFP. Go ahead, please. > > *QUESTION: *Yes, Ambassador, thank you. You said at the start that the > United States cannot sign these ITRs in their current form. And does that > mean that it's not quite over and that you still have some hope of reaching > some compromise, or is - you believe that proposal is on the table? And > secondly, what does it mean if there is no consensus or no treaty that's > signed? What does that mean? Do we even need this at all? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. Thank you for the question. So first of all, the > discussions in the main plenary right now are in the final stages. And the > chairman has gone through - the chairman of the conference has gone through > several rounds of changes to the ITRs to try and meet a variety of needs. > And that's been a lot of our negotiations that have gone on over the last > few days. > > The version that's out there now looks like it's the near-final one. There > could still be some very small ones, but it's looking near final. And the > level of support from a variety of other nations looks strong enough that it > looks unlikely it will materially change. So I just made a public commentary > on the plenary floor to let the audience know there that we were not going > to sign the agreement. And obviously, we talked about our fundamental belief > in multi-stakeholder governance. So while there's still a chance things > could change, I'd say it's highly unlikely. The plenary will meet for > another hour or two, and then there's formalities tomorrow with signatures > and other things. > > So what can happen is your second question. So what's likely is if there's > enough consensus to proceed, there'll be an actual signing ceremony where > the countries that do agree with the ITRs will formally sign them. > Obviously we are not going to be signing them. There may be some nations > that will take reservations. So they may sign the agreement, but they will > identify several areas that they don't like about the treaty. So it's a way > of expressing opposition to it. > > > > So the final part of your question is why does all this matter, how does it > matter, et cetera. At the end of the day, these ITRs are not legally binding > terms. They're much more normative and values oriented. It really kind of > drives what the public discussion is. The actual ITRs officially don't take > effect until January of 2015, and again, there's not a legally binding > nature to it. But what is very fundamental about all this discussion is this > is - we've had a very explicit discussion about views on the internet, and > how it should be managed. And that - it was an explicit discussion on the > plenary floor, and with our bilaterals, et cetera. And as you know, the > divergence of views is significant. And we're going to continue to advocate > the multi-stakeholder model. I'd like to think that as time progresses and > people see the benefit of the internet, that the belief in liberalized > markets and a multi-stakeholder model that frankly is much more practical in > terms of advancing the internet, that that will take hold. But that will > take a period of time, that discussion. > > *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from Eliza Krigman. Go ahead, please. > > *QUESTION: *Hi. This is Eliza Krigman with Politico. Thanks for taking my > call. What does this mean for the commercial arrangement between carriers, > and specifically within payments from - or sending party pay payments, will > there - if some countries ratify this treaty, does that mean they're going > to then send Google a bill for sending their subscribers YouTube content? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So, Eliza, fortunately the sending party pays > elements have been removed through negotiations. They have been removed from > the agreements here. So we're obviously very pleased about that. > There's obviously still - you have a lot of organizations that do business > globally. But the way the treaty works is there's national sovereignty > rights, so countries can do whatever they want to do in their own country. > But obviously we don't want to have agreements globally that set a tone. So > we're going to have to continue to advocate the importance of the global > nature of the internet. And there's a natural momentum where the world is > becoming more interconnected, and the commercial opportunities are > significant. So that's where there's a continued kind of momentum to keep > negotiations going between countries, between network operators. > > *QUESTION: *Thank you. > > *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from John Eggerton with Broadcasting > & Cable. Go ahead, please. > > *QUESTION: *Yes, Ambassador. Can you identify any of the other countries you > think might not sign, or is it just going to be the U.S.? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah, so there were several - after I made my > statement, there were a variety of other nations that then started to share > their views, their concerns about the treaty. And they were either > acknowledging that they would not sign or they acknowledged they had > significant reservations and wanted to talk to their capitals overnight, or > they identified specific areas that they want to take a reservation on. And > matter of fact, once I spoke, there was a variety of nations, and I'll read > them off to you here, and then we went to a break immediately afterwards. > > So the countries that have already spoken and we'll hear from more, but it > is the United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Denmark, Egypt, Sweden, Netherlands, > Kenya, the Czech Republic, Canada, New Zealand, and Poland. And again, that > was just the group that spoke before we went on a break. So we'll know more > after this. One of the reasons, obviously, that I put my statement out is we > wanted to clearly signal that this is the United States position. > There's a lot of countries, as you can imagine, that are waiting to see > where the U.S. comes out. > > But on this issue, candidly, we are resolute on this. We had to go in > understanding that we may have nobody else supporting us, because these > issues are so fundamental. And fortunately, as I mentioned with that list of > countries, a lot of other countries see the same issues we do. > > *QUESTION: *All right. But that's a mix. You don't know which specifically > have said they're not going to sign; that's a mix of all three of those? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* That's right. That's right. But all of them - the tone > in which they shared it were all concerns. There isn't anybody in that group > saying, "We love it." They are all either going to be taking some sort of > reservation or they're going to not sign. I mean, it was pretty clear from > their comments. > > *QUESTION: *Okay. Thanks. > > *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from Richard Waters with *Financial Times*. > Go ahead, please. > > *QUESTION:* Yes, hello. The fact that so many countries haven't - sorry, are > going to sign this suggests that - or does it suggest that actually the > trend is away from the kind of open, free internet that you've been > discussing here? And particularly if you bear in mind what happened at > earlier conferences in 2003 and '5 where the kind of worst outcomes were > headed off from your point of view, is what we're seeing now a trend away > from the kind of web and the internet that the U.S. would like? And what > gives you the confidence to think that if things will swing around? You seem > to be suggesting that when countries see the benefit of an open internet, > they will adjust their point of view, but it seems to be exactly the > opposite here, isn't it? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yes. So first of all, we don't know yet who's going to > vote in favor, because we won't know, literally, till tomorrow on that. > There could be a lot of countries that abstain, et cetera. So it's, I think, > premature for us to say who's going to agree or not agree. > > But a couple of things on this. A lot of the countries that are expressing > points of view different than ours are newer and less experienced in the > whole internet play. It's a newer phenomenon. The penetration rates are > still growing, et cetera. Many of them are dealing with political issues in > their home countries where there's political instability and there's a > different mindset to what the benefits of the internet bring. So the > context, first of all, is very different in a lot of the countries that have > expressed points of view different to ours. > > The second comment, Richard, is, as you know, I've got a mobile background. > I used to work with Vodafone. It is amazing as technology rolls from country > to country how it looks in different places. It carries its own life and > customizes to the local market. I actually think even more than the mobile > sector, the internet looks different in different places from a content > standpoint, an application standpoint, et cetera. And in turn, as that > customization occurs, growth tends to increase. So I'm a fundamental > believer over the long term you will see a lot more interest, economic > activity, et cetera. Are there going to be political issues where certain > countries don't want free expression? Absolutely, but if you say over a long > period of time, I think people will see a lot of the > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 17:36:48 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:36:48 +1300 Subject: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT In-Reply-To: <06a101cddbdb$d8768860$89639920$@gmail.com> References: <06a101cddbdb$d8768860$89639920$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:20 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > For anyone who hasn't yet read this, it is a very interesting document... > > One quick content analysis observation--the term "free" is used 6 times, > "markets" 6 times, "Freedom" once, "Internet Freedom" not at all, and > "multi-stakeholder" 17 times! > > I had read Kramer's Press Release but had not noticed that the term "Internet Freedom" was never used. Interesting :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Sun Dec 16 18:09:12 2012 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:09:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT In-Reply-To: <06a101cddbdb$d8768860$89639920$@gmail.com> References: <06a101cddbdb$d8768860$89639920$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <518989750.71197.1355699352387.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> Dear Michael and all   Ambassador Kramer said   I'd be interested to have a rational explanation upon the relationship between DCs' "higher growth rates" and the Internet. IMHO there is rather a direct relationship ... with declining growth rates in Industriallized countries ! Maybe the US ambassador is just re-quoting the buzz of the World Bank that circulates since a couple of years (it's become a password in each WSIS Forum) in the UN agencies, claiming that +10% increase in mobile subscribers, sorry : consumers, means 1,6% increase of GDP in Africa.    How happy these Africans are, thanks to mobile and the Internet !   Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 16/12/12 23:23 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT > > For anyone who hasn't yet read this, it is a very interesting document... > > One quick content analysis observation--the term "free" is used 6 times, > "markets" 6 times, "Freedom" once, "Internet Freedom" not at all, and > "multi-stakeholder" 17 times! > > M > > World Conference on International Telecommunications > > Remarks > Terry Kramer > Ambassador U.S. Head of Delegation, World Conference on International > Telecommunications Via Teleconference Dubai, United Arab Emirates December > 13, 2012 > > ------------------------------ > > *MODERATOR:* Yes, good evening everyone. We're here in Dubai and with > Ambassador Kramer. We've just finished a session at the World Conference on > International Telecommunications, and I'm going to turn it over to > Ambassador Kramer now to give us the latest developments that happened at > the WCIT 2012. > > Ambassador. > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Great. Megan, thank you, and thank all of you for > joining us today. I want to thank you for your attention and patience as > we've worked through the last two weeks at this conference, and I appreciate > your diligence and persistence in reporting on the WCIT. > > I also want to take this opportunity to thank and commend the ITU Secretary > General Hamadoun Toure and our Conference Chairman, Mr. Mohamed Al-Ghanim, > for their efforts and skills in working to guide this meeting. Our gratitude > also goes to the United Arab Emirates for their hospitality during these two > weeks. > > The United States today has announced that it cannot sign the revised > international telecommunication regulations in their current form. > Throughout the WCIT, the U.S. and other likeminded governments have worked > consistently and unwaveringly to maintain and enhance an environment for > success for the international telecommunications and internet sectors. The > United States has consistently believed, and continues to believe, that the > ITRs should be a high-level document and that the scope of the treaty does > not extend to internet governance or content. Other administrations have > made it clear that they believe the treaty should be extended to cover those > issues, and so we cannot be part of that consensus. > > There are a number of issues that were critical to the United States in > these negotiations. Number one, recognized operating agencies versus > operating agencies. The United States consistently sought to clarify that > the treaty would not apply to internet service providers or governments or > private network operators. > > Number two, spam. The United States position remains that spam is a form of > content and that regulating it inevitably opens the door to regulation of > other forms of content, including political and cultural speech. > > Number three, network security. The United States continues to believe that > the ITRs are not a useful venue for addressing security issues and cannot > accede to vague commitments that would have significant implications but few > practical improvements on security. > > Number four, internet governance. In several proposals, it was clear that > some administrations were seeking to insert government control over internet > governance, specifically internet naming and addressing functions. > We continue to believe these issues can only be legitimately handled through > multi-stakeholder organizations. > > And finally, number five, the internet resolution. This document represented > a direct extension of scope into the internet and of the ITU's role therein > despite earlier assertions from Secretary General Hamadoun Toure that the > WCIT would not address internet issues. > > The United States has been willing to engage in good-faith discussions > regarding these issues, and we'd like to thank and commend the other > delegates for engaging with us. However, while we have consistently > maintained our positions regarding the scope of the conference, other > administrations have continually filed out-of-scope proposals that > unacceptably altered the nature of the discussions, and ultimately of the > ITRs. > > It is clear that the world community is at a crossroads in its collective > view of the internet and of the most optimal environment for the flourishing > of the internet in this century. The internet is a global phenomenon that is > providing enormous personal, social, and economic benefits to consumers, > citizens, and societies in all areas of the world. > It has grown exponentially over the past decade and continues to flourish > and adapt to human needs everywhere. The entire world has benefited from > this growth, and the developing countries are seeing higher growth rates > than the developed world. The infrastructure of the global internet is > shifting rapidly away from the transatlantic routes that formerly carried > most traffic. The internet is becoming more regional and national and less > centered in the U.S. and other Western countries. This is a welcome > development. > > All of the benefits and growth of the internet have come as a result not of > government action or of intergovernmental treaty. They are an organic > expression of consumer demand and societal needs, along with other > multi-stakeholder governance. We have every expectation that the internet > will continue to grow and provide enormous benefits worldwide. The United > States will continue to uphold and advance the multi-stakeholder model of > internet governance, standards development, and management. No single > organization or government can or should attempt to control the internet or > dictate its future development. > > In addition, the United States remains fully committed to the values of > freedom of expression and the free flow of information and ideas on the > internet. While there was no consensus at WCIT-12, the conference served a > valuable purpose in clarifying views and building a foundation for continued > dialogue. The United States will continue to work not only within the ITU > but in multiple forums to achieve the universal goals of further growth of > advanced network infrastructure in developing countries. > > The United States continues to believe that multi-stakeholder governance of > the internet, coupled with liberalized telecommunication markets and the > growth of network infrastructure in all countries, will accelerate growth > and spread of the international telecommunications and internet throughout > the world. The U.S. will remain engaged in a global dialogue on the role of > governments and other stakeholders in the growth and development of > international telecommunications and the internet sectors. This conversation > will not be over when WCIT-12 ends. Rather, the discussion will continue for > many months and years. > > I'd like to now open the floor for your questions. > > *OPERATOR:* Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, > please press * then 1 on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone > indicating you have been placed in queue. You may remove yourself from the > queue at any time by pressing the # key. If you are using a speakerphone, > please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. One moment, please, > for our first question. > > Our first question is from Rob Lever with AFP. Go ahead, please. > > *QUESTION: *Yes, Ambassador, thank you. You said at the start that the > United States cannot sign these ITRs in their current form. And does that > mean that it's not quite over and that you still have some hope of reaching > some compromise, or is - you believe that proposal is on the table? And > secondly, what does it mean if there is no consensus or no treaty that's > signed? What does that mean? Do we even need this at all? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. Thank you for the question. So first of all, the > discussions in the main plenary right now are in the final stages. And the > chairman has gone through - the chairman of the conference has gone through > several rounds of changes to the ITRs to try and meet a variety of needs. > And that's been a lot of our negotiations that have gone on over the last > few days. > > The version that's out there now looks like it's the near-final one. There > could still be some very small ones, but it's looking near final. And the > level of support from a variety of other nations looks strong enough that it > looks unlikely it will materially change. So I just made a public commentary > on the plenary floor to let the audience know there that we were not going > to sign the agreement. And obviously, we talked about our fundamental belief > in multi-stakeholder governance. So while there's still a chance things > could change, I'd say it's highly unlikely. The plenary will meet for > another hour or two, and then there's formalities tomorrow with signatures > and other things. > > So what can happen is your second question. So what's likely is if there's > enough consensus to proceed, there'll be an actual signing ceremony where > the countries that do agree with the ITRs will formally sign them. > Obviously we are not going to be signing them. There may be some nations > that will take reservations. So they may sign the agreement, but they will > identify several areas that they don't like about the treaty. So it's a way > of expressing opposition to it. > > > > So the final part of your question is why does all this matter, how does it > matter, et cetera. At the end of the day, these ITRs are not legally binding > terms. They're much more normative and values oriented. It really kind of > drives what the public discussion is. The actual ITRs officially don't take > effect until January of 2015, and again, there's not a legally binding > nature to it. But what is very fundamental about all this discussion is this > is - we've had a very explicit discussion about views on the internet, and > how it should be managed. And that - it was an explicit discussion on the > plenary floor, and with our bilaterals, et cetera. And as you know, the > divergence of views is significant. And we're going to continue to advocate > the multi-stakeholder model. I'd like to think that as time progresses and > people see the benefit of the internet, that the belief in liberalized > markets and a multi-stakeholder model that frankly is much more practical in > terms of advancing the internet, that that will take hold. But that will > take a period of time, that discussion. > > *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from Eliza Krigman. Go ahead, please. > > *QUESTION: *Hi. This is Eliza Krigman with Politico. Thanks for taking my > call. What does this mean for the commercial arrangement between carriers, > and specifically within payments from - or sending party pay payments, will > there - if some countries ratify this treaty, does that mean they're going > to then send Google a bill for sending their subscribers YouTube content? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So, Eliza, fortunately the sending party pays > elements have been removed through negotiations. They have been removed from > the agreements here. So we're obviously very pleased about that. > There's obviously still - you have a lot of organizations that do business > globally. But the way the treaty works is there's national sovereignty > rights, so countries can do whatever they want to do in their own country. > But obviously we don't want to have agreements globally that set a tone. So > we're going to have to continue to advocate the importance of the global > nature of the internet. And there's a natural momentum where the world is > becoming more interconnected, and the commercial opportunities are > significant. So that's where there's a continued kind of momentum to keep > negotiations going between countries, between network operators. > > *QUESTION: *Thank you. > > *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from John Eggerton with Broadcasting > & Cable. Go ahead, please. > > *QUESTION: *Yes, Ambassador. Can you identify any of the other countries you > think might not sign, or is it just going to be the U.S.? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah, so there were several - after I made my > statement, there were a variety of other nations that then started to share > their views, their concerns about the treaty. And they were either > acknowledging that they would not sign or they acknowledged they had > significant reservations and wanted to talk to their capitals overnight, or > they identified specific areas that they want to take a reservation on. And > matter of fact, once I spoke, there was a variety of nations, and I'll read > them off to you here, and then we went to a break immediately afterwards. > > So the countries that have already spoken and we'll hear from more, but it > is the United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Denmark, Egypt, Sweden, Netherlands, > Kenya, the Czech Republic, Canada, New Zealand, and Poland. And again, that > was just the group that spoke before we went on a break. So we'll know more > after this. One of the reasons, obviously, that I put my statement out is we > wanted to clearly signal that this is the United States position. > There's a lot of countries, as you can imagine, that are waiting to see > where the U.S. comes out. > > But on this issue, candidly, we are resolute on this. We had to go in > understanding that we may have nobody else supporting us, because these > issues are so fundamental. And fortunately, as I mentioned with that list of > countries, a lot of other countries see the same issues we do. > > *QUESTION: *All right. But that's a mix. You don't know which specifically > have said they're not going to sign; that's a mix of all three of those? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* That's right. That's right. But all of them - the tone > in which they shared it were all concerns. There isn't anybody in that group > saying, "We love it." They are all either going to be taking some sort of > reservation or they're going to not sign. I mean, it was pretty clear from > their comments. > > *QUESTION: *Okay. Thanks. > > *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from Richard Waters with *Financial Times*. > Go ahead, please. > > *QUESTION:* Yes, hello. The fact that so many countries haven't - sorry, are > going to sign this suggests that - or does it suggest that actually the > trend is away from the kind of open, free internet that you've been > discussing here? And particularly if you bear in mind what happened at > earlier conferences in 2003 and '5 where the kind of worst outcomes were > headed off from your point of view, is what we're seeing now a trend away > from the kind of web and the internet that the U.S. would like? And what > gives you the confidence to think that if things will swing around? You seem > to be suggesting that when countries see the benefit of an open internet, > they will adjust their point of view, but it seems to be exactly the > opposite here, isn't it? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yes. So first of all, we don't know yet who's going to > vote in favor, because we won't know, literally, till tomorrow on that. > There could be a lot of countries that abstain, et cetera. So it's, I think, > premature for us to say who's going to agree or not agree. > > But a couple of things on this. A lot of the countries that are expressing > points of view different than ours are newer and less experienced in the > whole internet play. It's a newer phenomenon. The penetration rates are > still growing, et cetera. Many of them are dealing with political issues in > their home countries where there's political instability and there's a > different mindset to what the benefits of the internet bring. So the > context, first of all, is very different in a lot of the countries that have > expressed points of view different to ours. > > The second comment, Richard, is, as you know, I've got a mobile background. > I used to work with Vodafone. It is amazing as technology rolls from country > to country how it looks in different places. It carries its own life and > customizes to the local market. I actually think even more than the mobile > sector, the internet looks different in different places from a content > standpoint, an application standpoint, et cetera. And in turn, as that > customization occurs, growth tends to increase. So I'm a fundamental > believer over the long term you will see a lot more interest, economic > activity, et cetera. Are there going to be political issues where certain > countries don't want free expression? Absolutely, but if you say over a long > period of time, I think people will see a lot of the benefits, and this is a > long game that we're playing here. > > *QUESTION:* But as more countries join the internet, as you say, it could be > that they will change the internet rather than the internet changing them. > So this just might be the way (inaudible) countries that have a different > approach to the medium changing the internet. > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* I don't know. I mean, it depends what you mean by > changing the internet. If you mean they're going to look to make it look > different and customize it to their environment, then yeah, I would agree > with you. If it's governments are going to, on the long term, control the > internet and decide what it looks and how, I don't know that's going to > happen yet. Certainly, people talk about it in a futuristic way, but I've > not seen kind of a concrete piece of it. > > And take an example of Kenya. I think Kenya is a great example from the > internet and mobile and they're one of the supporters of our activity. They > see a clear benefit in their society because it creates economic value, it > reduces the digital divide, it creates more demand for services, it connects > them with the world. And I think as you see more of those case examples of > success, you get more and more people that say this is a good thing. And > that's, again, the long game that we see. > > *QUESTION:* All right, thanks. > > *OPERATOR:* Okay, our next question is from Joseph Menn with Reuters. Go > ahead, please. > > *QUESTION:* Hi, Ambassador. I wasn't tracking all of it as well as I might > have been, but it looked like 3.8, the addressing thing, came out, which > seemed like a very clear stumbling block. If that's right, then was the last > straw the provision on countries pledging not to disconnect each other? > Because if so, that sort of makes it look like the U.S. is an outlier and > wants the ability to disconnect other countries in times of conflict. > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So you know, candidly, there were several items > that really were the things that turned this over. What was interesting > about this negotiation is sometimes there's this impression, well, you're > negotiating ten items; one or two matter a lot, and seven or eight are kind > of moderate, they don't matter a huge amount, you can give and take. In this > negotiation, candidly, there's like five, six, seven things that were huge > issues that had a lot to do, again, with different aspects of controlling > the internet, and any one of these would have been a trip for us, would have > been us saying no, we don't want to do this. And so when I read those off at > the beginning of the call, each of those would have been a big issue. > > So there was an internet resolution, as I mentioned. The internet resolution > specifically talks about governance, about governments involved in > governance of the internet. Now, what happened in the negotiations, they > said, well, we'll take that internet resolution, we'll move it from the body > of the articles which are binding in nature and they'll move it to a > resolution which is nonbinding. And they said, well, isn't that great? The > reality is it's still in the ITRs and people are going to look at it and say > the ITU and this WCIT conference got into internet governance. So that was a > fundamental issue that would have tripped, again, our position. > > The second one is on spam. There's a provision on spam in this. And again, > there was a lot of effort to try and water it down with saying we're going > to mitigate, the focus on content, et cetera. But at the end of the day, if > you're saying you want to reduce the spam problem, you're getting into a > content issue there. And somebody, especially if you're talking amongst > governments, you're giving the government the right to look at those issues. > > A third issue was the issue of security. When you put security mixed in here > with the internet and content, again, you open the door for an organization > to say, listen, in the quest of dealing with cyber security issues, I'm > going to have to look at content and I'm going to make it okay to review > that content. So again, there's all these kind of circuitous ways to get > into these things. > > The final thing is just the agencies that are subject to this. We don't want > lack of clarity about the agencies that are subject to this. We're very > clear on this that public providers of telecomm services should be the ones > that are affected but not any others, not private networks, not internet > players, not cloud computing players, not government networks, et cetera. > There's a lot of players in this kind of converged world that, again, > indirectly or directly could be subject to these regulations. > > So candidly, the decision to do a no-sign - there wasn't a lot of > consternation on it. There were too many issues here that were problematic > for us, and it made the decision clear. > > *QUESTION:* Thank you. > > *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from David Gewirtz with CBS Interactive. > Go ahead, please. > > *QUESTION:* Hi. This is David Gewirtz calling. So Ambassador, what happens > now? Will other countries essentially route around the U.S. desires for an > open net? Will this lead to what might essentially become two internets, one > open and one closed? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, we obviously hope that doesn't happen here. And > again, from my own technology and mobile background, there's a natural > momentum to players that have scale, that are first-movers, et cetera, that > create lower costs, they create greater inoperability, et cetera. So there's > a natural, I think, bias or advantage to that. And that benefits, by the way > - we talk about Richard's question earlier about when technology rolls to > successive markets, many of those later markets get the better end of the > technology, because infrastructure costs come down, or handset costs come > down, or unique contents available, et cetera, they get the benefit of it. > > Now, if a country says, listen, I want to have a different standard, I'm > going to have a different approach, then they can go proceed with that. > Candidly, they could still do that under national sovereignty. But they're > going to have to deal, again, with a more and more interconnected > environment. And so I think our job in all of this is to continue to espouse > the benefits of an open internet, of free content, of low costs here, of all > the things that entrepreneurs do with the internet. We have to keep > advocating that, and that will create a natural bias or momentum in favor of > it. And again, at the end of the day, if somebody wants to develop a > different standard approach, it's obviously that's country's prerogative. > But we're hoping that's not an easy task. > > *QUESTION:* Thank you. > > *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from Grant Gross with IDG News > Service. Go ahead, please. > > *QUESTION:* Hello, Ambassador. Thanks for taking our calls. Kind of > following up on that, what is the danger of this kind of resolution now as > you see it coming out? What problems could it cause, even with the U.S. and > the UK and other countries not adopting it? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, so I don't see a lot of near-term or > intermediate-term risks here, because it's not a legally binding document. > It doesn't carry that risk. I think we've also maintained good relationships > and enough kind of openness that companies that do business abroad have got > a good environment. > > I do think that it does set up for a much more direct conversation that's > going to have to happen on multi-stakeholder governance, that that is really > the only model that's been proven to be effective, where, again, you've got > civil society and industry and others there addressing fundamental internet > issues. And in turn, multi-stakeholder organizations are going to have to > continue to focus on outreach and being global in nature. > > And if you - there's issues in Africa. A lot of our African colleagues here > are saying, listen, we've got cyber issues; we need help with that. Then we > need to make sure there are multi-stakeholder organizations available to > help then with those issues. The United States, in addition, does a variety > of bilaterals with individual countries to help them with their own cyber > work and other issues related to the internet. > > But again, our fundamental view on this thing is you've got to be pragmatic. > No one government can solve fundamental issues and deal with the internet, > so you've got to have that expertise, that agility. And importantly, you've > got to be customized in your approach. > > So again, to bring up the cyber security issue, when you ask a lot of > countries what is the cyber security issue, at the end of the day, it's > heavily a regional issue; it's not a global issue. There's kind of one or > two countries there are cyber issues with. So then you kind of ask the > question, well, why exactly would you want to put terms in a global > agreement on cyber. And there's not a very good answer. > > So the net net of all this is we need to continue to advance the argument > and the benefits of multi-stakeholder organizations. We need to put a lot of > energy into the effectiveness of those organizations and make sure we > continue to kind of build that global opportunity. So I think that's the > charter going forward. And again, coming from the mobile industry, I've seen > that in my own life with the associations and standards bodies that work > very well in that environment. So I do think it will happen. It's just a > period of time. > > *QUESTION:* Thanks. > > *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from Adam Popescu with ReadWrite.com. > Go ahead, please. > > *QUESTION:* Hi, Mr. Ambassador. Thanks for your time. A lot of my questions > have already been answered by my peers, but going forward, what I'm - what I > understand from what you're saying is because of the fact that other nations > are going to be putting forth a lot of this stuff in terms of the ROA versus > OA, basically my question is, sort of dovetailing on one of the last > questions about the two internets, are we going to see a different view of a > certain site for international, when they're here in the U.S.? > And what's going to happen globally? And you mentioned January 2015 as the > day when these are supposed to take effect, so maybe you could speak on that > a little bit. > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. So first of all, I mean on a second internet, > again, anything is possible. And you see on the content side there are > social media sites, for example, in Russia that are unique in Russia. But > again, what happens in this space, as you know - take a Facebook, right, > with over a billion users. There's a natural advantage to having that type > of user base globally. And that creates a momentum for that to spread > further. > > So I think, again, with the momentum that's going on, that it's kind of a > natural that having some unique standard and setup somewhere else is going > to be an easy task. There's countries, again, in the mobile space that have > tried to set up a different standard for 3G, 4G, the latest network > technologies - very difficult to pull off. So I don't know necessarily > there's some ulterior motive at this point. We're seeing some nation want > create some new effort. But we are going to need to continue to do this > global outreach so we don't inadvertently allow a Balkanization of the > internet. > > And in terms of the January 15th date, nothing happens until then. And > there's a lot of activities and conferences that are going to happen between > now and January of 2015. So a lot of different reviews are going to happen. > And candidly, in these situations a lot of people may have buyer's remorse. > It's interesting; even when we do our bilats, et cetera, there are a lot of > nations that are still kind of getting their head around what the internet > is, the opportunity, what are the issues with spam, and what are the issues > with roaming related to this et cetera. And that's been the benefit of this > conference and our bilaterals, is we can have that discussion with people. > And I think from that information, that education, you get a much better > outcome. And I think people will come to the conclusion that > multi-stakeholder governance is the right approach. > > *QUESTION: *One quick follow-up question: When is the next major internet > conference where we can kind of take up some of these matters? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Well, there's WTPF, a policy forum that's in May of > next year. So that's going to be a place where some internet issues will be > discussed. There's an IGF, an Internet Governance Forum meeting that's every > year. I think their - it's tentatively targeted for Indonesia next year in > the fall. So these happen literally every few months or so. But again, what > we don't want to see is have these in the form of a treaty negotiating > conference. There's a huge amount to be done in best practice sharing, and > fora that talk about ideas and approaches, but just not setting up > regulations. > > *QUESTION: *And then my final question: Is this conference, then, and the > fact that we're not signing, is this a failure? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Not at all. It's an interesting question, because I > would talk with our U.S. delegation - success - and we always set this out > with the goals of our delegation in the U.S. effort. Our end goal here is to > create an environment where we can say there's going to be success for the > internet and telecom. And it is so easy in this setting here where you're > dealing with a lot of technical rules and regulations, you're dealing with > other regulators here, et cetera, to lose sight of the plot in life. The > plot here is to make sure that these sectors do well. And if you can't > definitively say that an ITR is going to help that future of success, then > you shouldn't put the ITR in. You shouldn't put regulation in. > > So I very much look at this - this is success. We've had a chance in this > conference to communicate what success, we think, looks like, the importance > of the internet globally. There's been a connection between different > countries and different people, et cetera, that I think all of that is a > benefit. And on any issue that you have that's a deep kind of philosophical > or technical issue, you don't have kind of one conversation and people's > minds change. It happens over a period of time. It happens when you can > point to success. It happens when you can say, look at what's happened in > Kenya with broadband and the internet. Look what's happened in India with > mobile penetration. You start pointing to success, and people say, "Now I > know this isn't some theoretical, philosophical argument. This is a model > that works." And so I think those things will happen. I'm optimistic about > it. But it's the beginning of several steps. And so I do think this was a > success, and there are going to be more of them. > > *QUESTION: *Thank you. > > *OPERATOR: *Our next question is from Cyrus Farivar with ARS Technica. Go > ahead, please. > > *QUESTION: *Hello Mr. Ambassador, and thank you very much for my taking > question. I had two questions. First of all, I'm wondering - you talked > about how the United States is not going to be supporting these agreements. > I'm wondering why these agreements are even necessary in the first place. > As you know, and I think as pretty much all of my colleagues know, lots of > countries out there already conduct their own national internets to varying > degrees. I'm talking most notably of China, Iran, certainly North Korea, > that has probably the most restrictive internet policy of anyone in the > world. So I wonder: Why are these even kind of national-based agreements > even necessary to begin with when this practice is already going on? That's > my first question. > > And then my second question is: I'm wondering what was the role of lobbying > to your delegation, particularly by corporations such as Google and > particularly by prominent internet technical experts, like Vint Cerf, who, > as you know, was the architect of some of the fundamental foundations of the > protocols behind the internet itself. > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. No. Great questions. So first of all, on your > first question on the global nature, you're absolutely right. Countries have > national sovereignty rights, so they can do what they want. But what we > don't want over time is a set of global agreements that people can point to > and say, listen, this treaty gave us the right to impose these terms on > global operators of some sort. Now, again, we don't' think that's going to > happen with this per se because it's a normative approach, it's not legally > binding. But you sure don't want to kind of just allow something to happen > that people can think is a binding term on an increasingly global > environment. So that's why we don't want it to happen. > > Our argument specifically on the ITU is the ITU does great work in a lot of > the radio areas, in spectrum work, in coordination work, they do a lot of > great work in developing markets, et cetera. But in the internet, it's not > the charter. It's not the place. It's not going to be able to do the things > that are going to really add value. And so that's why we say, continue with > the ITU and interact with a lot of other delegates, but make sure it's on > the right topics. > > Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a good question, but > I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have a delegation here > of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that are people from > State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of Defense, et > cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being either internet > players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so that were > members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. They - as > a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're > representing national interests. > > So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to be > subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these > different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward, > why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the industry > provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed > our positions more broadly on a national basis. > > A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our > bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real > benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece > of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do > outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're > able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, > and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our > delegation. > > But finally I'll say - and I don't know if you call - it's a bit of the > irony of all this is we - people said, "Geez, you guys have a large > delegation." The fact we had a large delegation with the type of engagement > we had is the beauty of our system - is you have a lot of people that are > taking their ideas - some of them are their own self-interest, but a lot of > it is much broader than that, and they're contributing to a greater outcome > here. And as I did bilaterals with other nations, it was interesting how > many countries I would go to where a member of industry or civil society > said, could you tell my government this, this and this? And I said, well, > isn't there a delegation in their own country sharing it? Well, the reality > is a lot of countries don't have that type of inclusive nature. Certainly > the democratic ones do, but there are a lot of ones that aren't. And it was > a very stark message to me of exactly what we're talking about when we talk > about multi-stakeholder governance and how you collect the best wisdom and > energy to create something bigger. So a long-winded answer to your question, > but that - those representatives were a very essential part of our > delegation. > > *QUESTION:* Thank you. > > *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from David McAuley with Bloomberg > BNA. Go ahead, please. > > *QUESTION:* Thank you. Ambassador Kramer, my questions, too, have been > answered, but let me ask this: What will happen to the U.S. delegation now > and to your role between now and, let's say, WTPF in May? And what are the > U.S. plans going forward between now and January of 2015? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. Thank you, David. And so a couple of things. > People will all go into their own worlds again in the coming weeks and > months. So our delegation - obviously a lot of them are in civil society or > industry, et cetera. They'll, obviously, go back into that. I'll eventually > go back into probably academia and the work that I was doing before, and > maybe industry again. You never know. > > But importantly, what should be happening in the next month or two is what > are the learnings from the conference, what are the implications going > forward, how do we advance multi-stakeholder governance. All of those > things, I think, are going to be very, very helpful. And I think, again, to > the earlier question about was this successful, there's a lot of success in > understanding points of view of other nations, of really honing in on our > arguments, and importantly how do you advance these ideas about liberalized > markets and about multi-stakeholder governance. So the next couple of > months, my mind is going to be on that and sharing insights as well as a lot > of my colleagues. > > *QUESTION:* Thank you. > > *OPERATOR:* Next question comes from Jennifer Martinez, The Hill. Please go > ahead. > > *QUESTION:* Hi. Thanks so much for taking my call. Appreciate it. You've > kind of touched on this in previous questions, so apologies if this is > somewhat of a repeat. But with the countries that are signing the ITRs, I > guess, would they be treating a company like Google or Facebook differently > in the future, or is it too early to tell, since the treaty hasn't gone into > effect yet? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. I think it's too early to tell. A lot of the > countries that would sign, that would have policies very different than > ours, are already creating a very different environment. So I don't think > that's likely to happen near term. And again, I think from a legally binding > standpoint, these ITRs don't have teeth in them. But I do think we have to > continually be vigilant on this issue about not erecting barriers. > > And some of the arguments on this, Jennifer, it's interesting. You may have > governments that have different political views than us. They may have > different practices on censorship, et cetera. But many of them are > fundamentally concerned about commercial issues. They want to see commerce; > they want to see people using the internet effectively, et cetera. And so > there's always that argument that helps advance keeping the internet free > and open. > > So that's kind of the mindset from here. And again, I don't expect any big > change in any of this. But we are going to have a continued effort to make > sure this multi-stakeholder model and the global opportunity is made clear. > > *MODERATOR:* All right. We have time for one more question. > > *OPERATOR:* Okay. Last question comes from Josh Peterson, The Daily Caller. > > *QUESTION:* Hi, Ambassador. Thank you for your time and thank you for taking > my question. I just wanted to go back and talk a little bit about what > brought the proceedings to a vote. Because from what I understand, the event > operates on consensus, but - and a vote was unlikely. So what was it that > prompted this to happen? > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, so first of all, what happened last night and > what also happened this evening is there was an indication of interest. > People hold up placards. They did one vote, I think, later on to try and > move things along. So some of what's happening is the views on these issues > are so heartfelt and so significant, and it slowed down a lot of the > negotiations. I mean, here we are Thursday night, and it's almost midnight > here, and people are still trying to work away. > > So the chairman has really tried to move things along. And one of the tools > was to do this vote on the human rights element. But in general, they've > tried to really stick to consensus. So I don't feel, per se, that this > indication of interest or a nominal vote has been the big issue. I think the > bigger issue is there's a variety of nations out there that do hold > different views than our own, and we're going to have to continue to engage > so that we don't find that that continues to be an area of disagreement. > > *MODERATOR:* All right. Well, thank you, everyone, for joining us this > evening. And as a reminder, we will not be having another call. This was our > press briefing that we had mentioned in our media note previously. > Thank you, everyone. Have a good night. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sun Dec 16 18:21:39 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 04:51:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT In-Reply-To: <518989750.71197.1355699352387.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> References: <06a101cddbdb$d8768860$89639920$@gmail.com> <518989750.71197.1355699352387.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> Message-ID: <75B1B58C-5246-4CAA-AC38-2DD3DC2D4B65@hserus.net> Would you rather they still communicate through drumbeats or something of the sort? And why do you doubt these statements about gdp growth? Or do you have quantitative data that suggets otherwise? At least in India, the adoption of mobile telephony hasn't been driven by the smartphone users as it has by a large number of poor people - manual laborers, fishermen, maidservants and such. It gives them independence and access to information which helps them add far more value to their lifestyle than an executive is helped by his blackberry or ipad. Fishermen using their phone to call various nearby markets and finding where they can get the best price for their catch is just one such example. --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 4:39, jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr wrote: > > Dear Michael and all > > > > Ambassador Kramer said > > this growth, and the developing countries are seeing higher growth rates > than the developed world.> > > > > I'd be interested to have a rational explanation upon the relationship between DCs' "higher growth rates" and the Internet. IMHO there is rather a direct relationship ... with declining growth rates in Industriallized countries ! Maybe the US ambassador is just re-quoting the buzz of the World Bank that circulates since a couple of years (it's become a password in each WSIS Forum) in the UN agencies, claiming that +10% increase in mobile subscribers, sorry : consumers, means 1,6% increase of GDP in Africa. > > > > How happy these Africans are, thanks to mobile and the Internet ! > > > > Best regards > > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > > > > Message du 16/12/12 23:23 > > De : "michael gurstein" > > A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Copie à : > > Objet : [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT > > > > For anyone who hasn't yet read this, it is a very interesting document... > > > > One quick content analysis observation--the term "free" is used 6 times, > > "markets" 6 times, "Freedom" once, "Internet Freedom" not at all, and > > "multi-stakeholder" 17 times! > > > > M > > > > World Conference on International Telecommunications > > > > Remarks > > Terry Kramer > > Ambassador U.S. Head of Delegation, World Conference on International > > Telecommunications Via Teleconference Dubai, United Arab Emirates December > > 13, 2012 > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > *MODERATOR:* Yes, good evening everyone. We're here in Dubai and with > > Ambassador Kramer. We've just finished a session at the World Conference on > > International Telecommunications, and I'm going to turn it over to > > Ambassador Kramer now to give us the latest developments that happened at > > the WCIT 2012. > > > > Ambassador. > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Great. Megan, thank you, and thank all of you for > > joining us today. I want to thank you for your attention and patience as > > we've worked through the last two weeks at this conference, and I appreciate > > your diligence and persistence in reporting on the WCIT. > > > > I also want to take this opportunity to thank and commend the ITU Secretary > > General Hamadoun Toure and our Conference Chairman, Mr. Mohamed Al-Ghanim, > > for their efforts and skills in working to guide this meeting. Our gratitude > > also goes to the United Arab Emirates for their hospitality during these two > > weeks. > > > > The United States today has announced that it cannot sign the revised > > international telecommunication regulations in their current form. > > Throughout the WCIT, the U.S. and other likeminded governments have worked > > consistently and unwaveringly to maintain and enhance an environment for > > success for the international telecommunications and internet sectors. The > > United States has consistently believed, and continues to believe, that the > > ITRs should be a high-level document and that the scope of the treaty does > > not extend to internet governance or content. Other administrations have > > made it clear that they believe the treaty should be extended to cover those > > issues, and so we cannot be part of that consensus. > > > > There are a number of issues that were critical to the United States in > > these negotiations. Number one, recognized operating agencies versus > > operating agencies. The United States consistently sought to clarify that > > the treaty would not apply to internet service providers or governments or > > private network operators. > > > > Number two, spam. The United States position remains that spam is a form of > > content and that regulating it inevitably opens the door to regulation of > > other forms of content, including political and cultural speech. > > > > Number three, network security. The United States continues to believe that > > the ITRs are not a useful venue for addressing security issues and cannot > > accede to vague commitments that would have significant implications but few > > practical improvements on security. > > > > Number four, internet governance. In several proposals, it was clear that > > some administrations were seeking to insert government control over internet > > governance, specifically internet naming and addressing functions. > > We continue to believe these issues can only be legitimately handled through > > multi-stakeholder organizations. > > > > And finally, number five, the internet resolution. This document represented > > a direct extension of scope into the internet and of the ITU's role therein > > despite earlier assertions from Secretary General Hamadoun Toure that the > > WCIT would not address internet issues. > > > > The United States has been willing to engage in good-faith discussions > > regarding these issues, and we'd like to thank and commend the other > > delegates for engaging with us. However, while we have consistently > > maintained our positions regarding the scope of the conference, other > > administrations have continually filed out-of-scope proposals that > > unacceptably altered the nature of the discussions, and ultimately of the > > ITRs. > > > > It is clear that the world community is at a crossroads in its collective > > view of the internet and of the most optimal environment for the flourishing > > of the internet in this century. The internet is a global phenomenon that is > > providing enormous personal, social, and economic benefits to consumers, > > citizens, and societies in all areas of the world. > > It has grown exponentially over the past decade and continues to flourish > > and adapt to human needs everywhere. The entire world has benefited from > > this growth, and the developing countries are seeing higher growth rates > > than the developed world. The infrastructure of the global internet is > > shifting rapidly away from the transatlantic routes that formerly carried > > most traffic. The internet is becoming more regional and national and less > > centered in the U.S. and other Western countries. This is a welcome > > development. > > > > All of the benefits and growth of the internet have come as a result not of > > government action or of intergovernmental treaty. They are an organic > > expression of consumer demand and societal needs, along with other > > multi-stakeholder governance. We have every expectation that the internet > > will continue to grow and provide enormous benefits worldwide. The United > > States will continue to uphold and advance the multi-stakeholder model of > > internet governance, standards development, and management. No single > > organization or government can or should attempt to control the internet or > > dictate its future development. > > > > In addition, the United States remains fully committed to the values of > > freedom of expression and the free flow of information and ideas on the > > internet. While there was no consensus at WCIT-12, the conference served a > > valuable purpose in clarifying views and building a foundation for continued > > dialogue. The United States will continue to work not only within the ITU > > but in multiple forums to achieve the universal goals of further growth of > > advanced network infrastructure in developing countries. > > > > The United States continues to believe that multi-stakeholder governance of > > the internet, coupled with liberalized telecommunication markets and the > > growth of network infrastructure in all countries, will accelerate growth > > and spread of the international telecommunications and internet throughout > > the world. The U.S. will remain engaged in a global dialogue on the role of > > governments and other stakeholders in the growth and development of > > international telecommunications and the internet sectors. This conversation > > will not be over when WCIT-12 ends. Rather, the discussion will continue for > > many months and years. > > > > I'd like to now open the floor for your questions. > > > > *OPERATOR:* Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to ask a question, > > please press * then 1 on your touchtone phone. You will hear a tone > > indicating you have been placed in queue. You may remove yourself from the > > queue at any time by pressing the # key. If you are using a speakerphone, > > please pick up the handset before pressing the numbers. One moment, please, > > for our first question. > > > > Our first question is from Rob Lever with AFP. Go ahead, please. > > > > *QUESTION: *Yes, Ambassador, thank you. You said at the start that the > > United States cannot sign these ITRs in their current form. And does that > > mean that it's not quite over and that you still have some hope of reaching > > some compromise, or is - you believe that proposal is on the table? And > > secondly, what does it mean if there is no consensus or no treaty that's > > signed? What does that mean? Do we even need this at all? > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. Thank you for the question. So first of all, the > > discussions in the main plenary right now are in the final stages. And the > > chairman has gone through - the chairman of the conference has gone through > > several rounds of changes to the ITRs to try and meet a variety of needs. > > And that's been a lot of our negotiations that have gone on over the last > > few days. > > > > The version that's out there now looks like it's the near-final one. There > > could still be some very small ones, but it's looking near final. And the > > level of support from a variety of other nations looks strong enough that it > > looks unlikely it will materially change. So I just made a public commentary > > on the plenary floor to let the audience know there that we were not going > > to sign the agreement. And obviously, we talked about our fundamental belief > > in multi-stakeholder governance. So while there's still a chance things > > could change, I'd say it's highly unlikely. The plenary will meet for > > another hour or two, and then there's formalities tomorrow with signatures > > and other things. > > > > So what can happen is your second question. So what's likely is if there's > > enough consensus to proceed, there'll be an actual signing ceremony where > > the countries that do agree with the ITRs will formally sign them. > > Obviously we are not going to be signing them. There may be some nations > > that will take reservations. So they may sign the agreement, but they will > > identify several areas that they don't like about the treaty. So it's a way > > of expressing opposition to it. > > > > > > > > So the final part of your question is why does all this matter, how does it > > matter, et cetera. At the end of the day, these ITRs are not legally binding > > terms. They're much more normative and values oriented. It really kind of > > drives what the public discussion is. The actual ITRs officially don't take > > effect until January of 2015, and again, there's not a legally binding > > nature to it. But what is very fundamental about all this discussion is this > > is - we've had a very explicit discussion about views on the internet, and > > how it should be managed. And that - it was an explicit discussion on the > > plenary floor, and with our bilaterals, et cetera. And as you know, the > > divergence of views is significant. And we're going to continue to advocate > > the multi-stakeholder model. I'd like to think that as time progresses and > > people see the benefit of the internet, that the belief in liberalized > > markets and a multi-stakeholder model that frankly is much more practical in > > terms of advancing the internet, that that will take hold. But that will > > take a period of time, that discussion. > > > > *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from Eliza Krigman. Go ahead, please. > > > > *QUESTION: *Hi. This is Eliza Krigman with Politico. Thanks for taking my > > call. What does this mean for the commercial arrangement between carriers, > > and specifically within payments from - or sending party pay payments, will > > there - if some countries ratify this treaty, does that mean they're going > > to then send Google a bill for sending their subscribers YouTube content? > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So, Eliza, fortunately the sending party pays > > elements have been removed through negotiations. They have been removed from > > the agreements here. So we're obviously very pleased about that. > > There's obviously still - you have a lot of organizations that do business > > globally. But the way the treaty works is there's national sovereignty > > rights, so countries can do whatever they want to do in their own country. > > But obviously we don't want to have agreements globally that set a tone. So > > we're going to have to continue to advocate the importance of the global > > nature of the internet. And there's a natural momentum where the world is > > becoming more interconnected, and the commercial opportunities are > > significant. So that's where there's a continued kind of momentum to keep > > negotiations going between countries, between network operators. > > > > *QUESTION: *Thank you. > > > > *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from John Eggerton with Broadcasting > > & Cable. Go ahead, please. > > > > *QUESTION: *Yes, Ambassador. Can you identify any of the other countries you > > think might not sign, or is it just going to be the U.S.? > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah, so there were several - after I made my > > statement, there were a variety of other nations that then started to share > > their views, their concerns about the treaty. And they were either > > acknowledging that they would not sign or they acknowledged they had > > significant reservations and wanted to talk to their capitals overnight, or > > they identified specific areas that they want to take a reservation on. And > > matter of fact, once I spoke, there was a variety of nations, and I'll read > > them off to you here, and then we went to a break immediately afterwards. > > > > So the countries that have already spoken and we'll hear from more, but it > > is the United Kingdom, Costa Rica, Denmark, Egypt, Sweden, Netherlands, > > Kenya, the Czech Republic, Canada, New Zealand, and Poland. And again, that > > was just the group that spoke before we went on a break. So we'll know more > > after this. One of the reasons, obviously, that I put my statement out is we > > wanted to clearly signal that this is the United States position. > > There's a lot of countries, as you can imagine, that are waiting to see > > where the U.S. comes out. > > > > But on this issue, candidly, we are resolute on this. We had to go in > > understanding that we may have nobody else supporting us, because these > > issues are so fundamental. And fortunately, as I mentioned with that list of > > countries, a lot of other countries see the same issues we do. > > > > *QUESTION: *All right. But that's a mix. You don't know which specifically > > have said they're not going to sign; that's a mix of all three of those? > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* That's right. That's right. But all of them - the tone > > in which they shared it were all concerns. There isn't anybody in that group > > saying, "We love it." They are all either going to be taking some sort of > > reservation or they're going to not sign. I mean, it was pretty clear from > > their comments. > > > > *QUESTION: *Okay. Thanks. > > > > *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from Richard Waters with *Financial Times*. > > Go ahead, please. > > > > *QUESTION:* Yes, hello. The fact that so many countries haven't - sorry, are > > going to sign this suggests that - or does it suggest that actually the > > trend is away from the kind of open, free internet that you've been > > discussing here? And particularly if you bear in mind what happened at > > earlier conferences in 2003 and '5 where the kind of worst outcomes were > > headed off from your point of view, is what we're seeing now a trend away > > from the kind of web and the internet that the U.S. would like? And what > > gives you the confidence to think that if things will swing around? You seem > > to be suggesting that when countries see the benefit of an open internet, > > they will adjust their point of view, but it seems to be exactly the > > opposite here, isn't it? > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yes. So first of all, we don't know yet who's going to > > vote in favor, because we won't know, literally, till tomorrow on that. > > There could be a lot of countries that abstain, et cetera. So it's, I think, > > premature for us to say who's going to agree or not agree. > > > > But a couple of things on this. A lot of the countries that are expressing > > points of view different than ours are newer and less experienced in the > > whole internet play. It's a newer phenomenon. The penetration rates are > > still growing, et cetera. Many of them are dealing with political issues in > > their home countries where there's political instability and there's a > > different mindset to what the benefits of the internet bring. So the > > context, first of all, is very different in a lot of the countries that have > > expressed points of view different to ours. > > > > The second comment, Richard, is, as you know, I've got a mobile background. > > I used to work with Vodafone. It is amazing as technology rolls from country > > to country how it looks in different places. It carries its own life and > > customizes to the local market. I actually think even more than the mobile > > sector, the internet looks different in different places from a content > > standpoint, an application standpoint, et cetera. And in turn, as that > > customization occurs, growth tends to increase. So I'm a fundamental > > believer over the long term you will see a lot more interest, economic > > activity, et cetera. Are there going to be political issues where certain > > countries don't want free expression? Absolutely, but if you say over a long > > period of time, I think people will see a lot of the benefits, and this is a > > long game that we're playing here. > > > > *QUESTION:* But as more countries join the internet, as you say, it could be > > that they will change the internet rather than the internet changing them. > > So this just might be the way (inaudible) countries that have a different > > approach to the medium changing the internet. > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* I don't know. I mean, it depends what you mean by > > changing the internet. If you mean they're going to look to make it look > > different and customize it to their environment, then yeah, I would agree > > with you. If it's governments are going to, on the long term, control the > > internet and decide what it looks and how, I don't know that's going to > > happen yet. Certainly, people talk about it in a futuristic way, but I've > > not seen kind of a concrete piece of it. > > > > And take an example of Kenya. I think Kenya is a great example from the > > internet and mobile and they're one of the supporters of our activity. They > > see a clear benefit in their society because it creates economic value, it > > reduces the digital divide, it creates more demand for services, it connects > > them with the world. And I think as you see more of those case examples of > > success, you get more and more people that say this is a good thing. And > > that's, again, the long game that we see. > > > > *QUESTION:* All right, thanks. > > > > *OPERATOR:* Okay, our next question is from Joseph Menn with Reuters. Go > > ahead, please. > > > > *QUESTION:* Hi, Ambassador. I wasn't tracking all of it as well as I might > > have been, but it looked like 3.8, the addressing thing, came out, which > > seemed like a very clear stumbling block. If that's right, then was the last > > straw the provision on countries pledging not to disconnect each other? > > Because if so, that sort of makes it look like the U.S. is an outlier and > > wants the ability to disconnect other countries in times of conflict. > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. So you know, candidly, there were several items > > that really were the things that turned this over. What was interesting > > about this negotiation is sometimes there's this impression, well, you're > > negotiating ten items; one or two matter a lot, and seven or eight are kind > > of moderate, they don't matter a huge amount, you can give and take. In this > > negotiation, candidly, there's like five, six, seven things that were huge > > issues that had a lot to do, again, with different aspects of controlling > > the internet, and any one of these would have been a trip for us, would have > > been us saying no, we don't want to do this. And so when I read those off at > > the beginning of the call, each of those would have been a big issue. > > > > So there was an internet resolution, as I mentioned. The internet resolution > > specifically talks about governance, about governments involved in > > governance of the internet. Now, what happened in the negotiations, they > > said, well, we'll take that internet resolution, we'll move it from the body > > of the articles which are binding in nature and they'll move it to a > > resolution which is nonbinding. And they said, well, isn't that great? The > > reality is it's still in the ITRs and people are going to look at it and say > > the ITU and this WCIT conference got into internet governance. So that was a > > fundamental issue that would have tripped, again, our position. > > > > The second one is on spam. There's a provision on spam in this. And again, > > there was a lot of effort to try and water it down with saying we're going > > to mitigate, the focus on content, et cetera. But at the end of the day, if > > you're saying you want to reduce the spam problem, you're getting into a > > content issue there. And somebody, especially if you're talking amongst > > governments, you're giving the government the right to look at those issues. > > > > A third issue was the issue of security. When you put security mixed in here > > with the internet and content, again, you open the door for an organization > > to say, listen, in the quest of dealing with cyber security issues, I'm > > going to have to look at content and I'm going to make it okay to review > > that content. So again, there's all these kind of circuitous ways to get > > into these things. > > > > The final thing is just the agencies that are subject to this. We don't want > > lack of clarity about the agencies that are subject to this. We're very > > clear on this that public providers of telecomm services should be the ones > > that are affected but not any others, not private networks, not internet > > players, not cloud computing players, not government networks, et cetera. > > There's a lot of players in this kind of converged world that, again, > > indirectly or directly could be subject to these regulations. > > > > So candidly, the decision to do a no-sign - there wasn't a lot of > > consternation on it. There were too many issues here that were problematic > > for us, and it made the decision clear. > > > > *QUESTION:* Thank you. > > > > *OPERATOR:* Our next question is from David Gewirtz with CBS Interactive. > > Go ahead, please. > > > > *QUESTION:* Hi. This is David Gewirtz calling. So Ambassador, what happens > > now? Will other countries essentially route around the U.S. desires for an > > open net? Will this lead to what might essentially become two internets, one > > open and one closed? > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, we obviously hope that doesn't happen here. And > > again, from my own technology and mobile background, there's a natural > > momentum to players that have scale, that are first-movers, et cetera, that > > create lower costs, they create greater inoperability, et cetera. So there's > > a natural, I think, bias or advantage to that. And that benefits, by the way > > - we talk about Richard's question earlier about when technology rolls to > > successive markets, many of those later markets get the better end of the > > technology, because infrastructure costs come down, or handset costs come > > down, or unique contents available, et cetera, they get the benefit of it. > > > > Now, if a country says, listen, I want to have a different standard, I'm > > going to have a different approach, then they can go proceed with that. > > Candidly, they could still do that under national sovereignty. But they're > > going to have to deal, again, with a more and more interconnected > > environment. And so I think our job in all of this is to continue to espouse > > the benefits of an open internet, of free content, of low costs here, of all > > the things that entrepreneurs do with the internet. We have to keep > > advocating that, and that will create a natural bias or momentum in favor of > > it. And again, at the end of the day, if somebody wants to develop a > > different standard approach, it's obviously that's country's prerogative. > > But we're hoping that's not an easy task. > > > > *QUESTION:* Thank you. > > > > *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from Grant Gross with IDG News > > Service. Go ahead, please. > > > > *QUESTION:* Hello, Ambassador. Thanks for taking our calls. Kind of > > following up on that, what is the danger of this kind of resolution now as > > you see it coming out? What problems could it cause, even with the U.S. and > > the UK and other countries not adopting it? > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, so I don't see a lot of near-term or > > intermediate-term risks here, because it's not a legally binding document. > > It doesn't carry that risk. I think we've also maintained good relationships > > and enough kind of openness that companies that do business abroad have got > > a good environment. > > > > I do think that it does set up for a much more direct conversation that's > > going to have to happen on multi-stakeholder governance, that that is really > > the only model that's been proven to be effective, where, again, you've got > > civil society and industry and others there addressing fundamental internet > > issues. And in turn, multi-stakeholder organizations are going to have to > > continue to focus on outreach and being global in nature. > > > > And if you - there's issues in Africa. A lot of our African colleagues here > > are saying, listen, we've got cyber issues; we need help with that. Then we > > need to make sure there are multi-stakeholder organizations available to > > help then with those issues. The United States, in addition, does a variety > > of bilaterals with individual countries to help them with their own cyber > > work and other issues related to the internet. > > > > But again, our fundamental view on this thing is you've got to be pragmatic. > > No one government can solve fundamental issues and deal with the internet, > > so you've got to have that expertise, that agility. And importantly, you've > > got to be customized in your approach. > > > > So again, to bring up the cyber security issue, when you ask a lot of > > countries what is the cyber security issue, at the end of the day, it's > > heavily a regional issue; it's not a global issue. There's kind of one or > > two countries there are cyber issues with. So then you kind of ask the > > question, well, why exactly would you want to put terms in a global > > agreement on cyber. And there's not a very good answer. > > > > So the net net of all this is we need to continue to advance the argument > > and the benefits of multi-stakeholder organizations. We need to put a lot of > > energy into the effectiveness of those organizations and make sure we > > continue to kind of build that global opportunity. So I think that's the > > charter going forward. And again, coming from the mobile industry, I've seen > > that in my own life with the associations and standards bodies that work > > very well in that environment. So I do think it will happen. It's just a > > period of time. > > > > *QUESTION:* Thanks. > > > > *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from Adam Popescu with ReadWrite.com. > > Go ahead, please. > > > > *QUESTION:* Hi, Mr. Ambassador. Thanks for your time. A lot of my questions > > have already been answered by my peers, but going forward, what I'm - what I > > understand from what you're saying is because of the fact that other nations > > are going to be putting forth a lot of this stuff in terms of the ROA versus > > OA, basically my question is, sort of dovetailing on one of the last > > questions about the two internets, are we going to see a different view of a > > certain site for international, when they're here in the U.S.? > > And what's going to happen globally? And you mentioned January 2015 as the > > day when these are supposed to take effect, so maybe you could speak on that > > a little bit. > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. So first of all, I mean on a second internet, > > again, anything is possible. And you see on the content side there are > > social media sites, for example, in Russia that are unique in Russia. But > > again, what happens in this space, as you know - take a Facebook, right, > > with over a billion users. There's a natural advantage to having that type > > of user base globally. And that creates a momentum for that to spread > > further. > > > > So I think, again, with the momentum that's going on, that it's kind of a > > natural that having some unique standard and setup somewhere else is going > > to be an easy task. There's countries, again, in the mobile space that have > > tried to set up a different standard for 3G, 4G, the latest network > > technologies - very difficult to pull off. So I don't know necessarily > > there's some ulterior motive at this point. We're seeing some nation want > > create some new effort. But we are going to need to continue to do this > > global outreach so we don't inadvertently allow a Balkanization of the > > internet. > > > > And in terms of the January 15th date, nothing happens until then. And > > there's a lot of activities and conferences that are going to happen between > > now and January of 2015. So a lot of different reviews are going to happen. > > And candidly, in these situations a lot of people may have buyer's remorse. > > It's interesting; even when we do our bilats, et cetera, there are a lot of > > nations that are still kind of getting their head around what the internet > > is, the opportunity, what are the issues with spam, and what are the issues > > with roaming related to this et cetera. And that's been the benefit of this > > conference and our bilaterals, is we can have that discussion with people. > > And I think from that information, that education, you get a much better > > outcome. And I think people will come to the conclusion that > > multi-stakeholder governance is the right approach. > > > > *QUESTION: *One quick follow-up question: When is the next major internet > > conference where we can kind of take up some of these matters? > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Well, there's WTPF, a policy forum that's in May of > > next year. So that's going to be a place where some internet issues will be > > discussed. There's an IGF, an Internet Governance Forum meeting that's every > > year. I think their - it's tentatively targeted for Indonesia next year in > > the fall. So these happen literally every few months or so. But again, what > > we don't want to see is have these in the form of a treaty negotiating > > conference. There's a huge amount to be done in best practice sharing, and > > fora that talk about ideas and approaches, but just not setting up > > regulations. > > > > *QUESTION: *And then my final question: Is this conference, then, and the > > fact that we're not signing, is this a failure? > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Not at all. It's an interesting question, because I > > would talk with our U.S. delegation - success - and we always set this out > > with the goals of our delegation in the U.S. effort. Our end goal here is to > > create an environment where we can say there's going to be success for the > > internet and telecom. And it is so easy in this setting here where you're > > dealing with a lot of technical rules and regulations, you're dealing with > > other regulators here, et cetera, to lose sight of the plot in life. The > > plot here is to make sure that these sectors do well. And if you can't > > definitively say that an ITR is going to help that future of success, then > > you shouldn't put the ITR in. You shouldn't put regulation in. > > > > So I very much look at this - this is success. We've had a chance in this > > conference to communicate what success, we think, looks like, the importance > > of the internet globally. There's been a connection between different > > countries and different people, et cetera, that I think all of that is a > > benefit. And on any issue that you have that's a deep kind of philosophical > > or technical issue, you don't have kind of one conversation and people's > > minds change. It happens over a period of time. It happens when you can > > point to success. It happens when you can say, look at what's happened in > > Kenya with broadband and the internet. Look what's happened in India with > > mobile penetration. You start pointing to success, and people say, "Now I > > know this isn't some theoretical, philosophical argument. This is a model > > that works." And so I think those things will happen. I'm optimistic about > > it. But it's the beginning of several steps. And so I do think this was a > > success, and there are going to be more of them. > > > > *QUESTION: *Thank you. > > > > *OPERATOR: *Our next question is from Cyrus Farivar with ARS Technica. Go > > ahead, please. > > > > *QUESTION: *Hello Mr. Ambassador, and thank you very much for my taking > > question. I had two questions. First of all, I'm wondering - you talked > > about how the United States is not going to be supporting these agreements. > > I'm wondering why these agreements are even necessary in the first place. > > As you know, and I think as pretty much all of my colleagues know, lots of > > countries out there already conduct their own national internets to varying > > degrees. I'm talking most notably of China, Iran, certainly North Korea, > > that has probably the most restrictive internet policy of anyone in the > > world. So I wonder: Why are these even kind of national-based agreements > > even necessary to begin with when this practice is already going on? That's > > my first question. > > > > And then my second question is: I'm wondering what was the role of lobbying > > to your delegation, particularly by corporations such as Google and > > particularly by prominent internet technical experts, like Vint Cerf, who, > > as you know, was the architect of some of the fundamental foundations of the > > protocols behind the internet itself. > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER:* Yeah. No. Great questions. So first of all, on your > > first question on the global nature, you're absolutely right. Countries have > > national sovereignty rights, so they can do what they want. But what we > > don't want over time is a set of global agreements that people can point to > > and say, listen, this treaty gave us the right to impose these terms on > > global operators of some sort. Now, again, we don't' think that's going to > > happen with this per se because it's a normative approach, it's not legally > > binding. But you sure don't want to kind of just allow something to happen > > that people can think is a binding term on an increasingly global > > environment. So that's why we don't want it to happen. > > > > Our argument specifically on the ITU is the ITU does great work in a lot of > > the radio areas, in spectrum work, in coordination work, they do a lot of > > great work in developing markets, et cetera. But in the internet, it's not > > the charter. It's not the place. It's not going to be able to do the things > > that are going to really add value. And so that's why we say, continue with > > the ITU and interact with a lot of other delegates, but make sure it's on > > the right topics. > > > > Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a good question, but > > I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have a delegation here > > of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that are people from > > State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of Defense, et > > cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being either internet > > players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so that were > > members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. They - as > > a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're > > representing national interests. > > > > So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to be > > subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these > > different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward, > > why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the industry > > provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed > > our positions more broadly on a national basis. > > > > A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our > > bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real > > benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece > > of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do > > outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're > > able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, > > and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our > > delegation. > > > > But finally I'll say - and I don't know if you call - it's a bit of the > > irony of all this is we - people said, "Geez, you guys have a large > > delegation." The fact we had a large delegation with the type of engagement > > we had is the beauty of our system - is you have a lot of people that are > > taking their ideas - some of them are their own self-interest, but a lot of > > it is much broader than that, and they're contributing to a greater outcome > > here. And as I did bilaterals with other nations, it was interesting how > > many countries I would go to where a member of industry or civil society > > said, could you tell my government this, this and this? And I said, well, > > isn't there a delegation in their own country sharing it? Well, the reality > > is a lot of countries don't have that type of inclusive nature. Certainly > > the democratic ones do, but there are a lot of ones that aren't. And it was > > a very stark message to me of exactly what we're talking about when we talk > > about multi-stakeholder governance and how you collect the best wisdom and > > energy to create something bigger. So a long-winded answer to your question, > > but that - those representatives were a very essential part of our > > delegation. > > > > *QUESTION:* Thank you. > > > > *OPERATOR:* Okay. Our next question is from David McAuley with Bloomberg > > BNA. Go ahead, please. > > > > *QUESTION:* Thank you. Ambassador Kramer, my questions, too, have been > > answered, but let me ask this: What will happen to the U.S. delegation now > > and to your role between now and, let's say, WTPF in May? And what are the > > U.S. plans going forward between now and January of 2015? > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. Thank you, David. And so a couple of things. > > People will all go into their own worlds again in the coming weeks and > > months. So our delegation - obviously a lot of them are in civil society or > > industry, et cetera. They'll, obviously, go back into that. I'll eventually > > go back into probably academia and the work that I was doing before, and > > maybe industry again. You never know. > > > > But importantly, what should be happening in the next month or two is what > > are the learnings from the conference, what are the implications going > > forward, how do we advance multi-stakeholder governance. All of those > > things, I think, are going to be very, very helpful. And I think, again, to > > the earlier question about was this successful, there's a lot of success in > > understanding points of view of other nations, of really honing in on our > > arguments, and importantly how do you advance these ideas about liberalized > > markets and about multi-stakeholder governance. So the next couple of > > months, my mind is going to be on that and sharing insights as well as a lot > > of my colleagues. > > > > *QUESTION:* Thank you. > > > > *OPERATOR:* Next question comes from Jennifer Martinez, The Hill. Please go > > ahead. > > > > *QUESTION:* Hi. Thanks so much for taking my call. Appreciate it. You've > > kind of touched on this in previous questions, so apologies if this is > > somewhat of a repeat. But with the countries that are signing the ITRs, I > > guess, would they be treating a company like Google or Facebook differently > > in the future, or is it too early to tell, since the treaty hasn't gone into > > effect yet? > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Yeah. I think it's too early to tell. A lot of the > > countries that would sign, that would have policies very different than > > ours, are already creating a very different environment. So I don't think > > that's likely to happen near term. And again, I think from a legally binding > > standpoint, these ITRs don't have teeth in them. But I do think we have to > > continually be vigilant on this issue about not erecting barriers. > > > > And some of the arguments on this, Jennifer, it's interesting. You may have > > governments that have different political views than us. They may have > > different practices on censorship, et cetera. But many of them are > > fundamentally concerned about commercial issues. They want to see commerce; > > they want to see people using the internet effectively, et cetera. And so > > there's always that argument that helps advance keeping the internet free > > and open. > > > > So that's kind of the mindset from here. And again, I don't expect any big > > change in any of this. But we are going to have a continued effort to make > > sure this multi-stakeholder model and the global opportunity is made clear. > > > > *MODERATOR:* All right. We have time for one more question. > > > > *OPERATOR:* Okay. Last question comes from Josh Peterson, The Daily Caller. > > > > *QUESTION:* Hi, Ambassador. Thank you for your time and thank you for taking > > my question. I just wanted to go back and talk a little bit about what > > brought the proceedings to a vote. Because from what I understand, the event > > operates on consensus, but - and a vote was unlikely. So what was it that > > prompted this to happen? > > > > *AMBASSADOR KRAMER: *Well, so first of all, what happened last night and > > what also happened this evening is there was an indication of interest. > > People hold up placards. They did one vote, I think, later on to try and > > move things along. So some of what's happening is the views on these issues > > are so heartfelt and so significant, and it slowed down a lot of the > > negotiations. I mean, here we are Thursday night, and it's almost midnight > > here, and people are still trying to work away. > > > > So the chairman has really tried to move things along. And one of the tools > > was to do this vote on the human rights element. But in general, they've > > tried to really stick to consensus. So I don't feel, per se, that this > > indication of interest or a nominal vote has been the big issue. I think the > > bigger issue is there's a variety of nations out there that do hold > > different views than our own, and we're going to have to continue to engage > > so that we don't find that that continues to be an area of disagreement. > > > > *MODERATOR:* All right. Well, thank you, everyone, for joining us this > > evening. And as a reminder, we will not be having another call. This was our > > press briefing that we had mentioned in our media note previously. > > Thank you, everyone. Have a good night. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 19:08:39 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:08:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] How cooperation could be defined ? In-Reply-To: <50CE3DDC.907@panamo.eu> References: <50CE0DC4.1030805@panamo.eu> <50CE3DDC.907@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Dear McTim, > > I'm going to answer also to a former post where you said that you saw how > Isoc makes great efforts to help developping countries, in the field of > capacity building and GIX creation. > I beg your pardon. I could not find time enough to answer earlier. > > Please, don't understand what I'm saying as a personal reproach. A big part > of my family was colonial actors in Vietnam at the beginning of the XXth > century. I can insure that the most part of the colons were absolutely sure > that they were helping the country where they were living. > > US IT companies do have great interests in the growth of the African market. Well, I would say that they used to (and some still do), but that market is now (to a great extent) dominated by the Chinese. Having said that, ISOC is not a US company. They are a global non-profit with local staff in South Asia, Africa and South America, as well as their EU and US offices. > > After all these efforts to help African countries to get into a connected > way, how is it that Africa connected people number is 15,6% compared to > 78,6% in North America? Perhaps it is a better question to ask what the pen rates were before ISOC started their efforts. I'm not sure penetration rates are the best metric to use in calculating the effects of folks like ISOC, but you could try. In fact, you would find that they have risen a great deal in the last few years. I'm not claiming cause and effect tho. > You can verify the stats there: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats1.htm > > It's not incompatible with a handful advanced countries, some great IT > companies and a lot of excellent researchers. > Plethora of graduates is actually a sign of contemporary "underdevelopment". > > Did you ever try to subscribe an Internet connection at an African ISP? yes, several, and I worked at one as well. I can give you chapter and verse on why Access is so expensive in parts of Africa, and it's not because of the greed of Northern companies! In fact, my WISP in Nairobi was faster and cheaper than my current DSL link in the USA. Progress is being made on pricing, mostly in mobile access. Aluta Continua, as they say. Or > to buy African domain names? yes, in several ccTLDs > > Send me 693 €, I'll buy for you a mctim.cg. Sorry, mctim.cd is cheaper: only > 115 €. I don't think it is ISOCs mission to make ccTLDs cheaper. They do however train ccTLD managers in their workshops (for free), so in that sense, those domains should NOT go up in price because their staff need tech transfer training. In fact, you can't blame ANYONE in the North/West for this pricing, you have to talk to these folks: https://www.dnsafrica.net/cgi-bin/pricing.pl where: "The registration of a domain is free of charge for the citizens of Congo, who are resident locally. " "For foreign entities : First Year 225 Euros per domain Next Year 225 Euros per domain" And for .cd: http://www.nic.cd/company_info/CD/aboutCD.jsp?about=price Price list "Pricing for applications and renewals 1 year: 65 USD 2 years: 130 USD 3 years: 195 USD 4 years: 260 USD 5 years: 325 USD P.S: The above prices are for normal domain ONLY. For premium domains (3 Characters and less): 3 characters/year: 325 USD 2 characters/year: 650 USD 1 character/year: 1300 USD" And now I see Suresh has weighed in with "pricing distortions introduced by government enforced monopolies, possibly combined with lack of market demand that pushes up costs by not allowing the provider of such services to leverage economies of scale. Which are both a significant factor in the high Internet access and domain name prices that you see across large parts of Africa." which is the answer in a nutshell. -- 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 Sun Dec 16 19:12:54 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:12:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT In-Reply-To: <75B1B58C-5246-4CAA-AC38-2DD3DC2D4B65@hserus.net> References: <06a101cddbdb$d8768860$89639920$@gmail.com> <518989750.71197.1355699352387.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <75B1B58C-5246-4CAA-AC38-2DD3DC2D4B65@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > doption of mobile telephony hasn't been driven by the smartphone users as it > has by a large number of poor people - manual laborers, fishermen, > maidservants and such. It gives them independence and access to information > which helps them add far more value to their lifestyle than an executive is > helped by his blackberry or ipad. plus access to banking services/mobile money. "How happy these Africans are, thanks to mobile and the Internet" is spot on. Have you ever met any that are unhappy about it? I have not, and I was there for many years. -- 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 Sun Dec 16 19:47:18 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:17:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] How cooperation could be defined ? In-Reply-To: References: <50CE0DC4.1030805@panamo.eu> <50CE3DDC.907@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <0EAC9DAB-384B-4169-B547-22E8F4BF7E75@hserus.net> In Congo's case I do appreciate their intent in making domains free to use for local citizens and severely restricting its use as a vanity domain or as an instrument of speculation While I defer to McTim's far more detailed on the ground knowledge of africa, I am glad to see he agrees here --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 5:38, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> Dear McTim, >> >> I'm going to answer also to a former post where you said that you saw how >> Isoc makes great efforts to help developping countries, in the field of >> capacity building and GIX creation. >> I beg your pardon. I could not find time enough to answer earlier. >> >> Please, don't understand what I'm saying as a personal reproach. A big part >> of my family was colonial actors in Vietnam at the beginning of the XXth >> century. I can insure that the most part of the colons were absolutely sure >> that they were helping the country where they were living. >> >> US IT companies do have great interests in the growth of the African market. > > Well, I would say that they used to (and some still do), but that market is now > (to a great extent) dominated by the Chinese. > > Having said that, ISOC is not a US company. They are a global > non-profit with local staff in > South Asia, Africa and South America, as well as their EU and US offices. > >> >> After all these efforts to help African countries to get into a connected >> way, how is it that Africa connected people number is 15,6% compared to >> 78,6% in North America? > > > Perhaps it is a better question to ask what the pen rates were before > ISOC started their efforts. > > I'm not sure penetration rates are the best metric to use in > calculating the effects of folks like ISOC, but you could try. > > In fact, you would find that they have risen a great deal in the last > few years. I'm not claiming cause and effect tho. > > >> You can verify the stats there: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats1.htm >> >> It's not incompatible with a handful advanced countries, some great IT >> companies and a lot of excellent researchers. >> Plethora of graduates is actually a sign of contemporary "underdevelopment". >> >> Did you ever try to subscribe an Internet connection at an African ISP? > > > yes, several, and I worked at one as well. I can give you chapter and verse on > why Access is so expensive in parts of Africa, and it's not because of > the greed > of Northern companies! > > In fact, my WISP in Nairobi was faster and cheaper than my current DSL > link in the USA. > > Progress is being made on pricing, mostly in mobile access. Aluta > Continua, as they say. > > > Or >> to buy African domain names? > > yes, in several ccTLDs > > >> >> Send me 693 €, I'll buy for you a mctim.cg. Sorry, mctim.cd is cheaper: only >> 115 €. > > > I don't think it is ISOCs mission to make ccTLDs cheaper. They do > however train > ccTLD managers in their workshops (for free), so in that sense, those > domains should > NOT go up in price because their staff need tech transfer training. > > In fact, you can't blame ANYONE in the North/West for this pricing, > you have to talk to these folks: > > https://www.dnsafrica.net/cgi-bin/pricing.pl > where: > > "The registration of a domain is free of charge for the citizens of > Congo, who are resident locally. " > > "For foreign entities : > > First Year 225 Euros per domain > Next Year 225 Euros per domain" > > > > And for .cd: > > http://www.nic.cd/company_info/CD/aboutCD.jsp?about=price > > Price list > > "Pricing for applications and renewals > > 1 year: 65 USD > 2 years: 130 USD > 3 years: 195 USD > 4 years: 260 USD > 5 years: 325 USD > P.S: The above prices are for normal domain ONLY. For premium domains > (3 Characters and less): > > 3 characters/year: 325 USD > 2 characters/year: 650 USD > 1 character/year: 1300 USD" > > And now I see Suresh has weighed in with > "pricing distortions introduced by government enforced monopolies, > possibly combined with lack of market demand that pushes up costs by > not allowing the provider of such services to leverage economies of > scale. Which are both a significant factor in the high Internet > access and domain name prices that you see across large parts of > Africa." > > which is the answer in a nutshell. > > > -- > 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 16 19:49:16 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 06:19:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT In-Reply-To: References: <06a101cddbdb$d8768860$89639920$@gmail.com> <518989750.71197.1355699352387.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <75B1B58C-5246-4CAA-AC38-2DD3DC2D4B65@hserus.net> Message-ID: <6DA7735C-3C94-4173-9093-AF7F0E0A4EC0@hserus.net> Me neither. I am afraid M.Fullsack's attempt at sarcasm fell rather flat as, unknown to him, the punchline of his joke turned out to be true .. --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 5:42, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> doption of mobile telephony hasn't been driven by the smartphone users as it >> has by a large number of poor people - manual laborers, fishermen, >> maidservants and such. It gives them independence and access to information >> which helps them add far more value to their lifestyle than an executive is >> helped by his blackberry or ipad. > > > plus access to banking services/mobile money. > > "How happy these Africans are, thanks to mobile and the Internet" is spot on. > > Have you ever met any that are unhappy about it? I have not, and I > was there for many years. > > -- > 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 20:01:39 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:01:39 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <4C4A9EDD-1200-451C-A449-DAA565688BE4@ella.com> References: <1800981407.636333.1355612778287.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> <4C4A9EDD-1200-451C-A449-DAA565688BE4@ella.com> Message-ID: <082401cddbf2$15539460$3ffabd20$@gmail.com> Avri and all, I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb Kramer's press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in these multi-stakeholder processes. M Amb Kramer: Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a good question, but I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. They - as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're representing national interests. So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed our positions more broadly on a national basis. A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our delegation. -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not do > it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure that > they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had nothing > to answer to them. i think that most of the non government types on the delegations found their funding elsewhere. i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but perhaps I am uninformed. anyone else know of any? they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere. and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option. avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Dec 16 20:05:51 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 01:05:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT In-Reply-To: References: <06a101cddbdb$d8768860$89639920$@gmail.com> <518989750.71197.1355699352387.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <75B1B58C-5246-4CAA-AC38-2DD3DC2D4B65@hserus.net>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B173240@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Re Africa mobiles, reaching 80% penetration Q1 2013 is an amazing accomplishment in reaching near universal service in a short time, even if there are still large areas with no coverage. Still, fact we are approaching a billion mobile subscribers in Africa doesn't get as much attention as it deserves imho. And, the fact that Sub-Saharan Africa has presently the highest growth rate in the world is is also nice to see. Internet is not yet at that level of course, but... ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:12 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > doption of mobile telephony hasn't been driven by the smartphone users as it > has by a large number of poor people - manual laborers, fishermen, > maidservants and such. It gives them independence and access to information > which helps them add far more value to their lifestyle than an executive is > helped by his blackberry or ipad. plus access to banking services/mobile money. "How happy these Africans are, thanks to mobile and the Internet" is spot on. Have you ever met any that are unhappy about it? I have not, and I was there for many years. -- 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 Sun Dec 16 21:38:58 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:08:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <082401cddbf2$15539460$3ffabd20$@gmail.com> References: <1800981407.636333.1355612778287.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> <4C4A9EDD-1200-451C-A449-DAA565688BE4@ella.com> <082401cddbf2$15539460$3ffabd20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <721C2CD5-9277-4D91-A717-6B75356FA9C9@hserus.net> What, in your opinion, is wrong here? Other than that civil society can't participate on their own of course, to represent their own organization's viewpoint? If they agree to be part of a USG delegation as subject matter experts, it is in the entire delegation's collective interest not to present mixed messages. --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 6:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Avri and all, > > I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb Kramer's press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in these multi-stakeholder processes. > > M > > Amb Kramer: Now your second question – you said “lobbying.” It’s a good question, but I’ll rephrase it. It’s not lobbying per se. We had – have a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. They – as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they’re representing national interests. > > So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they – the industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed our positions more broadly on a national basis. > > A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that’s the real benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you’re able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, and share the points of view. And that’s been a huge benefit of our delegation. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > > On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > > > I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not do > > it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure that > > they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had nothing > > to answer to them. > > > i think that most of the non government types on the delegations found their funding elsewhere. > > i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but perhaps I am uninformed. anyone else know of any? > > they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere. > > and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option. > > avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 16 22:12:09 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:12:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <082401cddbf2$15539460$3ffabd20$@gmail.com> References: <1800981407.636333.1355612778287.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> <4C4A9EDD-1200-451C-A449-DAA565688BE4@ella.com> <082401cddbf2$15539460$3ffabd20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 8:01 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Avri and all, > > > > I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb Kramer's > press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting > experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me > that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by > multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in > these multi-stakeholder processes. I think you will agree that WCIT cannot be considered truly MS, despite CS the tech community and Business folk in the room. -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 16 23:41:30 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:11:30 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: <00af01cddba2$8931ce60$9b956b20$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <00af01cddba2$8931ce60$9b956b20$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> Peter Yes, it is useful to get the right figures. The important figure is of those who have refused to sign. As for those who havent refused and havent signed, it may be useful to know that it is normal for many countries to sign such important and binding documents like treaties after a round of consultation at home. In 1988, 112 countries signed up on the last day of the WCIT and 75 signed up later.... So, a huge number of countries deciding to take time is quite normal. Many reports are making this number look as suggesting much less support for the ITRs than there actually is. This side of mis- representation must also be kept in mind. The NYT correspondent says that " By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would not...." You say " Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital...." Can you share the source of your information. The number actually saying they 'wont sign' is most significant. And there seems to a confusion in this regard vis a vis your numbers (is it 57? ) and other reports - NYT says 24 have said they 'wont sign'. What is the actual count of 'those who have refused to sign' ... parminder On Sunday 16 December 2012 09:02 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > > The New York Times wrote: > > “The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, > derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other > nations signed it.” > > Guess we need to send the NY Times reporter some real statistics and > correct the reporting: > > _Regarding the “handful of Western allies”:_ > > Of the 42 European countries, 35 countries refused to sign the treaty. > > Of the 35 countries in The Americas, 6 countries refused to sign the > treaty. > > So, while the American delegation was joined by only a handful of > allies in The Americas, it was forcefully supported by seven handfuls > of European allies, plus 3 handfuls of allies from African, Asian and > CIS countries. > > And it is clear that the European countries were not merely following > the lead of the US, but had very clearly stated in prior consultations > what they would stand for and what not. The “what not” was that Europe > did not want the ITRs to extend to the Internet or content, including > spam, or security issues. > > _Regarding the “most other nations signed it”:_ > > Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed the > treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the countries > were undecided or needed to consult with their capital. How could this > reporter claim that “most other nations signed it”?? > > Peter H. Hellmonds > > Public & International Affairs > > peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu > > +49 (160) 360-2852 > > *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder > *Gesendet:* 16 December 2012 14:23 > *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Betreff:* [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in > Dubai > > > > > New York Times > > > Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World > > * /by/ ERIC PFANNER > * Dec. 14, 2012 > > At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United > States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the > document and left in a huff. > > What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the > Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now > has many more users in the rest of the world? > > It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming > years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal > to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network. > > The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, > derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other > nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks of talks > here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been > negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to engage in a > public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they did near midnight > on Thursday as the signing deadline approached. > > The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that it > was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement in its > current form.” United States delegates said the pact could encourage > censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet > oversight and replace it with government control. > > Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these > assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page text, > which deals mostly with matters like the fees that telecommunications > networks should charge one another for connecting calls across > borders. After being excised from the pact at United States > insistence, the I-word was consigned to a soft-pedaled resolution that > is attached to the treaty. > > The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do not > address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” That > convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to the > Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by name so no > one could call it an Internet treaty. > > A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the regulations > “in a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations.” > > Both of these provisions were added during the final days of haggling > in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If anything, the new > treaty appears to make it more intellectually challenging for > governments like China and Iran to justify their current censorship of > the Internet. > > What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the > United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty signers > should share control over the Internet address-assignment system — a > function now handled by an international group based in the United > States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for > Internet companies like Google and Facebook to pay telecommunications > networks for delivering material to users. > > Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in the > negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour > intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like > Britain and Canada? > > In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. Kramer > cited a few remaining objections, like references to countering spam > and to ensuring “the security and robustness of international > telecommunications networks.” This wording, he argued, could be used > by nefarious governments to justify crackdowns on free speech. > > But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less > tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that had > mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other words, saw a > chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong statement about > the importance of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty > and boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that even to talk > about the appearance of global rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter. > > It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in > Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand would > underline the importance of keeping the Internet open. > > “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of Internet > freedom,” said Jochem de Groot, senior policy officer for the Internet > and human rights in the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands, which > joined the United States in opposition to the pact. > > That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency, the > International Telecommunication Union — took place in this > economically liberal but socially and politically battened-down > emirate underscored the symbolism of the United States boycott of the > final treaty. > > “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries around the > world,” said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of the Tunisian Internet > Agency, in an interview. “It’s a good message to start the debate.” > > Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian government of > President Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of Tunisia, that country has taken a > strong stand in support of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, Mr. > Chakchouk said his government would sign the telecommunications treaty > because he was satisfied with the free-speech guarantees that had been > written into it. > > “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he said. “It’s not > good when one country doesn’t understand the issues.” > > Working together could become more challenging as the Internet — > especially bandwidth-hungry video applications — accounts for an ever > greater share of global telecommunications traffic, and as more people > in developing countries go online. > > According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the > telecommunication union, the goal of the treaty was not to take > control of the Internet — as critics had contended — but to narrow the > digital divide. > > While the United States was talking about the open Internet, Mr. Touré > and developing countries were talking about opening the Internet to > more of the 4.5 billion people around the world who remain offline. > > Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating investment in > broadband networks, for reducing cellphone roaming costs and for > extending Internet access to disabled people in developing countries. > The goal was to expand broadband at an affordable cost, not to > regulate the content that travels on the Internet, he said. > > “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no highways for > them to drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news conference on Friday, > where the telecommunication union tried to put a positive spin on the > messy pileup of the previous evening. > > As developing countries gain better access, the numbers game will > continue to tilt against the United States and other developed > countries that have championed the cause of an open Internet. The > Internet population of China — 538 million as of June, according to > the Chinese government — is already nearly double that of the United > States. > > Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in developing countries, > governments and citizens of these countries might also grow more > tolerant of it. > > “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in its view of > the Internet and its relationship to society in the coming century,” > Mr. Kramer said. > > By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had > signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would > not, Mr. Touré said, with the rest still undecided or undeclared. > Holdouts could change their minds and sign later. Mr. Touré said he > was hopeful that the United States would eventually do so, though Mr. > Kramer said this was unlikely. > > Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious prospect of a treaty > largely negotiated to suit the United States’ position and applying > mostly to developing countries, many of which seemed perfectly happy > with the outcome. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1110 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 betunat at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 01:47:48 2012 From: betunat at gmail.com (Bethel Terefe) Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:47:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers [Post WCIT and Analysis of Outcomes] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings! I am also happy to help out . Kind Regards, Bethel On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you to all those that have volunteered. I will contact you offline > so we can begin our work and then present to the IGC for their comments and > feedback. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Angela Daly wrote: > >> I'm interested in helping out on this, at very least I am happy to >> proof read for English (since native speaker) and at most happy to >> contribute to the substance too. >> >> Angela >> >> On 15 December 2012 15:26, José Félix Arias Ynche >> wrote: >> > Bueno estoy de acuerdo e interesado en trabajar voluntariamente en >> > investigar y redactar un documento en donde se evalué el impacto de los >> > resultados de la CMTI. >> > >> > Me interesa bastante porque soy investigador social para el desarrollo, >> en >> > todo lo que implique gobierno digital y las TIC >> > >> > Cordialmente. José Félix Arias Ynche >> > >> > >> > >> > 2012/12/15 Baudouin SCHOMBE >> >> >> >> Hello Sala, >> >> >> >> You know you can count on me, I volunteer. >> >> >> >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN >> >> >> >> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 >> >> email : b.schombe at gmail.com >> >> skype : b.schombe >> >> blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr >> >> Site Web : www.ticafrica.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2012/12/14 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Dear All, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> This is a call for Volunteers who are interested in working together >> to >> >>> produce an Impact Assessment of the outcomes from the WCIT. Care will >> be >> >>> taken to produce a Report that is balanced. This is expected to be >> completed >> >>> before 2013. >> >>> >> >>> Following the preparation of the Report, the IGC will be issuing a >> >>> Statement to accompany the Report. We will need those who are willing >> and >> >>> prepared to produce a Report in the shortest amount of time. >> >>> >> >>> Kind Regards, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >>> P.O. Box 17862 >> >>> Suva >> >>> Fiji >> >>> >> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >> >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >>> >> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >>> >> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> > To be removed from the list, visit: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> > >> > For all other list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> > http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Dec 17 02:11:51 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:11:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 03:00:04 on Mon, 17 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >I am sorry, it is late here and I didn't quite understand. To whatever >target market that you wish to regulate and restrict / prevent the sale >of such software or hardware, shall we say. The answer will depend on how accurately you can define the markets, and after that how easy it is to determine what market a buyer belongs to. For example, if the markets allowed for such items are "law enforcement and registered security professionals" it'll be easier for the vendor than if it's "persons without a criminal record". >Of course this is different from an OFAC blacklist of Iran, Syria etc, >or from classifying high grade encryption as munitions to restrict its >export >--srs (iPad) > >On 16-Dec-2012, at 21:45, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message , at 06:10:25 on Sun, >>16 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >>> Well.. If you can come up with a practical set of suggestions to >>> regulate the sale of network security and pen testing gear I am all >>> ears >> >> To the general public? >> -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Dec 17 02:17:25 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:17:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: <72C5F103-16E8-4BE0-B69F-4B7AD18C7B09@hserus.net> <6NKnhTtJQfzQFAlv@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message , at 03:01:43 on Mon, 17 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >Not always. And even server based, a lot of large colo farms received >their fair share of notices for improbable IPs As this seems to be a big problem, did anyone do any forensics to determine how the improbable IPs arose? For example, identity theft or mistaken identity, equipment error or IPs reassigned since the original scan was done. >--srs (iPad) > >On 16-Dec-2012, at 21:47, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message , at >>21:16:32 on Sun, 16 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> writes >>> Yes there is a vast majority of people who download and upload >>>random copyrighted contents on the "everybody does it" and "the >>>chances of my >>> being caught are slim" principles .. >> >> You appear to be talking about P2P, whereas DMCA was more aimed at >>client/server. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 17 02:41:19 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:11:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty Message-ID: Most such vendors use boobytrapped copies of popularly pirated content and use scripts to track p2p client activity. Anybody's guess just how accurate those scripts are And on your other email is there a registry or licensing department of security professionals anywhere? Not that I know of, but live and learn.. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Roland Perry" To: , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty Date: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 12:47 PM In message , at 03:01:43 on Mon, 17 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >Not always. And even server based, a lot of large colo farms received >their fair share of notices for improbable IPs As this seems to be a big problem, did anyone do any forensics to determine how the improbable IPs arose? For example, identity theft or mistaken identity, equipment error or IPs reassigned since the original scan was done. >--srs (iPad) > >On 16-Dec-2012, at 21:47, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message , at >>21:16:32 on Sun, 16 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> writes >>> Yes there is a vast majority of people who download and upload >>>random copyrighted contents on the "everybody does it" and "the >>>chances of my >>> being caught are slim" principles .. >> >> You appear to be talking about P2P, whereas DMCA was more aimed at >>client/server. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 02:59:51 2012 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:59:51 +0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers [Post WCIT and Analysis of Outcomes] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings Kindly also include me. Regards Asif Kabani -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Mon Dec 17 03:19:19 2012 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:19:19 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] WCIT - German Government Statement - not signing! In-Reply-To: <02d701cdda45$9b57bef0$d2073cd0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> References: <02d701cdda45$9b57bef0$d2073cd0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <1355732359.53084.YahooMailNeo@web133203.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Thank you Peter for that information. I support this attitude taken by Germany : An open and multistakeholder discussion about those ITRs before signing. I wish other nations would do the same. Regards   NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul TRAINER IN COMPUTING AND INTERNET POLICY ISOC BURUNDI : VICE PRESIDENT Réseau des Télécentres Communautaires du Burundi : Président www.rtcb.bi Burundi Youth Training Centre : Secrétaire Général www.bytc.bi Facebook :  http://www.facebook.com/jeanpaul.nkurunziza Tel : +257 79 981459 ________________________________ De : Peter H. Hellmonds À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org Envoyé le : Vendredi 14 décembre 2012 23h54 Objet : [governance] WCIT - German Government Statement - not signing! Germany has made a public press release explaining the reasons for not signing the ITRs.   Please see the statement (in German): http://www.bmwi.de/DE/Presse/pressemitteilungen,did=542914.html   Google Translation (with some edits by myself to fix grammar etc):   PRESS RELEASE 14.12.2012 Germany will not sign the new International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) Government aims first at broad social dialogue on the decisions taken at the ITU conference © colourbox.com At the conference of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) in Dubai, negotiations ended today on a redesign of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs).   The federal government entered into the international negotiations with the clear position to preserve the freedom of the global Internet and to prevent an expansion of the scope of the ITRs to the Internet. In cooperation with the EU Member States, the federal government has consistently pursued its central aim of the negotiations on the ITU conference, and together with the United States and many other countries - with the involvement of participants from civil society - kept Internet issues out of the draft ITRs.   Yet in the final ITR text, submitted for approval, there remain blurred passages, as in the texts on security and combating spam, and those covering risks of government intervention in the Internet. Therefore, Germany has not signed the ITRs, just as the EU countries, the U.S. and others.   Several, especially African, Arab and Asian countries have also pushed through a resolution on "Internet" in the negotiations in Dubai, giving the ITU a mandate for further work in the area of ​​management of the Internet. The resolution is not legally binding, and was not put to the substantive discussion by the chairman of the conference, so that the non-signatory states had no influence reflecting their interests.   The Federal Government will explain and discuss the text of the new ITRs in a broad social dialogue. For this purpose there will be discussions with companies, representatives of civil society and other stakeholders in Germany in the near future. The aim of the Federal Government is to allow all stakeholders sufficient time for a comprehensive analysis to avoid quick fixes in this sensitive area.   The new ITRs will apply provisionally only to those countries that sign them. For all other countries the existing ITRs from 1988 will continue to apply. The ultimate fate of the new ITRs depends on how many countries actually ratify or accede.   -------------   Thanks to all those in Germany who helped to assure this clear line.   Peter H. Hellmonds Public & International Affairs peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu +49 (160) 360-2852   ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit:     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see:     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:     http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 13999 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Dec 17 03:30:07 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 08:30:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 13:11:19 on Mon, 17 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >Most such vendors use boobytrapped copies of popularly pirated content >and use scripts to track p2p client activity. Anybody's guess just how >accurate those scripts are Of all the possible failure modes, acquiring IP addresses that are not engaged in P2P activity would seem to be one of the least likely. >And on your other email is there a registry or licensing department of >security professionals anywhere? Not that I know of, but live and >learn.. There are several associations for IT security professionals in various countries, and while it hasn't yet been extended to IT security (there's much opposition to the concept from the potential registrants) other forms of security professional are registered in the UK. http://www.nsi.org.uk/our-services/our-schemes/ (voluntary) and: http://www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/Pages/home.aspx (compulsory) -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Dec 17 04:36:58 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:36:58 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post References: <1800981407.636333.1355612778287.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> <4C4A9EDD-1200-451C-A449-DAA565688BE4@ella.com> <082401cddbf2$15539460$3ffabd20$@gmail.com> <721C2CD5-9277-4D91-A717-6B75356FA9C9@hserus.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> HI, the problem with MS within the ITU is that according to the existing procedures CS can participate only via national delegations. This is a (very small) step in the right direction but has negative sideeffect: It is widening the North-South gap. While nothern countries have no problem to invite CS into their national governmental delegations (and even give them a governmental badge) this is not the case in many southern ITU member states and countries as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran and others. Nenna can tell a story how difficult it was to come to Dubai (regardless of the fact that she organized a national IGF in her home country, she had no chance to become a member of their national delagation. Finally she found another government which invited her to the Dubai experience). She told this Toure in our meeting and we told him that the MS model is more than to recommend national governments to bring some non-governmental people to ITU conferences. To have no CS from developing countries in ITU meetings is not only a missed opportunity, it produces also imbalanced results and deepens the conflicts. What we need is an procedure which allow CS to participate independent from their national governments (and waving the fees). This should be raised as one of the future ITU policy issues during the forthcoming World Telecommunication Policy Forum in May 2013 in Geneva and lead to changes in the ITU Convention at PP 2014 in Korea. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Suresh Ramasubramanian Gesendet: Mo 17.12.2012 03:38 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: ; Avri Doria Betreff: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post What, in your opinion, is wrong here? Other than that civil society can't participate on their own of course, to represent their own organization's viewpoint? If they agree to be part of a USG delegation as subject matter experts, it is in the entire delegation's collective interest not to present mixed messages. --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 6:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: Avri and all, I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb Kramer's press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in these multi-stakeholder processes. M Amb Kramer: Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a good question, but I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. They - as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're representing national interests. So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed our positions more broadly on a national basis. A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our delegation. -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not do > it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure that > they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had nothing > to answer to them. i think that most of the non government types on the delegations found their funding elsewhere. i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but perhaps I am uninformed. anyone else know of any? they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere. and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus..org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 05:04:17 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:04:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Microsoft, Motorola Want To Keep Patent Details Of Their Legal Fight A Secreeeet Message-ID: <50CEEE21.4090606@gmail.com> Microsoft, Motorola Want To Keep Patent Details Of Their Legal Fight A Secreeeet *Reuters* | Posted: 12/14/2012 8:40 pm EST | Updated: 12/16/2012 6:33 pm EST Share on Google+ SEATTLE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp and Google Inc's Motorola Mobility unit have requested a federal judge in Seattle to keep secret from the public various details from their recent trial concerning the value of technology patents and the two companies' attempts at a settlement. Microsoft and Motorola, acquired by Google earlier this year, are preparing post-trial briefs to present to a judge as he decides the outcome of a week-long trial last month to establish what rates Microsoft should pay Motorola for use of standard, essential wireless technology used in its Xbox game console and other products. The case is just one strand of litigation in an industry-wide dispute over ownership of the underlying technology and the design of smartphones, which has drawn in Apple Inc, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Nokia and others. In a filing with the Western District of Washington federal court in Seattle on Friday, Microsoft and Motorola asked the judge to allow them to file certain parts of their post-trial submissions under seal and redact those details in the public record. The details concern terms of Motorola's licenses with third parties and Microsoft's business and marketing plans for future products. During the trial, which ran from November 13-20, U.S. District Judge James Robart cleared the court when such sensitive or trade secret details were discussed. "For the same compelling reasons that the court sealed this evidence for purposes of trial, it would be consistent and appropriate to take the same approach in connection with the parties' post-trial submissions," the two companies argued in the court filing. The judge has so far been understanding of the companies' desire to keep private details of their patent royalties and future plans, although that has perplexed some spectators who believe trials in public courts should be fully open to the public. In addition, Motorola asked the judge to seal some documents relating to settlement negotiations between the two companies, arguing that keeping those details secret would encourage openness in future talks and make a settlement more likely. Judge Robart is not expected to rule on the case until the new year. The case in U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington is Microsoft Corp. vs. Motorola Inc., 10-cv-1823. (Reporting by Bill Rigby; Editing by Richard Chang) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: gplus-32.png Type: image/png Size: 1513 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: reuters_logo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 3973 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 dl at panamo.eu Mon Dec 17 05:12:04 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:12:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects Message-ID: <50CEEFF4.1040601@panamo.eu> Hi, For those who can read French or a translator, Kavé Salamatian proposes interesting interpretations of WCIT issues and prospects : Le cyberespace et ses Indiens : http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/16/le-cyberespace-et-ses-indiens/ Jeux de coopération au Bazar : http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/17/jeux-de-cooperation-au-bazar/ @+, best, 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 gurstein at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 05:18:12 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 02:18:12 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <1800981407.636333.1355612778287.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> <4C4A9EDD-1200-451C-A449-DAA565688BE4@ella.com> <082401cddbf2$15539460$3ffabd20$@gmail.com> <721C2CD5-9277-4D91-A717-6B75356FA9C9@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <008e01cddc3f$d2d70650$788512f0$@gmail.com> Good points Wolfgang and McTim however they seem to be somewhat in tension with each other... McTim quite correctly indicates that the ITU cannot be considered as MS suggesting (I believe) that such a close linking of CS with a national delegation might not be appropriate in a "true MS". Meanwhile Wolfgang suggests the problem here as being that LDC's may not have the resources to bring CS along (suggesting that the relationship between CS and national delegations is perhaps an on-going and desireable mode). However (he goes on) it might be also desireable (possible) to have a true MS consultation/negotiation where CS is participating both as part of national delegations and a "procedure which allow(s) CS to participate independent from their national governments (and waving the fees)". I'm wondering at concepts and definitions here... If we accept that a part (at least) of the definition of CS is that it is the group that (sees itself at least) as supporting the public interest and thus in global MS fora as presumably supporting a/the "global public interest", and if we understand that national delegations to global deliberations would by definition be supporting "national" interests then how would it be possible for those (self-identifying and publicly identified) as CS to be members of national delegations in global (or national) MS deliberations. Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:37 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria Subject: AW: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post HI, the problem with MS within the ITU is that according to the existing procedures CS can participate only via national delegations. This is a (very small) step in the right direction but has negative sideeffect: It is widening the North-South gap. While nothern countries have no problem to invite CS into their national governmental delegations (and even give them a governmental badge) this is not the case in many southern ITU member states and countries as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran and others. Nenna can tell a story how difficult it was to come to Dubai (regardless of the fact that she organized a national IGF in her home country, she had no chance to become a member of their national delagation. Finally she found another government which invited her to the Dubai experience). She told this Toure in our meeting and we told him that the MS model is more than to recommend national governments to bring some non-governmental people to ITU conferences. To have no CS from developing countries in ITU meetings is not only a missed opportunity, it produces also imbalanced results and deepens the conflicts. What we need is an procedure which allow CS to participate independent from their national governments (and waving the fees). This should be raised as one of the future ITU policy issues during the forthcoming World Telecommunication Policy Forum in May 2013 in Geneva and lead to changes in the ITU Convention at PP 2014 in Korea. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Suresh Ramasubramanian Gesendet: Mo 17.12.2012 03:38 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: ; Avri Doria Betreff: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post What, in your opinion, is wrong here? Other than that civil society can't participate on their own of course, to represent their own organization's viewpoint? If they agree to be part of a USG delegation as subject matter experts, it is in the entire delegation's collective interest not to present mixed messages. --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 6:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: Avri and all, I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb Kramer's press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in these multi-stakeholder processes. M Amb Kramer: Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a good question, but I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. They - as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're representing national interests. So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed our positions more broadly on a national basis. A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our delegation. -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not do > it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure that > they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had nothing > to answer to them. i think that most of the non government types on the delegations found their funding elsewhere. i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but perhaps I am uninformed. anyone else know of any? they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere. and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus..org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 05:31:14 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 12:31:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <008e01cddc3f$d2d70650$788512f0$@gmail.com> References: <1800981407.636333.1355612778287.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> <4C4A9EDD-1200-451C-A449-DAA565688BE4@ella.com> <082401cddbf2$15539460$3ffabd20$@gmail.com> <721C2CD5-9277-4D91-A717-6B75356FA9C9@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <008e01cddc3f$d2d70650$788512f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50CEF472.5010308@gmail.com> Thanks for this Michael. The point about MSG is what constitutes valid representation? At present the situation is an MSG (at IGF) that is non-binding (and even there there are taboos!), so the quesion becomes, if MSG is the format, how to institutionalise this into decision making (i.e. from representation, which is what we have, to deliberation), and will equity/legitimacy be part of the formulation of participation between Public Interest groups and corporations (including astro-turfies). On participation, MSG or national delegation participation, for poor countries the situation may be similar in both instances. For advanced countries, what ought to be clearer is that the state is pretty the site of contest of different vested interests (RIAA and the ICTs - which are not "resolved" but play out in various scenarios differently, and other more public interest civil society - some of whom are not as close to national officials as others). The mixed approach seems to have lots of merit and perhaps processes for this need to be borne in mind, perhaps with checks and balances (bearing in mind the scholastics of the single rooters vs the multiple rooters/"legitimacy" crowds)... be interesting to see this teased out a little more, as in Curran's posts for instance... I might just add that decision making MSG, as a form of international cooporation at the UN, looks to be more of a challenge than legitimizing CIR governance... but that is perhaps just me... Riaz On 2012/12/17 12:18 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Good points Wolfgang and McTim however they seem to be somewhat in tension > with each other... > > McTim quite correctly indicates that the ITU cannot be considered as MS > suggesting (I believe) that such a close linking of CS with a national > delegation might not be appropriate in a "true MS". > > Meanwhile Wolfgang suggests the problem here as being that LDC's may not > have the resources to bring CS along (suggesting that the relationship > between CS and national delegations is perhaps an on-going and desireable > mode). However (he goes on) it might be also desireable (possible) to have > a true MS consultation/negotiation where CS is participating both as part of > national delegations and a "procedure which allow(s) CS to participate > independent from their national governments (and waving the fees)". > > I'm wondering at concepts and definitions here... If we accept that a part > (at least) of the definition of CS is that it is the group that (sees itself > at least) as supporting the public interest and thus in global MS fora as > presumably supporting a/the "global public interest", and if we understand > that national delegations to global deliberations would by definition be > supporting "national" interests then how would it be possible for those > (self-identifying and publicly identified) as CS to be members of national > delegations in global (or national) MS deliberations. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:37 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria > Subject: AW: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > HI, > > the problem with MS within the ITU is that according to the existing > procedures CS can participate only via national delegations. This is a (very > small) step in the right direction but has negative sideeffect: It is > widening the North-South gap. While nothern countries have no problem to > invite CS into their national governmental delegations (and even give them a > governmental badge) this is not the case in many southern ITU member states > and countries as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran and others. Nenna can > tell a story how difficult it was to come to Dubai (regardless of the fact > that she organized a national IGF in her home country, she had no chance to > become a member of their national delagation. Finally she found another > government which invited her to the Dubai experience). She told this Toure > in our meeting and we told him that the MS model is more than to recommend > national governments to bring some non-governmental people to ITU > conferences. To have no CS from developing countries in ITU meetings is not > only a missed opportunity, it produces also imbalanced results and deepens > the conflicts. What we need is an procedure which allow CS to participate > independent from their national governments (and waving the fees). > > This should be raised as one of the future ITU policy issues during the > forthcoming World Telecommunication Policy Forum in May 2013 in Geneva and > lead to changes in the ITU Convention at PP 2014 in Korea. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Suresh > Ramasubramanian > Gesendet: Mo 17.12.2012 03:38 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: ; Avri Doria > Betreff: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > > What, in your opinion, is wrong here? Other than that civil society can't > participate on their own of course, to represent their own organization's > viewpoint? > > If they agree to be part of a USG delegation as subject matter experts, it > is in the entire delegation's collective interest not to present mixed > messages. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Dec-2012, at 6:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > > > Avri and all, > > > > I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb > Kramer's press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting > experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me > that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by > multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in > these multi-stakeholder processes. > > > > M > > > > Amb Kramer: Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a > good question, but I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have > a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government > that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department > of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being > either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so > that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. > They - as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're > representing national interests. > > > > So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one > is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in > these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going > forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the > industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that > informed our positions more broadly on a national basis. > > > > A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in > our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real > benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece > of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do > outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're > able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, > and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our > delegation. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > > > > > On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > > > > > I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not > do > > > it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure > that > > > they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had > nothing > > > to answer to them. > > > > > > i think that most of the non government types on the delegations > found their funding elsewhere. > > > > i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but > perhaps I am uninformed. anyone else know of any? > > > > they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere. > > > > and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State > delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option. > > > > avri > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus..org/info/governance > > To edit your 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 fulvio.frati at unimi.it Mon Dec 17 05:52:03 2012 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:52:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] DEADLINE EXTENSION - Springer Computing SI: Models and Protocols for Digital Ecosystems Message-ID: <01cf01cddc44$8c89cb60$a59d6220$@unimi.it> [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message] DEADLINE EXTENSION: Deadline now January 26th, 2013! ************************************************************** Call for Papers Special Issue on Models and Protocols for Digital Ecosystems Springer Computing Journal http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/607 ************************************************************** Digital Ecosystems are an emerging paradigm capturing the behavior of large-scale collaborating communities on the global ICT infrastructure. Such behavior includes critical features like dynamicity of coalitions, different data access paradigms (including the ones known as “big data”), vulnerability to new types of attacks and support for innovative value generation and sharing. This special issue is open to researchers from both academia and industry working on the Digital Ecosystem paradigm. Topics of interest include: 1. Models for the design, verification, and validation of functional and non-functional features of ecosystem coalitions. 2. Protocols and interaction techniques suitable for large-scale ecosystem collaborations. 3. Design and access frameworks for ecosystem "big data" layers. 4. Value and revenue models for business ecosystems. Contributions are sought on novel theoretical approaches, as well as on practical experiences and experimental results regarding Digital Ecosystems. * Important Dates - EXTENDED - January 26th, 2013: EXTENDED Paper Submission Deadline - February 15th, 2013: EXTENDED Paper Notification - March 8th, 2013: EXTENDED Submission of Revised Manuscript - March 30th, 2013: Final Decision - April 30th, 2013: Final Paper Due - Mid-2013: Tentative Publication Date * Guest Editors - Prof. Ernesto Damiani Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy Email: ernesto.damiani at unimi.it - Prof. Achim P. Karduck Hochschule Furtwangen, Germany Email: achim.karduck at hs-furtwangen.de - Prof. Moataz A. Ahmed King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Saudi Arabia Email: moataz at kfupm.edu.sa * Paper Submission Papers submitted to this special issue for possible publication must be original and must not be under consideration for publication in any other journal or conference. Previously published or accepted conference papers must contain at least 30% new material to be considered for the special issue. All papers are to be submitted directly to Editorial Manager (https://www.editorialmanager.com/comp/). All manuscripts must be prepared according to the journal publication guidelines that can also be found on the journal website (http://www.springer.com/computer/journal/607). Papers will be reviewed following the journal standard review process. Please address inquiries to ernesto.damiani at unimi.it -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 05:52:13 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:22:13 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post Message-ID: That is of course a much larger problem And even if cs were to participate by themselves, as has been the case with some open thematic meetings that ITU used to organize during and just after wsis, if a cs member forms part of a government delegation he does get bound by some rules of engagement due to that. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"" To: , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" , , "michael gurstein" Cc: , "Avri Doria" Subject: AW: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post Date: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 3:06 PM HI, the problem with MS within the ITU is that according to the existing procedures CS can participate only via national delegations. This is a (very small) step in the right direction but has negative sideeffect: It is widening the North-South gap. While nothern countries have no problem to invite CS into their national governmental delegations (and even give them a governmental badge) this is not the case in many southern ITU member states and countries as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran and others. Nenna can tell a story how difficult it was to come to Dubai (regardless of the fact that she organized a national IGF in her home country, she had no chance to become a member of their national delagation. Finally she found another government which invited her to the Dubai experience). She told this Toure in our meeting and we told him that the MS model is more than to recommend national governments to bring some non-governmental people to ITU conferences. To have no CS from developing countries in ITU meetings is not only a missed opportunity, it produces also imbalanced results and deepens the conflicts. What we need is an procedure which allow CS to participate independent from their national governments (and waving the fees). This should be raised as one of the future ITU policy issues during the forthcoming World Telecommunication Policy Forum in May 2013 in Geneva and lead to changes in the ITU Convention at PP 2014 in Korea. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Suresh Ramasubramanian Gesendet: Mo 17.12.2012 03:38 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: ; Avri Doria Betreff: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post What, in your opinion, is wrong here? Other than that civil society can't participate on their own of course, to represent their own organization's viewpoint? If they agree to be part of a USG delegation as subject matter experts, it is in the entire delegation's collective interest not to present mixed messages. --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 6:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: Avri and all, I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb Kramer's press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in these multi-stakeholder processes. M Amb Kramer: Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a good question, but I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. They - as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're representing national interests. So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed our positions more broadly on a national basis. A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our delegation. -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not do > it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure that > they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had nothing > to answer to them. i think that most of the non government types on the delegations found their funding elsewhere. i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but perhaps I am uninformed. anyone else know of any? they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere. and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus..org/info/governance To edit your 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 Mon Dec 17 05:59:49 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:29:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post Message-ID: More than one LDC tends to treat UN conferences, particularly with fellowship assistance that the UN does provide in certain cases, as an expenses paid holiday with champagne and finger food laid on every evening, and so a perk reserved for their senior management, not for cs groups that would eat into their junket funding. Such venality is rather less common in some countries than in others, but I have seen it exist. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: "'\"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang\"'" , , "McTim" Cc: , "'Avri Doria'" Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post Date: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 3:48 PM Good points Wolfgang and McTim however they seem to be somewhat in tension with each other... McTim quite correctly indicates that the ITU cannot be considered as MS suggesting (I believe) that such a close linking of CS with a national delegation might not be appropriate in a "true MS". Meanwhile Wolfgang suggests the problem here as being that LDC's may not have the resources to bring CS along (suggesting that the relationship between CS and national delegations is perhaps an on-going and desireable mode). However (he goes on) it might be also desireable (possible) to have a true MS consultation/negotiation where CS is participating both as part of national delegations and a "procedure which allow(s) CS to participate independent from their national governments (and waving the fees)". I'm wondering at concepts and definitions here... If we accept that a part (at least) of the definition of CS is that it is the group that (sees itself at least) as supporting the public interest and thus in global MS fora as presumably supporting a/the "global public interest", and if we understand that national delegations to global deliberations would by definition be supporting "national" interests then how would it be possible for those (self-identifying and publicly identified) as CS to be members of national delegations in global (or national) MS deliberations. Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:37 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria Subject: AW: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post HI, the problem with MS within the ITU is that according to the existing procedures CS can participate only via national delegations. This is a (very small) step in the right direction but has negative sideeffect: It is widening the North-South gap. While nothern countries have no problem to invite CS into their national governmental delegations (and even give them a governmental badge) this is not the case in many southern ITU member states and countries as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran and others. Nenna can tell a story how difficult it was to come to Dubai (regardless of the fact that she organized a national IGF in her home country, she had no chance to become a member of their national delagation. Finally she found another government which invited her to the Dubai experience). She told this Toure in our meeting and we told him that the MS model is more than to recommend national governments to bring some non-governmental people to ITU conferences. To have no CS from developing countries in ITU meetings is not only a missed opportunity, it produces also imbalanced results and deepens the conflicts. What we need is an procedure which allow CS to participate independent from their national governments (and waving the fees). This should be raised as one of the future ITU policy issues during the forthcoming World Telecommunication Policy Forum in May 2013 in Geneva and lead to changes in the ITU Convention at PP 2014 in Korea. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Suresh Ramasubramanian Gesendet: Mo 17.12.2012 03:38 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: ; Avri Doria Betreff: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post What, in your opinion, is wrong here? Other than that civil society can't participate on their own of course, to represent their own organization's viewpoint? If they agree to be part of a USG delegation as subject matter experts, it is in the entire delegation's collective interest not to present mixed messages. --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 6:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: Avri and all, I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb Kramer's press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in these multi-stakeholder processes. M Amb Kramer: Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a good question, but I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. They - as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're represe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 06:12:32 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:42:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects Message-ID: Some slightly mixed up concepts, such as that general Philip sheridan was a career army officer and was never a sheriff or other law enforcement officer in his lifetime. And some notions from ESR's cathedral and the bazaar. I don't know if it is because of the narrative bringing in strange analogies, or because of using Google translate to read the article, but I found it hard to understand. In any case wild west analogies for cyberspace are non sequitirs --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Dominique Lacroix"
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects Date: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 3:42 PM Hi, For those who can read French or a translator, Kavé Salamatian proposes interesting interpretations of WCIT issues and prospects : Le cyberespace et ses Indiens : http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/16/le-cyberespace-et-ses-indiens/ Jeux de coopération au Bazar : http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/17/jeux-de-cooperation-au-bazar/ @+, best, 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Mon Dec 17 06:42:38 2012 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:42:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <50CCA263.1020306@itforchange.net> References: <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA766B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293233@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20121214181400.GA23727@tarvainen.info> <50CCA263.1020306@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20121217114238.GK20865@thorion.it.jyu.fi> On Dec 15 21:46, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > >In the preamble: > > > >"These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States to > >international telecommunication services." > > Tapani, what is it that you find objectionable and dangerous in > this.... I would think that such a statement should be a obvious and > necessary part on any treaty on global communication. It is such a > basic statement...... My understanding is that that languate would imply narrowing UN-approved sanctions list (and in particular, force USA to give up part of its blockade against Cuba) and add an entirely new type of "state right" with unclear implications to UN language - not something that should be done without careful negotiation, certainly not by inserting a statement without vote at the last minute to a treaty. -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 06:46:06 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:46:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <20121217114238.GK20865@thorion.it.jyu.fi> References: <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA766B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293233@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20121214181400.GA23727@tarvainen.info> <50CCA263.1020306@itforchange.net> <20121217114238.GK20865@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: Does it have to imply narrowing, or just a recognition that even sanctions should not interrupt critical supplies )like the 500000 kids by US sanctions in Iraq)... it may simply imply greater consideration... just saying... On 17 December 2012 13:42, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Dec 15 21:46, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > >In the preamble: > > > > > >"These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States to > > >international telecommunication services." > > > > Tapani, what is it that you find objectionable and dangerous in > > this.... I would think that such a statement should be a obvious and > > necessary part on any treaty on global communication. It is such a > > basic statement...... > > My understanding is that that languate would imply narrowing > UN-approved sanctions list (and in particular, force USA to give up > part of its blockade against Cuba) and add an entirely new type of > "state right" with unclear implications to UN language - not something > that should be done without careful negotiation, certainly not by > inserting a statement without vote at the last minute to a treaty. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 17 08:07:29 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:07:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50CF1911.1000704@panamo.eu> Thank you Suresh for your comment. I understand your difficulty to understand, because the text uses a metaphor. Yes, Sheridan was not a sherif, but the US consider themselves, nowadays, as the sherif of Internet. About the bazaar, it's a slight reference to the fact that diffenciation between several agents is not a question of price. The style of the text is pleasant for French and not-engineers readers, precisely because Kavé, who is very well educated in European culture, often tell tales, analogies and metaphors. He is a French University teacher and also he has a Persian culture. That's why he uses tales and poetry. Perhaps we shall try an English translation. @+, best, 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 17/12/12 12:12, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Some slightly mixed up concepts, such as that general Philip sheridan > was a career army officer and was never a sheriff or other law > enforcement officer in his lifetime. And some notions from ESR's > cathedral and the bazaar. > > I don't know if it is because of the narrative bringing in strange > analogies, or because of using Google translate to read the article, > but I found it hard to understand. > > In any case wild west analogies for cyberspace are non sequitirs > > --srs (htc one x) > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Dominique Lacroix"
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects > Date: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 3:42 PM > > > Hi, > For those who can read French or a translator, Kavé Salamatian proposes > interesting interpretations of WCIT issues and prospects : > > Le cyberespace et ses Indiens : > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/16/le-cyberespace-et-ses-indiens/ > Jeux de coopération au Bazar : > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/17/jeux-de-cooperation-au-bazar/ > > @+, best, 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 17 08:14:03 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:44:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: <50CF1911.1000704@panamo.eu> References: <50CF1911.1000704@panamo.eu> Message-ID: No I am sorry - that is just one of the myths that needs rebutting. There's no "sherriff of the internet" going on here any more than this is the Wild West. Any international law enforcement - online - as a matter of course follows a complex system of MLATs (and/or the budapest convention on cybercrime, with other signatory countries). My rudimentary knowledge of french (vin blanc, svp at the most, or perhaps merci m'sieur) found the actual text very pleasant to read, but for a deeper understanding I did have to machine translate it, to my regret. It is a persuasive argument though, and doubtless quite well told in french, but it is a line of thinking that doesn't quite match ground realities, at least when it comes to cross border enforcement actions against criminals. --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 18:37, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Thank you Suresh for your comment. > I understand your difficulty to understand, because the text uses a metaphor. > Yes, Sheridan was not a sherif, but the US consider themselves, nowadays, as the sherif of Internet. > About the bazaar, it's a slight reference to the fact that diffenciation between several agents is not a question of price. > > The style of the text is pleasant for French and not-engineers readers, precisely because Kavé, who is very well educated in European culture, often tell tales, analogies and metaphors. > He is a French University teacher and also he has a Persian culture. That's why he uses tales and poetry. > > Perhaps we shall try an English translation. > > @+, best, 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 17/12/12 12:12, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >> Some slightly mixed up concepts, such as that general Philip sheridan was a career army officer and was never a sheriff or other law enforcement officer in his lifetime. And some notions from ESR's cathedral and the bazaar. >> >> I don't know if it is because of the narrative bringing in strange analogies, or because of using Google translate to read the article, but I found it hard to understand. >> >> In any case wild west analogies for cyberspace are non sequitirs >> >> --srs (htc one x) >> >> >> ----- Reply message ----- >> From: "Dominique Lacroix"
>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >> Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects >> Date: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 3:42 PM >> >> >> Hi, >> For those who can read French or a translator, Kavé Salamatian proposes >> interesting interpretations of WCIT issues and prospects : >> >> Le cyberespace et ses Indiens : >> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/16/le-cyberespace-et-ses-indiens/ >> Jeux de coopération au Bazar : >> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/17/jeux-de-cooperation-au-bazar/ >> >> @+, best, 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 dl at panamo.eu Mon Dec 17 08:34:25 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:34:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: References: <50CF1911.1000704@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <50CF1F61.6040104@panamo.eu> Precisely, Suresh. A sherif enforced American laws on Indians territories. The metaphor tells about political conflicts, not about criminality. That's why I talked earlier about colonisation. And that's why, even if I agree with all comments about Africa (especially about monopolies and corruption), I overall agree with the idea that nobody can be a better help for development than the people of the country themselves. Africa is now an extraordinary lab about mobile uses in African languages... And we saw only the beginning! @+, Dom Le 17/12/12 14:14, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > No I am sorry - that is just one of the myths that needs rebutting. > There's no "sherriff of the internet" going on here any more than > this is the Wild West. Any international law enforcement - online - > as a matter of course follows a complex system of MLATs (and/or the > budapest convention on cybercrime, with other signatory countries). > > My rudimentary knowledge of french (vin blanc, svp at the most, or > perhaps merci m'sieur) found the actual text very pleasant to read, > but for a deeper understanding I did have to machine translate it, to > my regret. It is a persuasive argument though, and doubtless quite > well told in french, but it is a line of thinking that doesn't quite > match ground realities, at least when it comes to cross border > enforcement actions against criminals. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Dec-2012, at 18:37, Dominique Lacroix
> wrote: > >> Thank you Suresh for your comment. >> I understand your difficulty to understand, because the text uses a >> metaphor. >> Yes, Sheridan was not a sherif, but the US consider themselves, >> nowadays, as the sherif of Internet. >> About the bazaar, it's a slight reference to the fact that >> diffenciation between several agents is not a question of price. >> >> The style of the text is pleasant for French and not-engineers >> readers, precisely because Kavé, who is very well educated in >> European culture, often tell tales, analogies and metaphors. >> He is a French University teacher and also he has a Persian culture. >> That's why he uses tales and poetry. >> >> Perhaps we shall try an English translation. >> >> @+, best, 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 17/12/12 12:12, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >>> Some slightly mixed up concepts, such as that general Philip >>> sheridan was a career army officer and was never a sheriff or other >>> law enforcement officer in his lifetime. And some notions from ESR's >>> cathedral and the bazaar. >>> >>> I don't know if it is because of the narrative bringing in strange >>> analogies, or because of using Google translate to read the article, >>> but I found it hard to understand. >>> >>> In any case wild west analogies for cyberspace are non sequitirs >>> >>> --srs (htc one x) >>> >>> >>> ----- Reply message ----- >>> From: "Dominique Lacroix"
>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >>> Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects >>> Date: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 3:42 PM >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> For those who can read French or a translator, Kavé Salamatian proposes >>> interesting interpretations of WCIT issues and prospects : >>> >>> Le cyberespace et ses Indiens : >>> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/16/le-cyberespace-et-ses-indiens/ >>> Jeux de coopération au Bazar : >>> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/17/jeux-de-cooperation-au-bazar/ >>> >>> @+, best, 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 17 08:56:30 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:26:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: <50CF1F61.6040104@panamo.eu> References: <50CF1911.1000704@panamo.eu> <50CF1F61.6040104@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <69456373-E4F4-4834-9AC5-7EC105B915E7@hserus.net> :) To be very fair, the history of various Indian tribes was also a history of conquest of tribes that were less powerful to them, so much so that three major tribes are still known to us by the defeated tribes' word for "enemy" .. Sioux, Comanche and Apache (the tribes' own word for themselves was typically some variant of "The people" - implying that most others from outside their tribe weren't particularly worthy of consideration, and to be defeated and plundered as and when the opportunity arose). Those times were, shall we say, a dog eat dog world, and a history that definitely needs to be remembered to avoid repeating mistakes that were made in the past. I fully agree with you that any development and change can and must be driven from within Africa, and well meaning offers of aid without local knowledge run into the situation that a friend of mine (who used to live in Kenya, and speaks fluent Swahili) encountered when he accompanied a colleague from a rather prominent NGO that I shall not name here, to address a gathering of local NGO types. This colleague started off with all the usual preliminaries about how Kenya was such a beautiful country, and made a fairly long speech - during which at least some of the audience were muttering to themselves in swahili "when is this mzungu (rather derogatory term for a white man) going to shut up and start signing the checks?" In fact driving change from within a country and promoting local capacity building was the thrust of this OECD paper I wrote back in 2005, on spam issues in developing countries. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/47/34935342.pdf --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 19:04, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Precisely, Suresh. A sherif enforced American laws on Indians territories. The metaphor tells about political conflicts, not about criminality. > That's why I talked earlier about colonisation. And that's why, even if I agree with all comments about Africa (especially about monopolies and corruption), I overall agree with the idea that nobody can be a better help for development than the people of the country themselves. Africa is now an extraordinary lab about mobile uses in African languages... And we saw only the beginning! > > @+, Dom > > > Le 17/12/12 14:14, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >> No I am sorry - that is just one of the myths that needs rebutting. There's no "sherriff of the internet" going on here any more than this is the Wild West. Any international law enforcement - online - as a matter of course follows a complex system of MLATs (and/or the budapest convention on cybercrime, with other signatory countries). >> >> My rudimentary knowledge of french (vin blanc, svp at the most, or perhaps merci m'sieur) found the actual text very pleasant to read, but for a deeper understanding I did have to machine translate it, to my regret. It is a persuasive argument though, and doubtless quite well told in french, but it is a line of thinking that doesn't quite match ground realities, at least when it comes to cross border enforcement actions against criminals. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 17-Dec-2012, at 18:37, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> >>> Thank you Suresh for your comment. >>> I understand your difficulty to understand, because the text uses a metaphor. >>> Yes, Sheridan was not a sherif, but the US consider themselves, nowadays, as the sherif of Internet. >>> About the bazaar, it's a slight reference to the fact that diffenciation between several agents is not a question of price. >>> >>> The style of the text is pleasant for French and not-engineers readers, precisely because Kavé, who is very well educated in European culture, often tell tales, analogies and metaphors. >>> He is a French University teacher and also he has a Persian culture. That's why he uses tales and poetry. >>> >>> Perhaps we shall try an English translation. >>> >>> @+, best, 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 17/12/12 12:12, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >>>> Some slightly mixed up concepts, such as that general Philip sheridan was a career army officer and was never a sheriff or other law enforcement officer in his lifetime. And some notions from ESR's cathedral and the bazaar. >>>> >>>> I don't know if it is because of the narrative bringing in strange analogies, or because of using Google translate to read the article, but I found it hard to understand. >>>> >>>> In any case wild west analogies for cyberspace are non sequitirs >>>> >>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Reply message ----- >>>> From: "Dominique Lacroix"
>>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >>>> Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects >>>> Date: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 3:42 PM >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> For those who can read French or a translator, Kavé Salamatian proposes >>>> interesting interpretations of WCIT issues and prospects : >>>> >>>> Le cyberespace et ses Indiens : >>>> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/16/le-cyberespace-et-ses-indiens/ >>>> Jeux de coopération au Bazar : >>>> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/17/jeux-de-cooperation-au-bazar/ >>>> >>>> @+, best, 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 09:14:15 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:14:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: <69456373-E4F4-4834-9AC5-7EC105B915E7@hserus.net> References: <50CF1911.1000704@panamo.eu> <50CF1F61.6040104@panamo.eu> <69456373-E4F4-4834-9AC5-7EC105B915E7@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > :) To be very fair, the history of various Indian tribes was also a history > of conquest of tribes that were less powerful to them, so much so that three > major tribes are still known to us by the defeated tribes' word for "enemy" > .. Sioux, Comanche and Apache (the tribes' own word for themselves was > typically some variant of "The people" - implying that most others from > outside their tribe weren't particularly worthy of consideration, and to be > defeated and plundered as and when the opportunity arose). > > Those times were, shall we say, a dog eat dog world, and a history that > definitely needs to be remembered to avoid repeating mistakes that were made > in the past. > > I fully agree with you that any development and change can and must be > driven from within Africa right, and that is the heart of the ISOC efforts at capacity building. They support AfNOG (which uses an "each one teach one" model), AfriNIC, which also sees Africans training Africans (they are also supported by Francophonie in this) and their own IXP training efforts, currently led by 2 Kenyan engineers. -- 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 Mon Dec 17 09:21:22 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:51:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: References: <50CF1911.1000704@panamo.eu> <50CF1F61.6040104@panamo.eu> <69456373-E4F4-4834-9AC5-7EC105B915E7@hserus.net> Message-ID: <4C33C800-B873-4008-AA86-4323F72D8E5F@hserus.net> Right, and my OECD paper, as I remember, prominently mentioned the various network operator groups, ISOC, PCH, NSRC and friends as examples of viable ICT outreach to developing countries. --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 19:44, McTim wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> :) To be very fair, the history of various Indian tribes was also a history >> of conquest of tribes that were less powerful to them, so much so that three >> major tribes are still known to us by the defeated tribes' word for "enemy" >> .. Sioux, Comanche and Apache (the tribes' own word for themselves was >> typically some variant of "The people" - implying that most others from >> outside their tribe weren't particularly worthy of consideration, and to be >> defeated and plundered as and when the opportunity arose). >> >> Those times were, shall we say, a dog eat dog world, and a history that >> definitely needs to be remembered to avoid repeating mistakes that were made >> in the past. >> >> I fully agree with you that any development and change can and must be >> driven from within Africa > > right, and that is the heart of the ISOC efforts at capacity building. > > They support AfNOG (which uses an "each one teach one" model), > AfriNIC, which also sees Africans training Africans (they are also supported > by Francophonie in this) and their own IXP training efforts, currently led by 2 > Kenyan engineers. > > > -- > 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 dl at panamo.eu Mon Dec 17 09:29:41 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:29:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: References: <50CF1911.1000704@panamo.eu> <50CF1F61.6040104@panamo.eu> <69456373-E4F4-4834-9AC5-7EC105B915E7@hserus.net> Message-ID: <50CF2C55.5090008@panamo.eu> McTim, yes, all these are very good intentions. But what about high level prices of connectivity? And the high level price of new TLDs? How the Western countries could hope that Southern countries would follow them in Dubaï? The meeting offers the great output to show the actual state of hearts. Now I think we should adress the very state of divide. And in the frame of environment foresight... @+, Dom Le 17/12/12 15:14, McTim a écrit : > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> :) To be very fair, the history of various Indian tribes was also a >> history of conquest of tribes that were less powerful to them, so >> much so that three major tribes are still known to us by the defeated >> tribes' word for "enemy" .. Sioux, Comanche and Apache (the tribes' >> own word for themselves was typically some variant of "The people" - >> implying that most others from outside their tribe weren't >> particularly worthy of consideration, and to be defeated and >> plundered as and when the opportunity arose). Those times were, shall >> we say, a dog eat dog world, and a history that definitely needs to >> be remembered to avoid repeating mistakes that were made in the past. >> I fully agree with you that any development and change can and must >> be driven from within Africa > right, and that is the heart of the ISOC efforts at capacity building. > They support AfNOG (which uses an "each one teach one" model), > AfriNIC, which also sees Africans training Africans (they are also > supported by Francophonie in this) and their own IXP training efforts, > currently led by 2 Kenyan engineers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 09:29:58 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:29:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: <04A0107A-8321-4A36-863B-79CD87662186@istaff.org> References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <50CC3936.3020708@cavebear.com> <04A0107A-8321-4A36-863B-79CD87662186@istaff.org> Message-ID: +1 to Karl-John exchange below. Particularly: *"User traffic should be considered* * private, and not monitored and except to the extent necessary* * for network operations or per lawful order" is far more* * useful than "Don't deploy DPI or traffic monitoring"* Correct formulation of an issue/objective is 90% of solving/achieving it. (Should we say governance is 90% formulation and 10% perspiration ?) A major purpose of multi-stakeholder deliberations is to provide the full picture (with all technical, economic, ethical and social aspects), to prevent exchanges spiralling down into acrimonious opposition between apparently incompatible high-level principles. In many cases, the choice is not either/or, but how - if possible - to combine opposing principles in a dynamic, positive tension. Bertrand On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 2:51 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Dec 15, 2012, at 3:47 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > > One thing that I've always wanted to see is some line that allows those > > of us who diagnose and repair networks to do our work without being > > accused of being nefarious beings of malevolent intent. > > > > A surgeon brings sharp, potentially dangerous tools to the operating > table. > > > > Those of us who diagnose and repair networks also have sharp tools in > > our toolkits. > > > > In both cases those tools are ambiguous - they could cause harm or cause > > good. > > > > There needs to be some sort of demarcation that allows for network > > diagnosis and repair. This goes not merely to the use of tools but also > > some recognition that during repair and diagnosis that sometimes things > > that are private are revealed to the repair team. > > > > Otherwise the security measures that "endeavour to ensure the security > > and robustness of international telecommunication networks" could easily > > become barriers that cause networks to be, in sum, less robust. > > Karl - > > 100% agreement. If we need controls, then we need them > on actual acts of harm, not the tools or their use. The > surgeon cuts flesh, but they are doing it for the right > reason. The network engineer might indeed have to turn > on packet monitoring, e.g. to find the control network > behind a DDoS attack, etc. > > I'm not certain this point is well-understood by folks, > and it comes back down to making sure that guidance from > those who make public policy is sufficiently high-level > based on outcomes, i.e. "User traffic should be considered > private, and not monitored and except to the extent necessary > for network operations or per lawful order" is far more > useful than "Don't deploy DPI or traffic monitoring" > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. Note to traffic monitoring > equipment: Interception of this email constitutes acceptance > of my terms and conditions; in short, you now owe me a latte. > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Mon Dec 17 09:36:58 2012 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:36:58 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B173240@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <06a101cddbdb$d8768860$89639920$@gmail.com> <518989750.71197.1355699352387.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <75B1B58C-5246-4CAA-AC38-2DD3DC2D4B65@hserus.net>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B173240@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <535216565.14081.1355755018555.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n17>   Lee MC Knight wrote     Unfortunately this isn't reality ! You are confusing mobile penetration -i.e. ratio mobile users vs total population- and number of SIM cards vs total population. Do you know that an African mobile user/consumer may have "several" SIM cards for any reason (too long to explain) ?   And BTW do you know that when African regulators carry out a registration control process almost 20 % are "illegal" for any reason.   The actual figure of African mobile users is currently approximately 360 million (cf ITU, UNDP, Unesco data) for a population that nears 800 milion. So, please, recalculate you staiistics.   Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 17/12/12 03:09 > De : "Lee W McKnight" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "McTim" , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > Copie à : "jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr" , "michael gurstein" > Objet : RE: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT > > Re Africa mobiles, reaching 80% penetration Q1 2013 is an amazing accomplishment in reaching near universal service in a short time, even if there are still large areas with no coverage. Still, fact we are approaching a billion mobile subscribers in Africa doesn't get as much attention as it deserves imho. > > And, the fact that Sub-Saharan Africa has presently the highest growth rate in the world is is also nice to see. > > Internet is not yet at that level of course, but... > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:12 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > Cc: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > doption of mobile telephony hasn't been driven by the smartphone users as it > > has by a large number of poor people - manual laborers, fishermen, > > maidservants and such. It gives them independence and access to information > > which helps them add far more value to their lifestyle than an executive is > > helped by his blackberry or ipad. > > > plus access to banking services/mobile money. > > "How happy these Africans are, thanks to mobile and the Internet" is spot on. > > Have you ever met any that are unhappy about it? I have not, and I > was there for many years. > > -- > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 09:53:13 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:53:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: <50CF2C55.5090008@panamo.eu> References: <50CF1911.1000704@panamo.eu> <50CF1F61.6040104@panamo.eu> <69456373-E4F4-4834-9AC5-7EC105B915E7@hserus.net> <50CF2C55.5090008@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > > McTim, yes, all these are very good intentions. good results I would say. > > But what about high level prices of connectivity? As I said yesterday, prices in many parts of Africa are coming down. 25 Megabytes of data from Safaricom in kenya is now 20 bob (20.00 KES = 0.232883 USD) http://safaricom.com/web/ compare that to Verizon (USA) pricing for a similar product, which is 1:99 USD per megabyte! http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/splash/Megabyte.jsp This isn't the whole story however, but as I said yesterday, my DSL service in USA is comparable in price to my Kenyan Wireless ISP service from earlier this year. And the high level price > of new TLDs? What is the problem here? That the cost of application was too high for Africans? One African new gTLD applicant told me last year that "The money is not an issue, we can go to any (African) bank for that". > > How the Western countries could hope that Southern countries would follow > them in Dubaï? Member States regulators and Ministers of ICT are perfectly capable of following (and participating) in WCIT. > The meeting offers the great output to show the actual state of hearts. > > Now I think we should adress the very state of divide. And in the frame of > environment foresight... Are you arguing that the ITU is the forum in which to address existing digital divides? -- 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Dec 17 10:07:23 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:07:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency | .Nxt | Internet policy and governance In-Reply-To: References: <10229F86C86EB444898E629583FD41713CF43BC0@PACDCEXMB06.cable.comcast.com>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1733E8@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> A few more views on what did or did not happen in Dubai; and how 'shocked' we should be by international standards/treaty games 101 v IETF processes. ________________________________ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 8:54 AM To: ip Subject: Fwd: [IP] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency | .Nxt | Internet policy and governance ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Livingood, Jason > Date: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 8:51 AM Subject: Re:Internet humbles UN telecoms agency | .Nxt | Internet policy and governance To: Dave Farber > Dave – For IP if you wish. The WICT was quite a spectacle to behold! It was also a huge contrast with the IETF meetings I typically attend, and which pretty much tend to work just fine. For IP'ers who don't have experience with the IETF – those meetings are totally open, so anyone can attend, participate remotely/online. There are no delegations, just individual contributors. There is no voting, only rough consensus (and running code in some situations). Standards are not imposed a la regulation and treaty, but merely encouraged and voluntary. In the end, the good standards and practices are naturally adopted and the others simply not. By and large standards tend to encourage or establish things like interoperability and simplicity, which lowers costs in the end (rather than increasing complexity and coming up with ways to impose or extract cost). Next time I feel like complaining about the cookies at breaks during an IETF meeting or that there's not a power strip within 3 feet of my chair, I'll just remember how good we have it there! ;-) - Jason Livingood On 12/15/12 11:05 PM, "Dave Farber" > wrote: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John Day Date: Saturday, December 15, 2012 Subject: [IP] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency | .Nxt | Internet policy and governance To: dave at farber.net Kieren McCarthy is apparently grossly inexperienced in what standards meetings are all about. What is described in this article is pretty much how any standards meeting works. The greater the gulf between the groups at the meeting, the more like this it is. What is reported here is hardly unusual. First of all, most standards meeting are closed meetings in the sense that only the delegates and even then the head of delegation does most of the talking. (Remember anyone can just join in the debate from the balcony in Congress, either.) That said, all documents for the meeting should be available to the delegations well before the meeting. Whether delegations share these documents with the public at large is their business. One would hope they would. The fact that only "government representatives would be able to provide proposals" is the norm. If one substitutes "member" for "government representative" then you have the rules that most standards bodies operate under. The member serves as the elected representative of their constituency. Should the technical community and public be able to submit proposals and debate them within their members? Sure! But by the time you get to a meeting like the WCIT, the members better have a pretty well formed position and know what they are going to do. "Consensus by exhaustion" is not unusual in standards meetings, especially where there is no fundamental agreement about the direction of the effort. Arguing over every comma and word is also the norm. (Is it fun? No. Does it produce a good output? Seldom.) Actually if I had to guess based on experience, there were no strategic games going on, just tactical ones. Only the naive and stupid would have been "stunned" by this process. This was precisely what would be expected. The idea in this article that it was the ITU's job to respond and provide a solution is the ultimate in the ridiculous. For better or worse, the ITU's job was to serve as the Secretariat of the meeting. All standards groups are bottom up. If there are no contributions, or delegates are not willing to consider correct directions, it is not the ITU's job to lead. (Thank goodness!) Is the ITU a bit desperate to figure out what it should be doing? I certainly hope so. Do I support them? What a joke! I have a 30 year track record being a thorn in their side and hope to maintain it. As I said on this list a bit ago, when many phone companies were vertically integrated government owned monopolies, the ITU had significant clout. Also, international coordination of spectrum was (and still is) necessary. But remember even in the 70s and 80s ITU avoided telling countries how to run their networks. With deregulation, they more resemble a traditional voluntary standards organization, such as IEEE or ISO: Standards among private network and private manufacturers. The only need for government involvement (other than spectrum) would seem to be limited to some vague coordination among government regulatory bodies. But in the case of wireline communications, I don't see many areas that require *international* coordination. Domestic perhaps the FCC certainly thinks so, but not international. So was the WCIT a big flop! A big surprise. Hardly. it was clear a year ago, that if repressive governments wanted to push a bunch of repressive measures, the rest of the world would simply not sign it. That is what was done last time. But certainly gave a lot of foolish journalists a lot to write about for awhile. Now they can back to writing about other foolish things. Was it a waste of time? Yes. Would it have been better if no one went? Well some poor soul had to go and make sure that was the outcome. I remember once when the CTO of my company was our representative in some committee. The technical group had done one thing and the committee changed it in the plenary coordinating all of the technical groups so that was not in our best interest and the CIO was asked how it happened. He said, he didn't bother to go to the Plenary. Asked when the hell not!? Responded that "well, nothing ever happens in Plenary" To which I responded: RIGHT! The reason one goes to Plenary is to make sure NOTHING happens! The guy was an idiot. So the US delegation to WCIT should be applauded for going to Dubai and sitting through all of these painful machinations so the rest of us could ignore it. For all those, who got wrapped up in the hype, and thought that this meeting was critically important and they needed to be there, they just qualified as "one born every minute." Good grief! McCarthy grow up. The Internet didn't humble anything. The US did what it does in any standards group when the idiots prevail, simply not agree. They can't impose anything and that was known going in. http://news.dot-nxt.com/2012/12/14/internet-humbles-un-telecoms-a Another point of view 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Dec 17 10:18:28 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:18:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT In-Reply-To: <535216565.14081.1355755018555.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n17> References: <06a101cddbdb$d8768860$89639920$@gmail.com> <518989750.71197.1355699352387.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <75B1B58C-5246-4CAA-AC38-2DD3DC2D4B65@hserus.net>, <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B173240@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<535216565.14081.1355755018555.JavaMail.www@wwinf1n17> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B173408@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I stand corrected; or rather AT Kearney should correct themselves ; ): "Africa had more than 730m mobile subscriptions, corresponding to a SIM-card penetration rate of more than 65%..." http://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/mea12atkearneyafricapresentation.pdf But yeah thanks Jean Louis, I should have checked a few more sources...still, the contrast from 5 years ago never mind 10, is striking. Lee ________________________________ From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr [jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 9:36 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Lee W McKnight; McTim; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; michael gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT Lee MC Knight wrote Unfortunately this isn't reality ! You are confusing mobile penetration -i.e. ratio mobile users vs total population- and number of SIM cards vs total population. Do you know that an African mobile user/consumer may have "several" SIM cards for any reason (too long to explain) ? And BTW do you know that when African regulators carry out a registration control process almost 20 % are "illegal" for any reason. The actual figure of African mobile users is currently approximately 360 million (cf ITU, UNDP, Unesco data) for a population that nears 800 milion. So, please, recalculate you staiistics. Best Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 17/12/12 03:09 > De : "Lee W McKnight" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "McTim" , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > Copie à : "jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr" , "michael gurstein" > Objet : RE: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT > > Re Africa mobiles, reaching 80% penetration Q1 2013 is an amazing accomplishment in reaching near universal service in a short time, even if there are still large areas with no coverage. Still, fact we are approaching a billion mobile subscribers in Africa doesn't get as much attention as it deserves imho. > > And, the fact that Sub-Saharan Africa has presently the highest growth rate in the world is is also nice to see. > > Internet is not yet at that level of course, but... > ________________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:12 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian > Cc: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] US Ambassador Kramer's Remarks on the WCIT > > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > doption of mobile telephony hasn't been driven by the smartphone users as it > > has by a large number of poor people - manual laborers, fishermen, > > maidservants and such. It gives them independence and access to information > > which helps them add far more value to their lifestyle than an executive is > > helped by his blackberry or ipad. > > > plus access to banking services/mobile money. > > "How happy these Africans are, thanks to mobile and the Internet" is spot on. > > Have you ever met any that are unhappy about it? I have not, and I > was there for many years. > > -- > 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 dl at panamo.eu Mon Dec 17 10:19:06 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:19:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: References: <50CF1911.1000704@panamo.eu> <50CF1F61.6040104@panamo.eu> <69456373-E4F4-4834-9AC5-7EC105B915E7@hserus.net> <50CF2C55.5090008@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <50CF37EA.5010705@panamo.eu> McTim, you told about a "happy" experience because in Kenya(one of the rare African countries who voted as US and allies), you saw Isoc spreading with success its concepts and organisation. And Kenya is in the Top 4 of Internet penetration in Africa with a 12% figure. After 20 years of efforts, I cannot name that a "success". ITU is a better place for a lot of subjects in telecommunications. Could you built Internet without telecommunications? Would IETF or ICANN deal with mobile roaming concerns? and so on. @+, Dom Le 17/12/12 15:53, McTim a écrit : > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> McTim, yes, all these are very good intentions. > good results I would say >> But what about high level prices of connectivity? > > As I said yesterday, prices in many parts of Africa are coming down. > > 25 Megabytes of data from Safaricom in kenya is now 20 bob (20.00 > KES = 0.232883 USD) http://safaricom.com/web/ > > compare that to Verizon (USA) pricing for a similar product, which is > 1:99 USD per megabyte! > > http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/splash/Megabyte.jsp > > This isn't the whole story however, but as I said yesterday, my DSL > service in USA is comparable in price to my Kenyan Wireless ISP > service from earlier this year. > > > And the high level price >> of new TLDs? > What is the problem here? That the cost of application was too high > for Africans? One African new gTLD applicant told me last year that > "The money is not an issue, we can go to any (African) bank for that". > > >> How the Western countries could hope that Southern countries would follow >> them in Dubaï? > Member States regulators and Ministers of ICT are perfectly capable of > following (and participating) in WCIT. > > >> The meeting offers the great output to show the actual state of hearts. >> >> Now I think we should adress the very state of divide. And in the frame of >> environment foresight... > Are you arguing that the ITU is the forum in which to address existing > digital divides? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Dec 17 10:42:44 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:42:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <20121217114238.GK20865@thorion.it.jyu.fi> References: <50CA70A9.3020302@well.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292AF5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA766B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293233@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20121214181400.GA23727@tarvainen.info> <50CCA263.1020306@itforchange.net> <20121217114238.GK20865@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <20121217164244.3c05a480@quill.bollow.ch> Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Dec 15 21:46, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > >In the preamble: > > > > > >"These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States > > >to international telecommunication services." > > > > Tapani, what is it that you find objectionable and dangerous in > > this.... I would think that such a statement should be a obvious and > > necessary part on any treaty on global communication. It is such a > > basic statement...... > > My understanding is that that languate would imply narrowing > UN-approved sanctions list (and in particular, force USA to give up > part of its blockade against Cuba) and add an entirely new type of > "state right" with unclear implications to UN language - not something > that should be done without careful negotiation, certainly not by > inserting a statement without vote at the last minute to a treaty. How is "the right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services" not simply an implication of existing international human rights law, in particular the right of everyone "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers,... through any other media of his choice"? (Article 19(2), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm ) Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Mon Dec 17 10:43:58 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:43:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign In-Reply-To: References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> <50BFAC67.9060902@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <50CF3DBE.20703@panamo.eu> Le 05/12/12 22:17, McTim a écrit : > > 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"). McTim, I found my source about the 50 figure. It's from Isoc itself: http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-delegation-attend-world-conference-international-telecommunications-dubai-3-14 @+, best, Dom -- 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 tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Mon Dec 17 11:10:43 2012 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:10:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <20121217164244.3c05a480@quill.bollow.ch> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA766B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293233@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20121214181400.GA23727@tarvainen.info> <50CCA263.1020306@itforchange.net> <20121217114238.GK20865@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <20121217164244.3c05a480@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20121217161043.GE3302@tarvainen.info> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 04:42:44PM +0100, Norbert Bollow (nb at bollow.ch) wrote: > > > >"These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States > > > >to international telecommunication services." > How is "the right of access of Member States to international > telecommunication services" not simply an implication of existing > international human rights law, in particular the right of everyone > "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, > regardless of frontiers,... through any other media of his > choice"? Because that is _human_ (individual) right, not _state_ right. I was told there was an attempt to insert similar language for _people_ or _citizens of every member states_, and that was rejected by Cuba &co. -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 17 11:12:57 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:42:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign In-Reply-To: <50CF3DBE.20703@panamo.eu> References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> <50BFAC67.9060902@panamo.eu> <50CF3DBE.20703@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <50CF4489.20906@itforchange.net> On Monday 17 December 2012 09:13 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > Le 05/12/12 22:17, McTim a écrit : >> >> 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"). McTim That reminds me, In an earlier posting you lamented that Google did not have a vote with regard to deciding on the ITRs. So, it is that you want Google and ISOC to be able to vote along with governments while global regulation is being made. (This is not technical coordination, or standards development, this is actual regulation, law and public policy.) Accordingly, do you also want Google and other private companies to *vote* when Internet related regulation, laws and policies are being made in your country? Should they also sit inside regulatory bodies? And also, what about in other sectors, education, health, agriculture etc.... While we keep on asking for MSism, and more MSism ,it will greatly help in making our demand to lay down clearly what is meant by MSism, and what exactly do we seek. My attempts to obtain a clear answer to this question for many years now on this list has not been successful. Still hoping... parminder > McTim, I found my source about the 50 figure. It's from Isoc itself: > http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-delegation-attend-world-conference-international-telecommunications-dubai-3-14 > > @+, best, Dom > > -- > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 17 10:54:30 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:24:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> References: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> Message-ID: <50CF4036.4080407@itforchange.net> On Sunday 16 December 2012 03:24 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Dear all, > > I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's blog post > here, to widen the discussion. Please find below. > > --- snip --- snip --- snip --- > > But for some governments this was not enough! They insisted on the right > of States to telecommunication services and put it on a par basis with > Human Rights. They argued the Rights of States was the same as the > Rights of individuals. One of the most balanced Countries, Switzerland, > expressed its outrage. Tension was rising fast. We got lectured by some > countries that oppress their people about Human Rights. And then Iran > called for an abrupt end to the discussion, after having intervened more > than any country in the past 2 weeks, and called for a vote — when I > remind you that on many many occasions Dr. Touré and the Chair has > assured us there would be no vote. > This derailment was self-inflicted and this was the drop that got the > vase to overflow. Dear Olivier, thanks for your detailed comments. There are a few aspects of what happened at Dubai that I will like to comment upon. However, since you stress the point of vote on the clause that 'all countries have right to access international telecom networks' as one of the most important ones let me respond to you on this. Collective rights are a recognised category under UN human rights system. Why do you think that the collective entity of a country should *not* have a right to international telecom networks.... Isnt it something basic that must underpin any global treaty on international telecom? What does an international telecom treaty mean without stating such a right. It is most surprising, even shocking, for me that people from civil society should be speaking against such a right. I can understand why US doesnt want it, but global civil society ??? Before you say anything about collective entities like a country, I will remind you that below you do proudly refer to your participation in such an entity. You say that you are proud that 'your' country did not sign. Why would other people not legitimately resist and be unhappy/ angry if their country is denied access to international telecom. And what would your response as someone from global civil society be to the plight of such people - in existing sanctioned countries and potential ones. And you also seem to be proud that you were representing 'your country' and were able to influence its decision.... Can other people not legitimately have such collective feeling, and collective rights.... parminder > Where the heck was the consensus? What kind of shotgun > tactics are those? It was obvious by the numbers that the countries > opposing the aggressive manner in which this was conducted, would lose a > vote. > For me, sitting in this room, this was Game, Set and Match. My country, > the UK, did not sign and I am ever so glad they did not. Yes, I had a > say in the matter since I was a full UK delegate, one of the many > countries which brought multiple stakeholders at the table and guess > what, most of these countries have not signed. Does this not tell you > something? > > So that is my personal assessment of what happened and I was at the > heart of it. I saw some very ugly stuff going on there, stuff which I > would really like the Internet to be preserved from. > > But I am sad too. I am sad because I also heard some very valid concerns > from developing countries that they were not able to participate in the > multi-stakeholder model because of lack of funding, lack of > understanding and a lack of proactive work from our “own” side. > I am planning to report fully to ICANN on the matter – we should do more > to bridge the gap. At the moment, these countries only have two fora in > which they can participate and that’s the IGF where nobody listens to > them and the ITU where they have a voice. During the hour that followed > the dramatic vote, I went to see my “opponents”. Many of us did – and > whilst not apologizing for not signing, we exchanged business cards and > I intend on following up. In fact, many European countries are intent on > following up with countries that do not appear to have hidden intentions > are are genuine about the level of despair they displayed at this > conference. Because sadly, there was despair too. This is the start of a > better dialogue, one which we must make efforts in promoting, reaching > out, building capacity. > > In closing, I’d say that this was not only a failure of the ITRs and the > ITU, it was a failure of Internet Governance too. Civil Society has the > ability to bridge the gap – and I know of several governments that have > understood this. Let’s work together to ensure we will never live again > a similar WCIT full of mistrust and despair. > > Olivier > (speaking entirely on my own behalf) > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 11:24:14 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:24:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: <50CF37EA.5010705@panamo.eu> References: <50CF1911.1000704@panamo.eu> <50CF1F61.6040104@panamo.eu> <69456373-E4F4-4834-9AC5-7EC105B915E7@hserus.net> <50CF2C55.5090008@panamo.eu> <50CF37EA.5010705@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > McTim, you told about a "happy" experience because in Kenya (one of the rare > African countries who voted as US and allies), you saw Isoc spreading with > success its concepts and organisation. NO, you just aren't listening I fear. The ISOC staff are both Kenyan working from Nairobi. They work ALL OVER Africa on IXP building and other technical workshops. ISOC supports (and has helped to train) thousands of folk ALL OVER Africa. > And Kenya is in the Top 4 of Internet penetration in Africa with a 12% > figure. The prices I submitted were because of my recent personal experience. Prior to living in kenya, I lived in Uganda, where retail prices for connectivity are actually lower than in Kenya. This is largely due to market forces. South Africa has long been one of the cheapest African places to get connected, this is because of scale, as Suresh mentioned. South Africans have been fighting the ITU /state-owned Telkom monopoly mindset for years. > > After 20 years of efforts, I cannot name that a "success". The main thrust of ISOC is as a home to the IETF, they have been entirely successful in promoting the open, bottom-up consensus based model of Internet decision making to all areas of the globe. It's entirely unrealistic to say that because there is a digital divide, ISOC has not been a success. > > ITU is a better place for a lot of subjects in telecommunications. > > Could you built Internet without telecommunications? YES http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internetworking Internetworking (a combination of the words inter ("between") and networking; it is not internet-working or international-network) is the practice of connecting a computer network with other networks through the use of gateways that provide a common method of routing information packets between the networks. The resulting system of interconnected networks is called an internetwork, or simply an internet. > > Would IETF or ICANN deal with mobile roaming concerns? and so on. no, of course not, as it is not in scope for them, nor should the ITU be concerned with SPAM, content regulation, Internet naming, numbering, etc. I'm just not seeing your point. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 11:26:08 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:26:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet humbles UN telecoms agency In-Reply-To: <20121217161043.GE3302@tarvainen.info> References: <8DA1853CE466B041B104C1CAEE00B3747C16DE55@CHAXCH01.corp.arin.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2292F9A@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <5F42EC17-1F0A-4737-BFF6-ABBB77244C3B@istaff.org> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293089@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBA766B@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2293233@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> <20121214181400.GA23727@tarvainen.info> <50CCA263.1020306@itforchange.net> <20121217114238.GK20865@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <20121217164244.3c05a480@quill.bollow.ch> <20121217161043.GE3302@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 04:42:44PM +0100, Norbert Bollow (nb at bollow.ch) wrote: > >> > > >"These Regulations recognize the right of access of Member States >> > > >to international telecommunication services." > >> How is "the right of access of Member States to international >> telecommunication services" not simply an implication of existing >> international human rights law, in particular the right of everyone >> "to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, >> regardless of frontiers,... through any other media of his >> choice"? > > Because that is _human_ (individual) right, not _state_ right. Correct, Many, many Member States objected to the notion of creating an new international "human right" for States. > I was told there was an attempt to insert similar language > for _people_ or _citizens of every member states_, > and that was rejected by Cuba &co. that would have been the simple solution. -- 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 Mon Dec 17 11:31:23 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:31:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign In-Reply-To: <50CF3DBE.20703@panamo.eu> References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> <50BFAC67.9060902@panamo.eu> <50CF3DBE.20703@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Le 05/12/12 22:17, McTim a écrit : >> >> 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"). > > McTim, I found my source about the 50 figure. It's from Isoc itself: > http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-delegation-attend-world-conference-international-telecommunications-dubai-3-14 Correct. You are saying that ISOC sent 50 folks independent of Member States delegations. I am saying that is not the case. There were a handful of ISOC staff there, (unable to vote) and ~50 ISOC Members who were on delegations of Member States. There may have been a number of ISOC NG Leaders there as well who were NOT part of any delegation. You DO understand that most critical decision were made behind locked doors, right? -- 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 Mon Dec 17 11:48:41 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 11:48:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Forbes Piece on the Google Campaign In-Reply-To: <50CF4489.20906@itforchange.net> References: <022c01cdd30d$0ba59910$22f0cb30$@gmail.com> <50BF9AC2.80604@panamo.eu> <50BFAC67.9060902@panamo.eu> <50CF3DBE.20703@panamo.eu> <50CF4489.20906@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 11:12 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 17 December 2012 09:13 PM, Dominique Lacroix wrote: > > Le 05/12/12 22:17, McTim a écrit : >> >> 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"). > > > McTim > > That reminds me, In an earlier posting you lamented that Google did not have > a vote with regard to deciding on the ITRs. Did I really? I recall that I asked why Google would want to pay a Sector Member fee to join a body where they had no vote, but i didn't lament the fact that they didn't have a vote. Again, it's very boring when you try to speak for me. So, it is that you want Google > and ISOC to be able to vote along with governments while global regulation > is being made. Is this a statement or a question? The use of "it is" makes me think it is a statement, which would be another example of you trying to speak for me. I think you meant "is it", which would make it a question, no? The answer is that I do not want inter-governmental regulation of/for/about the Internet. (This is not technical coordination, or standards > development, this is actual regulation, law and public policy.) Accordingly, > do you also want Google and other private companies to *vote* when Internet > related regulation, laws and policies are being made in your country? Frankly, I don't want much "Internet related regulation, laws and policies" being made my country either! -- 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 nashton at ccianet.org Mon Dec 17 12:05:24 2012 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:05:24 -0200 Subject: [governance] How cooperation could be defined ? In-Reply-To: References: <50CE0DC4.1030805@panamo.eu> Message-ID: I confess I too find the various assertions here difficult to understand. There is certainly much to be done to push greater connectivity at lower costs to more of the unconnected, but it is a fact that the number of developing country citizens connecting up each year is growing very dramatically overall. There are all kinds of very clever solutions to geography, limitations on supporting services (unreliable electric power being supplemented by solar-driven stations), and the like. I think the picture painted below is awfully negative and suggests that the North is somehow against the South getting connected. This isn't the case, if that's the view; why would it be? On a purely commercial level the more people are on the Internet the greater the economic opportunity to serve them with products and services, for example. If I've misunderstood the comments, I'm sure someone will let me know. On Sunday, 16 December 2012, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Dominique Lacroix
> > wrote: > > Hello world :-) > > > > Fadi Chehadé explains : > > There is no war between ITU and ICANN, and there will not. > > We must engage in a new season of cooperation, in the respect of each > role. > > Fadi Chehadé Explains the Decision to Attend the WCIT Opening Ceremony > in Dubai | 28 Nov 2012 > > > > The first part of the WCIT shows disagrement between North and South. > > Because Northern governments and companies would be satisfied without > > regulation, as in the great era of the free seas and freedom of commerce. > > And South cannot access and build Net services in such conditions. Too > > expensive... > > > Do you have any evidence of this assertion? > > I'm currently wearing a t-shirt that says "Ushahidi", an example (one > of hundreds I could name) of net services coming from Africa. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Geneva Representative Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 email: nashton at ccianet.org Skype: nashtonhart http://www.ccianet.org *Instead of sending cards to commemorate the festive season this year, CCIA Geneva has made a donation to Medecins sans Frontieres in the name of our member companies and our colleagues and friends in the Permanent Missions and UN system in Geneva.* Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Mon Dec 17 12:30:20 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:30:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] WCIT: Civil society experiences on gov delegations Message-ID: <20121217183020.38a9e457@quill.bollow.ch> Dear all, Besides Nnnenna's illuminating blog post ( http://nnennaorg.blogspot.ch/2012/12/the-weird-ironic-and-hypocritical-wcit.html ), are there other blog posts from civil society people who participated at WCIT as part of government delegations? (This is for http://idgovmap.org/map/inst/ITU where I'd like to add links to additional perspectives.) Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Mon Dec 17 12:30:33 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 18:30:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> Message-ID: On 15 Dec 2012, at 13:04, Roland Perry wrote: > The anti-spam industry, and several privacy laws worldwide, have established beyond doubt what 'Unsolicited bulk communications' means for over a decade. There's no need to start new hares running. Exactly where are these well established definitions? Which ITU treaty or ITU standard defines what "Unsolicited bulk communications" means? And I have not the faintest idea what you mean when you speak of 'hares running.' 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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 12:37:45 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:37:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: <69456373-E4F4-4834-9AC5-7EC105B915E7@hserus.net> References: <50CF1911.1000704@panamo.eu> <50CF1F61.6040104@panamo.eu> <69456373-E4F4-4834-9AC5-7EC105B915E7@hserus.net> Message-ID: <44656EBF-C8D9-4EE8-915F-71C9964B3152@gmail.com> suresh Thanks for this right wing, IMHO, post.... Refreshingly robust. Glad tolerance on this list is higher for right wing public interest than other wings... Only one question about your blandishment/s (or rethorical flourish), did all the Kenyans / NGO-types look alike? And by some accounts, some of the first the New England farmer settlers received help from the "aggrandizing" first people's of North America in their formative years. And we know, victors write history... Perhaps with climate change we will get a chance to figure out who the real civilized ones were... Riaz ...,... On 17 Dec 2012, at 3:56 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > :) To be very fair, the history of various Indian tribes was also a history of conquest of tribes that were less powerful to them, so much so that three major tribes are still known to us by the defeated tribes' word for "enemy" .. Sioux, Comanche and Apache (the tribes' own word for themselves was typically some variant of "The people" - implying that most others from outside their tribe weren't particularly worthy of consideration, and to be defeated and plundered as and when the opportunity arose). > > Those times were, shall we say, a dog eat dog world, and a history that definitely needs to be remembered to avoid repeating mistakes that were made in the past. > > I fully agree with you that any development and change can and must be driven from within Africa, and well meaning offers of aid without local knowledge run into the situation that a friend of mine (who used to live in Kenya, and speaks fluent Swahili) encountered when he accompanied a colleague from a rather prominent NGO that I shall not name here, to address a gathering of local NGO types. > > This colleague started off with all the usual preliminaries about how Kenya was such a beautiful country, and made a fairly long speech - during which at least some of the audience were muttering to themselves in swahili "when is this mzungu (rather derogatory term for a white man) going to shut up and start signing the checks?" > > In fact driving change from within a country and promoting local capacity building was the thrust of this OECD paper I wrote back in 2005, on spam issues in developing countries. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/47/34935342.pdf > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Dec-2012, at 19:04, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > >> Precisely, Suresh. A sherif enforced American laws on Indians territories. The metaphor tells about political conflicts, not about criminality. >> That's why I talked earlier about colonisation. And that's why, even if I agree with all comments about Africa (especially about monopolies and corruption), I overall agree with the idea that nobody can be a better help for development than the people of the country themselves. Africa is now an extraordinary lab about mobile uses in African languages... And we saw only the beginning! >> >> @+, Dom >> >> >> Le 17/12/12 14:14, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >>> No I am sorry - that is just one of the myths that needs rebutting. There's no "sherriff of the internet" going on here any more than this is the Wild West. Any international law enforcement - online - as a matter of course follows a complex system of MLATs (and/or the budapest convention on cybercrime, with other signatory countries). >>> >>> My rudimentary knowledge of french (vin blanc, svp at the most, or perhaps merci m'sieur) found the actual text very pleasant to read, but for a deeper understanding I did have to machine translate it, to my regret. It is a persuasive argument though, and doubtless quite well told in french, but it is a line of thinking that doesn't quite match ground realities, at least when it comes to cross border enforcement actions against criminals. >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>> On 17-Dec-2012, at 18:37, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>> >>>> Thank you Suresh for your comment. >>>> I understand your difficulty to understand, because the text uses a metaphor. >>>> Yes, Sheridan was not a sherif, but the US consider themselves, nowadays, as the sherif of Internet. >>>> About the bazaar, it's a slight reference to the fact that diffenciation between several agents is not a question of price. >>>> >>>> The style of the text is pleasant for French and not-engineers readers, precisely because Kavé, who is very well educated in European culture, often tell tales, analogies and metaphors. >>>> He is a French University teacher and also he has a Persian culture. That's why he uses tales and poetry. >>>> >>>> Perhaps we shall try an English translation. >>>> >>>> @+, best, 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 17/12/12 12:12, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >>>>> Some slightly mixed up concepts, such as that general Philip sheridan was a career army officer and was never a sheriff or other law enforcement officer in his lifetime. And some notions from ESR's cathedral and the bazaar. >>>>> >>>>> I don't know if it is because of the narrative bringing in strange analogies, or because of using Google translate to read the article, but I found it hard to understand. >>>>> >>>>> In any case wild west analogies for cyberspace are non sequitirs >>>>> >>>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Reply message ----- >>>>> From: "Dominique Lacroix"
>>>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >>>>> Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects >>>>> Date: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 3:42 PM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> For those who can read French or a translator, Kavé Salamatian proposes >>>>> interesting interpretations of WCIT issues and prospects : >>>>> >>>>> Le cyberespace et ses Indiens : >>>>> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/16/le-cyberespace-et-ses-indiens/ >>>>> Jeux de coopération au Bazar : >>>>> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/17/jeux-de-cooperation-au-bazar/ >>>>> >>>>> @+, best, 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 12:56:45 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:56:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] WCIT: Civil society experiences on gov delegations In-Reply-To: <20121217183020.38a9e457@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20121217183020.38a9e457@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <0414DE3A-2098-47ED-809B-1B27E0C88159@gmail.com> Thanks for this Norbert, very interesting perspective... ...,... On 17 Dec 2012, at 7:30 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Dear all, > > Besides Nnnenna's illuminating blog post > ( http://nnennaorg.blogspot.ch/2012/12/the-weird-ironic-and-hypocritical-wcit.html ),.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 13:05:25 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:05:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] How cooperation could be defined ? In-Reply-To: References: <50CE0DC4.1030805@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <531E57A5-E5D0-4BC8-8214-443A852CAE1A@gmail.com> Can't speak for Dominique but the sentiment framed as more connectivity = greater market, everyone benefits distills away the fact that countries, and companies, do play for their own advantage... And to maintain them (for instance non disclosure of patents for standards setting, which changed somewhat...)... As the US is doing to maintain its hegemony (not withstanding being 'largely' responsible in how it plays its hand) ... For Third Worldists, perhaps by definition, the divide is there... And it relates to overall outlook and manifests in various symptoms.... From Cir to iTu battles.... ...,... On 17 Dec 2012, at 7:05 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > I confess I too find the various assertions here difficult to understand. There is certainly much to be done to push greater connectivity at lower costs to more of the unconnected, but it is a fact that the number of developing country citizens connecting up each year is growing very dramatically overall. There are all kinds of very clever solutions to geography, limitations on supporting services (unreliable electric power being supplemented by solar-driven stations), and the like. > > I think the picture painted below is awfully negative and suggests that the North is somehow against the South getting connected. This isn't the case, if that's the view; why would it be? On a purely commercial level the more people are on the Internet the greater the economic opportunity to serve them with products and services, for example. > > If I've misunderstood the comments, I'm sure someone will let me know. > > On Sunday, 16 December 2012, McTim wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> > Hello world :-) >> > >> > Fadi Chehadé explains : >> > There is no war between ITU and ICANN, and there will not. >> > We must engage in a new season of cooperation, in the respect of each role. >> > Fadi Chehadé Explains the Decision to Attend the WCIT Opening Ceremony in Dubai | 28 Nov 2012 >> > >> > The first part of the WCIT shows disagrement between North and South. >> > Because Northern governments and companies would be satisfied without >> > regulation, as in the great era of the free seas and freedom of commerce. >> > And South cannot access and build Net services in such conditions. Too >> > expensive... >> >> >> Do you have any evidence of this assertion? >> >> I'm currently wearing a t-shirt that says "Ushahidi", an example (one >> of hundreds I could name) of net services coming from Africa. >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > -- > -- > > Regards, > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > Geneva Representative > Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) > Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 > Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 > Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 > USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 > email: nashton at ccianet.org > Skype: nashtonhart > http://www.ccianet.org > > Instead of sending cards to commemorate the festive season this year, CCIA Geneva has made a donation to Medecins sans Frontieres in the name of our member companies and our colleagues and friends in the Permanent Missions and UN system in Geneva. > Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Dec 17 14:20:32 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 20:20:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] WCIT Internet Resolution References: <20121217183020.38a9e457@quill.bollow.ch> <0414DE3A-2098-47ED-809B-1B27E0C88159@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD799@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121217_wcit_and_internet_governance_harmless_resolution_or_trojan_horse/ Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Mon Dec 17 15:03:30 2012 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:03:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] UNGA In-Reply-To: <2C35964A-2C17-455C-81BA-783C34D7A3BC@alfa-redi.org> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2C35964A-2C17-455C-81BA-783C34D7A3BC@alfa-redi.org> Message-ID: <20121217150330.70494px7pi5y24r6@www.ciencitec.com> Dear Adam: Good afternoon, representing Internauta Peru, how can we participate?, Civil Society, requires not only information but also greater participation. thanks José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com Internauta Peru -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 15:06:31 2012 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:06:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] UNGA In-Reply-To: <20121217150330.70494px7pi5y24r6@www.ciencitec.com> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2C35964A-2C17-455C-81BA-783C34D7A3BC@alfa-redi.org> <20121217150330.70494px7pi5y24r6@www.ciencitec.com> Message-ID: upppp NO AUTHORIZATION In case you use personal firewall, please adjust the privacy settings for this web site. 2012/12/17 > Dear Adam: > Good afternoon, representing Internauta Peru, how can we participate?, > Civil Society, requires not only information but also greater participation. > thanks > José F. Callo Romero > CEO ciencitec.com > Internauta Peru > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 jfcallo at ciencitec.com Mon Dec 17 15:25:27 2012 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:25:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] DISCRIMINATION MEDINA In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2C35964A-2C17-455C-81BA-783C34D7A3BC@alfa-redi.org> <20121217150330.70494px7pi5y24r6@www.ciencitec.com> Message-ID: <20121217152527.19855mu7v9ieyn5j@www.ciencitec.com> (English) Sr.Medina For a long time I participate in this list and I am a member of it, their DISCRIMINATION is not welcome. A body that represents?. thanks (Spanish) Sr.Medina Desde hace buen tiempo participo de esta lista y soy miembro de la misma, su DISCRIMINACION NO ES BIEN RECIBIDA. A que entidad representa?. Gracias > 2012/12/17 > >> Dear Adam: >> Good afternoon, representing Internauta Peru, how can we participate?, >> Civil Society, requires not only information but also greater participation. >> thanks >> José F. Callo Romero >> CEO ciencitec.com >> Internauta Peru >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Mon Dec 17 15:36:14 2012 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:36:14 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <00af01cddba2$8931ce60$9b956b20$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <016001cddc96$28d36480$7a7a2d80$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Parminder, The original figures come from another list (itu2012chapters at elists.isoc.org and WCIT at lmlist.state.gov). Sorry, I’m sometimes losing track of who sees what since there are multiple lists where the same is discussed, with often the same people on multiple lists. Dave Burstein sent a message on Friday, 14 Dec, with the Subject: [Itu2012chapters] list of signers and those who haven't signed” and that contained an attachment with figures he had received from the ITU. There is a country-by-country list, sorted by region, and showing in green, red and white those who signed, those who did not, and those who could not. I just calculated a few statistics based on those numbers: 195 countries overall 7.016 billion people overall 89 (46%) countries signed (green) – representing 3.834 billion people (55%) 57 (29%) countries opposed (red) – representing 2.574 billion people (37%) 49 (25%) countries open (white) – representing 0.606 billion people (9%) I have asked Dave whether it is ok to forward his message and the attachment to this list. Interesting also the following infographic: http://infogr.am/-mebuell_1355447340 “There is a clear correlation between a state's ranking in the Democracy Index and how their position on the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) at the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) World Conference on Information Technology (WCIT-12). “ The chart categorizes countries in four categories (full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime) and shows percentages of those in each category who voted for (red) or against (green) the ITRs. (Note: color code reversed versus the ITU coding). Regards, Peter Peter H. Hellmonds Public & International Affairs peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu +49 (160) 360-2852 Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: 17 December 2012 05:42 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai Peter Yes, it is useful to get the right figures. The important figure is of those who have refused to sign. As for those who havent refused and havent signed, it may be useful to know that it is normal for many countries to sign such important and binding documents like treaties after a round of consultation at home. In 1988, 112 countries signed up on the last day of the WCIT and 75 signed up later.... So, a huge number of countries deciding to take time is quite normal. Many reports are making this number look as suggesting much less support for the ITRs than there actually is. This side of mis- representation must also be kept in mind. The NYT correspondent says that " By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would not...." You say " Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital...." Can you share the source of your information. The number actually saying they 'wont sign' is most significant. And there seems to a confusion in this regard vis a vis your numbers (is it 57? ) and other reports - NYT says 24 have said they 'wont sign'. What is the actual count of 'those who have refused to sign' ... parminder On Sunday 16 December 2012 09:02 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: The New York Times wrote: “The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it.” Guess we need to send the NY Times reporter some real statistics and correct the reporting: Regarding the “handful of Western allies”: Of the 42 European countries, 35 countries refused to sign the treaty. Of the 35 countries in The Americas, 6 countries refused to sign the treaty. So, while the American delegation was joined by only a handful of allies in The Americas, it was forcefully supported by seven handfuls of European allies, plus 3 handfuls of allies from African, Asian and CIS countries. And it is clear that the European countries were not merely following the lead of the US, but had very clearly stated in prior consultations what they would stand for and what not. The “what not” was that Europe did not want the ITRs to extend to the Internet or content, including spam, or security issues. Regarding the “most other nations signed it”: Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital. How could this reporter claim that “most other nations signed it”?? Peter H. Hellmonds Public & International Affairs peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu +49 (160) 360-2852 Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: 16 December 2012 14:23 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai NewYork Times Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World * by ERIC PFANNER * Dec. 14, 2012 At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff. What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now has many more users in the rest of the world? It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network. The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks of talks here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to engage in a public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they did near midnight on Thursday as the signing deadline approached. The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that it was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement in its current form.” United States delegates said the pact could encourage censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet oversight and replace it with government control. Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page text, which deals mostly with matters like the fees that telecommunications networks should charge one another for connecting calls across borders. After being excised from the pact at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty. The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” That convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to the Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by name so no one could call it an Internet treaty. A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the regulations “in a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations.” Both of these provisions were added during the final days of haggling in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If anything, the new treaty appears to make it more intellectually challenging for governments like China and Iran to justify their current censorship of the Internet. What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty signers should share control over the Internet address-assignment system — a function now handled by an international group based in the United States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to pay telecommunications networks for delivering material to users. Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in the negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like Britain and Canada? In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. Kramer cited a few remaining objections, like references to countering spam and to ensuring “the security and robustness of international telecommunications networks.” This wording, he argued, could be used by nefarious governments to justify crackdowns on free speech. But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that had mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other words, saw a chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong statement about the importance of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty and boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that even to talk about the appearance of global rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter. It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand would underline the importance of keeping the Internet open. “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of Internet freedom,” said Jochem de Groot, senior policy officer for the Internet and human rights in the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands, which joined the United States in opposition to the pact. That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency, the International Telecommunication Union — took place in this economically liberal but socially and politically battened-down emirate underscored the symbolism of the United States boycott of the final treaty. “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries around the world,” said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of the Tunisian Internet Agency, in an interview. “It’s a good message to start the debate.” Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian government of President Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of Tunisia, that country has taken a strong stand in support of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, Mr. Chakchouk said his government would sign the telecommunications treaty because he was satisfied with the free-speech guarantees that had been written into it. “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he said. “It’s not good when one country doesn’t understand the issues.” Working together could become more challenging as the Internet — especially bandwidth-hungry video applications — accounts for an ever greater share of global telecommunications traffic, and as more people in developing countries go online. According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the telecommunication union, the goal of the treaty was not to take control of the Internet — as critics had contended — but to narrow the digital divide. While the United States was talking about the open Internet, Mr. Touré and developing countries were talking about opening the Internet to more of the 4.5 billion people around the world who remain offline. Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating investment in broadband networks, for reducing cellphone roaming costs and for extending Internet access to disabled people in developing countries. The goal was to expand broadband at an affordable cost, not to regulate the content that travels on the Internet, he said. “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no highways for them to drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news conference on Friday, where the telecommunication union tried to put a positive spin on the messy pileup of the previous evening. As developing countries gain better access, the numbers game will continue to tilt against the United States and other developed countries that have championed the cause of an open Internet. The Internet population of China — 538 million as of June, according to the Chinese government — is already nearly double that of the United States. Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in developing countries, governments and citizens of these countries might also grow more tolerant of it. “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in its view of the Internet and its relationship to society in the coming century,” Mr. Kramer said. By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would not, Mr. Touré said, with the rest still undecided or undeclared. Holdouts could change their minds and sign later. Mr. Touré said he was hopeful that the United States would eventually do so, though Mr. Kramer said this was unlikely. Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious prospect of a treaty largely negotiated to suit the United States’ position and applying mostly to developing countries, many of which seemed perfectly happy with the outcome. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1110 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 amedinagomez at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 16:23:02 2012 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:23:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] UNGA In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2C35964A-2C17-455C-81BA-783C34D7A3BC@alfa-redi.org> <20121217150330.70494px7pi5y24r6@www.ciencitec.com> Message-ID: What I am stating is that this link does not allow access. this is my mistake? Antonio Medina Gomez Presidente Asociacion Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet. 2012/12/17 Antonio Medina Gómez > upppp NO AUTHORIZATION > In case you use personal firewall, please adjust the privacy settings for > this web site. > > > 2012/12/17 > >> Dear Adam: >> Good afternoon, representing Internauta Peru, how can we participate?, >> Civil Society, requires not only information but also greater participation. >> thanks >> José F. Callo Romero >> CEO ciencitec.com >> Internauta Peru >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From apisan at unam.mx Mon Dec 17 16:30:29 2012 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:30:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] UNGA In-Reply-To: <20121217150330.70494px7pi5y24r6@www.ciencitec.com> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2C35964A-2C17-455C-81BA-783C34D7A3BC@alfa-redi.org>,<20121217150330.70494px7pi5y24r6@www.ciencitec.com> Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DBB25FE@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> Francisco, you just have to participate. If you have an opinion about an issue, express it. If you have a question, ask it. That is it. This list is for individuals so clearly you are already in. If you can document a case of discrimination I recommend that you bring it up with Salanieta Tamainkaiwaimaro immediately. 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 jfcallo at ciencitec.com [jfcallo at ciencitec.com] Enviado el: lunes, 17 de diciembre de 2012 14:03 Hasta: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Erick Iriarte Ahon CC: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Adam Peake Asunto: Re: [governance] UNGA Dear Adam: Good afternoon, representing Internauta Peru, how can we participate?, Civil Society, requires not only information but also greater participation. thanks José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com Internauta Peru -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Mon Dec 17 16:35:33 2012 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:35:33 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai / list of signers and those who haven't signed In-Reply-To: <016001cddc96$28d36480$7a7a2d80$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <00af01cddba2$8931ce60$9b956b20$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <016001cddc96$28d36480$7a7a2d80$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <018701cddc9e$72da3920$588eab60$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Parminder et al, Attached is the mail from Dave Burstein that I was referencing. He’s not a subscriber to this list, but is copied in the Cc: Best, Peter Peter H. Hellmonds Public & International Affairs peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu +49 (160) 360-2852 Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Peter H. Hellmonds Gesendet: 17 December 2012 21:36 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'parminder' Betreff: AW: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai Parminder, The original figures come from another list (itu2012chapters at elists.isoc.org and WCIT at lmlist.state.gov). Sorry, I’m sometimes losing track of who sees what since there are multiple lists where the same is discussed, with often the same people on multiple lists. Dave Burstein sent a message on Friday, 14 Dec, with the Subject: [Itu2012chapters] list of signers and those who haven't signed” and that contained an attachment with figures he had received from the ITU. There is a country-by-country list, sorted by region, and showing in green, red and white those who signed, those who did not, and those who could not. I just calculated a few statistics based on those numbers: 195 countries overall 7.016 billion people overall 89 (46%) countries signed (green) – representing 3.834 billion people (55%) 57 (29%) countries opposed (red) – representing 2.574 billion people (37%) 49 (25%) countries open (white) – representing 0.606 billion people (9%) I have asked Dave whether it is ok to forward his message and the attachment to this list. Interesting also the following infographic: http://infogr.am/-mebuell_1355447340 “There is a clear correlation between a state's ranking in the Democracy Index and how their position on the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) at the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) World Conference on Information Technology (WCIT-12). “ The chart categorizes countries in four categories (full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime) and shows percentages of those in each category who voted for (red) or against (green) the ITRs. (Note: color code reversed versus the ITU coding). Regards, Peter Peter H. Hellmonds Public & International Affairs peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu +49 (160) 360-2852 Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: 17 December 2012 05:42 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai Peter Yes, it is useful to get the right figures. The important figure is of those who have refused to sign. As for those who havent refused and havent signed, it may be useful to know that it is normal for many countries to sign such important and binding documents like treaties after a round of consultation at home. In 1988, 112 countries signed up on the last day of the WCIT and 75 signed up later.... So, a huge number of countries deciding to take time is quite normal. Many reports are making this number look as suggesting much less support for the ITRs than there actually is. This side of mis- representation must also be kept in mind. The NYT correspondent says that " By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would not...." You say " Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital...." Can you share the source of your information. The number actually saying they 'wont sign' is most significant. And there seems to a confusion in this regard vis a vis your numbers (is it 57? ) and other reports - NYT says 24 have said they 'wont sign'. What is the actual count of 'those who have refused to sign' ... parminder On Sunday 16 December 2012 09:02 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: The New York Times wrote: “The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it.” Guess we need to send the NY Times reporter some real statistics and correct the reporting: Regarding the “handful of Western allies”: Of the 42 European countries, 35 countries refused to sign the treaty. Of the 35 countries in The Americas, 6 countries refused to sign the treaty. So, while the American delegation was joined by only a handful of allies in The Americas, it was forcefully supported by seven handfuls of European allies, plus 3 handfuls of allies from African, Asian and CIS countries. And it is clear that the European countries were not merely following the lead of the US, but had very clearly stated in prior consultations what they would stand for and what not. The “what not” was that Europe did not want the ITRs to extend to the Internet or content, including spam, or security issues. Regarding the “most other nations signed it”: Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital. How could this reporter claim that “most other nations signed it”?? Peter H. Hellmonds Public & International Affairs peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu +49 (160) 360-2852 Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: 16 December 2012 14:23 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai NewYork Times Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World * by ERIC PFANNER * Dec. 14, 2012 At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff. What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now has many more users in the rest of the world? It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network. The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks of talks here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to engage in a public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they did near midnight on Thursday as the signing deadline approached. The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that it was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement in its current form.” United States delegates said the pact could encourage censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet oversight and replace it with government control. Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page text, which deals mostly with matters like the fees that telecommunications networks should charge one another for connecting calls across borders. After being excised from the pact at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty. The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” That convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to the Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by name so no one could call it an Internet treaty. A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the regulations “in a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations.” Both of these provisions were added during the final days of haggling in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If anything, the new treaty appears to make it more intellectually challenging for governments like China and Iran to justify their current censorship of the Internet. What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty signers should share control over the Internet address-assignment system — a function now handled by an international group based in the United States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to pay telecommunications networks for delivering material to users. Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in the negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like Britain and Canada? In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. Kramer cited a few remaining objections, like references to countering spam and to ensuring “the security and robustness of international telecommunications networks.” This wording, he argued, could be used by nefarious governments to justify crackdowns on free speech. But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that had mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other words, saw a chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong statement about the importance of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty and boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that even to talk about the appearance of global rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter. It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand would underline the importance of keeping the Internet open. “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of Internet freedom,” said Jochem de Groot, senior policy officer for the Internet and human rights in the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands, which joined the United States in opposition to the pact. That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency, the International Telecommunication Union — took place in this economically liberal but socially and politically battened-down emirate underscored the symbolism of the United States boycott of the final treaty. “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries around the world,” said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of the Tunisian Internet Agency, in an interview. “It’s a good message to start the debate.” Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian government of President Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of Tunisia, that country has taken a strong stand in support of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, Mr. Chakchouk said his government would sign the telecommunications treaty because he was satisfied with the free-speech guarantees that had been written into it. “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he said. “It’s not good when one country doesn’t understand the issues.” Working together could become more challenging as the Internet — especially bandwidth-hungry video applications — accounts for an ever greater share of global telecommunications traffic, and as more people in developing countries go online. According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the telecommunication union, the goal of the treaty was not to take control of the Internet — as critics had contended — but to narrow the digital divide. While the United States was talking about the open Internet, Mr. Touré and developing countries were talking about opening the Internet to more of the 4.5 billion people around the world who remain offline. Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating investment in broadband networks, for reducing cellphone roaming costs and for extending Internet access to disabled people in developing countries. The goal was to expand broadband at an affordable cost, not to regulate the content that travels on the Internet, he said. “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no highways for them to drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news conference on Friday, where the telecommunication union tried to put a positive spin on the messy pileup of the previous evening. As developing countries gain better access, the numbers game will continue to tilt against the United States and other developed countries that have championed the cause of an open Internet. The Internet population of China — 538 million as of June, according to the Chinese government — is already nearly double that of the United States. Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in developing countries, governments and citizens of these countries might also grow more tolerant of it. “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in its view of the Internet and its relationship to society in the coming century,” Mr. Kramer said. By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would not, Mr. Touré said, with the rest still undecided or undeclared. Holdouts could change their minds and sign later. Mr. Touré said he was hopeful that the United States would eventually do so, though Mr. Kramer said this was unlikely. Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious prospect of a treaty largely negotiated to suit the United States’ position and applying mostly to developing countries, many of which seemed perfectly happy with the outcome. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1110 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Dave Burstein" Subject: [Itu2012chapters] list of signers and those who haven't signed Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 21:03:38 +0100 Size: 63763 URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 18:30:01 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:00:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <50CF4036.4080407@itforchange.net> References: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> <50CF4036.4080407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5FAB1E5A-8BFB-4450-AB8E-605A9A674A3A@hserus.net> It of course appears to depend on the entitlement of a regime to those rights. At least according to US perception. The world has recently seen a rather large scale clearout of tinpot dictators .. by the country's own people. And any sanctions against those countries have been lifted. As a parallel there was South Africa during the apartheid regime, though their blacklisting wasn't as near total a the one against say Iran or Cuba. --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 21:24, parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 16 December 2012 03:24 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's blog post >> here, to widen the discussion. Please find below. >> >> --- snip --- snip --- snip --- >> >> But for some governments this was not enough! They insisted on the right >> of States to telecommunication services and put it on a par basis with >> Human Rights. They argued the Rights of States was the same as the >> Rights of individuals. One of the most balanced Countries, Switzerland, >> expressed its outrage. Tension was rising fast. We got lectured by some >> countries that oppress their people about Human Rights. And then Iran >> called for an abrupt end to the discussion, after having intervened more >> than any country in the past 2 weeks, and called for a vote — when I >> remind you that on many many occasions Dr. Touré and the Chair has >> assured us there would be no vote. >> This derailment was self-inflicted and this was the drop that got the >> vase to overflow. > Dear Olivier, > > thanks for your detailed comments. There are a few aspects of what happened at Dubai that I will like to comment upon. However, since you stress the point of vote on the clause that 'all countries have right to access international telecom networks' as one of the most important ones let me respond to you on this. > > Collective rights are a recognised category under UN human rights system. Why do you think that the collective entity of a country should *not* have a right to international telecom networks.... Isnt it something basic that must underpin any global treaty on international telecom? What does an international telecom treaty mean without stating such a right. It is most surprising, even shocking, for me that people from civil society should be speaking against such a right. I can understand why US doesnt want it, but global civil society ??? > > Before you say anything about collective entities like a country, I will remind you that below you do proudly refer to your participation in such an entity. You say that you are proud that 'your' country did not sign. Why would other people not legitimately resist and be unhappy/ angry if their country is denied access to international telecom. And what would your response as someone from global civil society be to the plight of such people - in existing sanctioned countries and potential ones. > > And you also seem to be proud that you were representing 'your country' and were able to influence its decision.... Can other people not legitimately have such collective feeling, and collective rights.... > > parminder > >> Where the heck was the consensus? What kind of shotgun >> tactics are those? It was obvious by the numbers that the countries >> opposing the aggressive manner in which this was conducted, would lose a >> vote. >> For me, sitting in this room, this was Game, Set and Match. My country, >> the UK, did not sign and I am ever so glad they did not. Yes, I had a >> say in the matter since I was a full UK delegate, one of the many >> countries which brought multiple stakeholders at the table and guess >> what, most of these countries have not signed. Does this not tell you >> something? >> >> So that is my personal assessment of what happened and I was at the >> heart of it. I saw some very ugly stuff going on there, stuff which I >> would really like the Internet to be preserved from. >> >> But I am sad too. I am sad because I also heard some very valid concerns >> from developing countries that they were not able to participate in the >> multi-stakeholder model because of lack of funding, lack of >> understanding and a lack of proactive work from our “own” side. >> I am planning to report fully to ICANN on the matter – we should do more >> to bridge the gap. At the moment, these countries only have two fora in >> which they can participate and that’s the IGF where nobody listens to >> them and the ITU where they have a voice. During the hour that followed >> the dramatic vote, I went to see my “opponents”. Many of us did – and >> whilst not apologizing for not signing, we exchanged business cards and >> I intend on following up. In fact, many European countries are intent on >> following up with countries that do not appear to have hidden intentions >> are are genuine about the level of despair they displayed at this >> conference. Because sadly, there was despair too. This is the start of a >> better dialogue, one which we must make efforts in promoting, reaching >> out, building capacity. >> >> In closing, I’d say that this was not only a failure of the ITRs and the >> ITU, it was a failure of Internet Governance too. Civil Society has the >> ability to bridge the gap – and I know of several governments that have >> understood this. Let’s work together to ensure we will never live again >> a similar WCIT full of mistrust and despair. >> >> Olivier >> (speaking entirely on my own behalf) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Mon Dec 17 18:33:30 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:03:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> Message-ID: <8E960CB4-3D4C-478F-B877-5A2AA73AA32A@hserus.net> The general agreement has not been to try and define it beyond mail that a significant percentage of an isp's users did not request and indicate this by clicking on a report spam button to forward the email to their providers spam filter analysis systems. --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 23:00, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 15 Dec 2012, at 13:04, Roland Perry wrote: > >> The anti-spam industry, and several privacy laws worldwide, have established beyond doubt what 'Unsolicited bulk communications' means for over a decade. There's no need to start new hares running. > > > Exactly where are these well established definitions? > Which ITU treaty or ITU standard defines what "Unsolicited bulk communications" means? > > And I have not the faintest idea what you mean when you speak of 'hares running.' > > avri > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Mon Dec 17 18:48:04 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:18:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: <44656EBF-C8D9-4EE8-915F-71C9964B3152@gmail.com> References: <50CF1911.1000704@panamo.eu> <50CF1F61.6040104@panamo.eu> <69456373-E4F4-4834-9AC5-7EC105B915E7@hserus.net> <44656EBF-C8D9-4EE8-915F-71C9964B3152@gmail.com> Message-ID: Riaz, I see such things from the perspective of a student of history and without wearing ideological blinkers of any wing whatsoever. Sometimes that helps me see facts clearer than if I tried to fit facts to my notions of a social construct. My focus has been to try and create meaningful assistance to developing countries that drives self reliance and internal capacity building, and not solely a dependence / expectation of regular aid. It would have been the same if they were Indians, Chinese (neither of whom all look alike or I couldn't tell my colleagues from HK apart) or a rural poor community in the Appalachians. A colonial or colonized past from six decades or centuries back should not be allowed to influence that. And for the record my grandfather was kicked out of his job in the 1940s for supporting Subhash Bose's INA. So no, this is not a right wing defence of colonialism. --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 23:07, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote: > suresh > Thanks for this right wing, IMHO, post.... Refreshingly robust. Glad tolerance on this list is higher for right wing public interest than other wings... Only one question about your blandishment/s (or rethorical flourish), did all the Kenyans / NGO-types look alike? > > And by some accounts, some of the first the New England farmer settlers received help from the "aggrandizing" first people's of North America in their formative years. And we know, victors write history... Perhaps with climate change we will get a chance to figure out who the real civilized ones were... > > Riaz > > ...,... > > On 17 Dec 2012, at 3:56 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> :) To be very fair, the history of various Indian tribes was also a history of conquest of tribes that were less powerful to them, so much so that three major tribes are still known to us by the defeated tribes' word for "enemy" .. Sioux, Comanche and Apache (the tribes' own word for themselves was typically some variant of "The people" - implying that most others from outside their tribe weren't particularly worthy of consideration, and to be defeated and plundered as and when the opportunity arose). >> >> Those times were, shall we say, a dog eat dog world, and a history that definitely needs to be remembered to avoid repeating mistakes that were made in the past. >> >> I fully agree with you that any development and change can and must be driven from within Africa, and well meaning offers of aid without local knowledge run into the situation that a friend of mine (who used to live in Kenya, and speaks fluent Swahili) encountered when he accompanied a colleague from a rather prominent NGO that I shall not name here, to address a gathering of local NGO types. >> >> This colleague started off with all the usual preliminaries about how Kenya was such a beautiful country, and made a fairly long speech - during which at least some of the audience were muttering to themselves in swahili "when is this mzungu (rather derogatory term for a white man) going to shut up and start signing the checks?" >> >> In fact driving change from within a country and promoting local capacity building was the thrust of this OECD paper I wrote back in 2005, on spam issues in developing countries. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/47/34935342.pdf >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 17-Dec-2012, at 19:04, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> >>> Precisely, Suresh. A sherif enforced American laws on Indians territories. The metaphor tells about political conflicts, not about criminality. >>> That's why I talked earlier about colonisation. And that's why, even if I agree with all comments about Africa (especially about monopolies and corruption), I overall agree with the idea that nobody can be a better help for development than the people of the country themselves. Africa is now an extraordinary lab about mobile uses in African languages... And we saw only the beginning! >>> >>> @+, Dom >>> >>> >>> Le 17/12/12 14:14, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >>>> No I am sorry - that is just one of the myths that needs rebutting. There's no "sherriff of the internet" going on here any more than this is the Wild West. Any international law enforcement - online - as a matter of course follows a complex system of MLATs (and/or the budapest convention on cybercrime, with other signatory countries). >>>> >>>> My rudimentary knowledge of french (vin blanc, svp at the most, or perhaps merci m'sieur) found the actual text very pleasant to read, but for a deeper understanding I did have to machine translate it, to my regret. It is a persuasive argument though, and doubtless quite well told in french, but it is a line of thinking that doesn't quite match ground realities, at least when it comes to cross border enforcement actions against criminals. >>>> >>>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> On 17-Dec-2012, at 18:37, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thank you Suresh for your comment. >>>>> I understand your difficulty to understand, because the text uses a metaphor. >>>>> Yes, Sheridan was not a sherif, but the US consider themselves, nowadays, as the sherif of Internet. >>>>> About the bazaar, it's a slight reference to the fact that diffenciation between several agents is not a question of price. >>>>> >>>>> The style of the text is pleasant for French and not-engineers readers, precisely because Kavé, who is very well educated in European culture, often tell tales, analogies and metaphors. >>>>> He is a French University teacher and also he has a Persian culture. That's why he uses tales and poetry. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps we shall try an English translation. >>>>> >>>>> @+, best, 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 17/12/12 12:12, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : >>>>>> Some slightly mixed up concepts, such as that general Philip sheridan was a career army officer and was never a sheriff or other law enforcement officer in his lifetime. And some notions from ESR's cathedral and the bazaar. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't know if it is because of the narrative bringing in strange analogies, or because of using Google translate to read the article, but I found it hard to understand. >>>>>> >>>>>> In any case wild west analogies for cyberspace are non sequitirs >>>>>> >>>>>> --srs (htc one x) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Reply message ----- >>>>>> From: "Dominique Lacroix"
>>>>>> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >>>>>> Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects >>>>>> Date: Mon, Dec 17, 2012 3:42 PM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> For those who can read French or a translator, Kavé Salamatian proposes >>>>>> interesting interpretations of WCIT issues and prospects : >>>>>> >>>>>> Le cyberespace et ses Indiens : >>>>>> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/16/le-cyberespace-et-ses-indiens/ >>>>>> Jeux de coopération au Bazar : >>>>>> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/17/jeux-de-cooperation-au-bazar/ >>>>>> >>>>>> @+, best, 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 17 18:53:26 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:23:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] How cooperation could be defined ? In-Reply-To: <531E57A5-E5D0-4BC8-8214-443A852CAE1A@gmail.com> References: <50CE0DC4.1030805@panamo.eu> <531E57A5-E5D0-4BC8-8214-443A852CAE1A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <64ECA6E1-2278-4C82-9CA6-9C17B9DC57EA@hserus.net> Why does the fact that say vodafone makes a profit on providing cellphone service have to on any way detract from the value that people right down from the grassroots to the CEO level derive enormous value from access to mobile and internet connectivity, and services delivered over it? --srs (iPad) On 17-Dec-2012, at 23:35, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote: > Can't speak for Dominique but the sentiment framed as more connectivity = greater market, everyone benefits distills away the fact that countries, and companies, do play for their own advantage... And to maintain them (for instance non disclosure of patents for standards setting, which changed somewhat...)... As the US is doing to maintain its hegemony (not withstanding being 'largely' responsible in how it plays its hand) ... > For Third Worldists, perhaps by definition, the divide is there... And it relates to overall outlook and manifests in various symptoms.... From Cir to iTu battles.... > > > > ...,... > > On 17 Dec 2012, at 7:05 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> I confess I too find the various assertions here difficult to understand. There is certainly much to be done to push greater connectivity at lower costs to more of the unconnected, but it is a fact that the number of developing country citizens connecting up each year is growing very dramatically overall. There are all kinds of very clever solutions to geography, limitations on supporting services (unreliable electric power being supplemented by solar-driven stations), and the like. >> >> I think the picture painted below is awfully negative and suggests that the North is somehow against the South getting connected. This isn't the case, if that's the view; why would it be? On a purely commercial level the more people are on the Internet the greater the economic opportunity to serve them with products and services, for example. >> >> If I've misunderstood the comments, I'm sure someone will let me know. >> >> On Sunday, 16 December 2012, McTim wrote: >>> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >>> > Hello world :-) >>> > >>> > Fadi Chehadé explains : >>> > There is no war between ITU and ICANN, and there will not. >>> > We must engage in a new season of cooperation, in the respect of each role. >>> > Fadi Chehadé Explains the Decision to Attend the WCIT Opening Ceremony in Dubai | 28 Nov 2012 >>> > >>> > The first part of the WCIT shows disagrement between North and South. >>> > Because Northern governments and companies would be satisfied without >>> > regulation, as in the great era of the free seas and freedom of commerce. >>> > And South cannot access and build Net services in such conditions. Too >>> > expensive... >>> >>> >>> Do you have any evidence of this assertion? >>> >>> I'm currently wearing a t-shirt that says "Ushahidi", an example (one >>> of hundreds I could name) of net services coming from Africa. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> >>> McTim >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart >> >> Geneva Representative >> Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) >> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 >> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 >> email: nashton at ccianet.org >> Skype: nashtonhart >> http://www.ccianet.org >> >> Instead of sending cards to commemorate the festive season this year, CCIA Geneva has made a donation to Medecins sans Frontieres in the name of our member companies and our colleagues and friends in the Permanent Missions and UN system in Geneva. >> Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 nhklein at gmx.net Mon Dec 17 20:54:29 2012 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:54:29 +0700 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> Message-ID: <50CFCCD5.3060803@gmx.net> On 12/18/2012 12:30 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 15 Dec 2012, at 13:04, Roland Perry wrote: > >> The anti-spam industry, and several privacy laws worldwide, have established beyond doubt what 'Unsolicited bulk communications' means for over a decade. There's no need to*start new hares running*. > > Exactly where are these well established definitions? > Which ITU treaty or ITU standard defines what "Unsolicited bulk communications" means? > > And I have not the faintest idea what you mean when you speak of '*hares running*.' > > avri Apart from the ITU related issues which Avri mentioned - and a +1 from me - I would like to ask all native speakers of the different English dialects to PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE abstain from using your local colorful expressions which are difficult to understand for us - the rest of the world. Norbert Klein (I sign with both of my names, to avoid mail getting mis-appropriated. Sometimes I get "responses" to what another Norbert posted.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 17 21:34:29 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:04:29 +0530 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: <016001cddc96$28d36480$7a7a2d80$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <00af01cddba2$8931ce60$9b956b20$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <016001cddc96$28d36480$7a7a2d80$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> Peter In your listing, the number 57, which is actually indicated as eligible to sign but not (yet) signed somehow seem to have magically changed to '*opposed*'.... How did you make that shift? As I mentioned earlier, for the 1988 ITRs 75 members signed later on, which makes the practise appear quite common. The real figure to focus on is the number of countries that have said 'they wont sign' - I figure this number at present is between 12 to 20. I am happy to be corrected on this 'key figure'. As for matching democracy indices, these are spins being put that are unnecessary... Wonder is someone wants to do a colour of skin index match as well . More seriously, why not match an index of whether a country allows software patents or not, and in general how strong (or bad) is its digital IP policy -- an issue very germane to global regulation of the digital space, or of the Internet...... Political economy question with regard to the global communication realm are as important as FoE questions. Just asking for greater balance, that is all. A balance that the civil society involved with global IG seem to have entirely entirely lost. parminder On Tuesday 18 December 2012 02:06 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > > Parminder, > > The original figures come from another list > (itu2012chapters at elists.isoc.org > and WCIT at lmlist.state.gov > ). Sorry, I’m sometimes losing track of > who sees what since there are multiple lists where the same is > discussed, with often the same people on multiple lists. > > Dave Burstein sent a message on Friday, 14 Dec, with the Subject: > [Itu2012chapters] list of signers and those who haven't signed” and > that contained an attachment with figures he had received from the > ITU. There is a country-by-country list, sorted by region, and showing > in green, red and white those who signed, those who did not, and those > who could not. I just calculated a few statistics based on those numbers: > > 195 countries overall > > 7.016 billion people overall > > 89 (46%) countries signed (green) – representing 3.834 billion people > (55%) > > 57 (29%) countries opposed (red) – representing 2.574 billion people (37%) > > 49 (25%) countries open (white) – representing 0.606 billion people (9%) > > I have asked Dave whether it is ok to forward his message and the > attachment to this list. > > Interesting also the following infographic: > > http://infogr.am/-mebuell_1355447340 > > “There is a clear correlation between a state's ranking in the > Democracy Index and how their position on the International > Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) at the International > Telecommunication Union's (ITU) World Conference on Information > Technology (WCIT-12). “ > > The chart categorizes countries in four categories (full democracy, > flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime) and shows > percentages of those in each category who voted for (red) or against > (green) the ITRs. (Note: color code reversed versus the ITU coding). > > Regards, > > Peter > > Peter H. Hellmonds > > Public & International Affairs > > peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu > > +49 (160) 360-2852 > > *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder > *Gesendet:* 17 December 2012 05:42 > *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Betreff:* Re: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US > walkout in Dubai > > > Peter > > Yes, it is useful to get the right figures. The important figure is of > those who have refused to sign. As for those who havent refused and > havent signed, it may be useful to know that it is normal for many > countries to sign such important and binding documents like treaties > after a round of consultation at home. In 1988, 112 countries signed > up on the last day of the WCIT and 75 signed up later.... So, a huge > number of countries deciding to take time is quite normal. Many > reports are making this number look as suggesting much less support > for the ITRs than there actually is. This side of mis- representation > must also be kept in mind. > > The NYT correspondent says that " By Friday evening, 89 of 144 > countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and about > two dozen had indicated that they would not...." > > You say " Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) > signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of > the countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital...." > > Can you share the source of your information. The number actually > saying they 'wont sign' is most significant. And there seems to a > confusion in this regard vis a vis your numbers (is it 57? ) and other > reports - NYT says 24 have said they 'wont sign'. What is the actual > count of 'those who have refused to sign' ... > > parminder > > On Sunday 16 December 2012 09:02 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > > The New York Times wrote: > > “The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, > derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other > nations signed it.” > > Guess we need to send the NY Times reporter some real statistics > and correct the reporting: > > _Regarding the “handful of Western allies”:_ > > Of the 42 European countries, 35 countries refused to sign the treaty. > > Of the 35 countries in The Americas, 6 countries refused to sign > the treaty. > > So, while the American delegation was joined by only a handful of > allies in The Americas, it was forcefully supported by seven > handfuls of European allies, plus 3 handfuls of allies from > African, Asian and CIS countries. > > And it is clear that the European countries were not merely > following the lead of the US, but had very clearly stated in prior > consultations what they would stand for and what not. The “what > not” was that Europe did not want the ITRs to extend to the > Internet or content, including spam, or security issues. > > _Regarding the “most other nations signed it”:_ > > Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed > the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the > countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital. > How could this reporter claim that “most other nations signed it”?? > > Peter H. Hellmonds > > Public & International Affairs > > peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu > > +49 (160) 360-2852 > > *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von > *parminder > *Gesendet:* 16 December 2012 14:23 > *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Betreff:* [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US > walkout in Dubai > > > > > New York Times > > > Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World > > * /by/ ERIC PFANNER > * Dec. 14, 2012 > > At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the > United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to > sign the document and left in a huff. > > What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of > the Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States > but now has many more users in the rest of the world? > > It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the > coming years. But it might mean everything about the United > States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of > the network. > > The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, > derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other > nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks of > talks here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans had > been negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to engage > in a public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they did near > midnight on Thursday as the signing deadline approached. > > The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that > it was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement > in its current form.” United States delegates said the pact could > encourage censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off > approach to Internet oversight and replace it with government > control. > > Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these > assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page > text, which deals mostly with matters like the fees that > telecommunications networks should charge one another for > connecting calls across borders. After being excised from the pact > at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a > soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty. > > The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do > not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” > That convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to > the Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by name > so no one could call it an Internet treaty. > > A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the > regulations “in a manner that respects and upholds their human > rights obligations.” > > Both of these provisions were added during the final days of > haggling in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If > anything, the new treaty appears to make it more intellectually > challenging for governments like China and Iran to justify their > current censorship of the Internet. > > What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the > United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty > signers should share control over the Internet address-assignment > system — a function now handled by an international group based in > the United States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ > behest, called for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to > pay telecommunications networks for delivering material to users. > > Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in > the negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour > intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like > Britain and Canada? > > In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. > Kramer cited a few remaining objections, like references to > countering spam and to ensuring “the security and robustness of > international telecommunications networks.” This wording, he > argued, could be used by nefarious governments to justify > crackdowns on free speech. > > But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less > tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that > had mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other > words, saw a chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong > statement about the importance of Internet freedom. But by > refusing to sign the treaty and boycotting the closing ceremony, > they made clear that even to talk about the appearance of global > rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter. > > It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in > Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand > would underline the importance of keeping the Internet open. > > “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of Internet > freedom,” said Jochem de Groot, senior policy officer for the > Internet and human rights in the Foreign Ministry of the > Netherlands, which joined the United States in opposition to the > pact. > > That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency, the > International Telecommunication Union — took place in this > economically liberal but socially and politically battened-down > emirate underscored the symbolism of the United States boycott of > the final treaty. > > “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries around the > world,” said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of the Tunisian > Internet Agency, in an interview. “It’s a good message to start > the debate.” > > Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian government of > President Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of Tunisia, that country has > taken a strong stand in support of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, > Mr. Chakchouk said his government would sign the > telecommunications treaty because he was satisfied with the > free-speech guarantees that had been written into it. > > “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he said. “It’s > not good when one country doesn’t understand the issues.” > > Working together could become more challenging as the Internet — > especially bandwidth-hungry video applications — accounts for an > ever greater share of global telecommunications traffic, and as > more people in developing countries go online. > > According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the > telecommunication union, the goal of the treaty was not to take > control of the Internet — as critics had contended — but to narrow > the digital divide. > > While the United States was talking about the open Internet, Mr. > Touré and developing countries were talking about opening the > Internet to more of the 4.5 billion people around the world who > remain offline. > > Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating investment > in broadband networks, for reducing cellphone roaming costs and > for extending Internet access to disabled people in developing > countries. The goal was to expand broadband at an affordable cost, > not to regulate the content that travels on the Internet, he said. > > “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no highways for > them to drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news conference on Friday, > where the telecommunication union tried to put a positive spin on > the messy pileup of the previous evening. > > As developing countries gain better access, the numbers game will > continue to tilt against the United States and other developed > countries that have championed the cause of an open Internet. The > Internet population of China — 538 million as of June, according > to the Chinese government — is already nearly double that of the > United States. > > Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in developing > countries, governments and citizens of these countries might also > grow more tolerant of it. > > “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in its view > of the Internet and its relationship to society in the coming > century,” Mr. Kramer said. > > By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote > had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that > they would not, Mr. Touré said, with the rest still undecided or > undeclared. Holdouts could change their minds and sign later. Mr. > Touré said he was hopeful that the United States would eventually > do so, though Mr. Kramer said this was unlikely. > > Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious prospect of a > treaty largely negotiated to suit the United States’ position and > applying mostly to developing countries, many of which seemed > perfectly happy with the outcome. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1110 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 Mon Dec 17 21:39:43 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:09:43 +0530 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <00af01cddba2$8931ce60$9b956b20$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <016001cddc96$28d36480$7a7a2d80$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50CFD76F.1050704@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 18 December 2012 08:04 AM, parminder wrote: > > More seriously, why not match an index of whether a country allows > software patents or not, and in general how strong (or bad) is its > digital IP policy -- an issue very germane to global regulation of the > digital space, or of the Internet...... I can try to hazard a guess on why a digital IP policy wise ranking of votes at WCIT wont be done... It is that there isnt enough money to support organisations and participants that would do such kind of work.... That brings us to the questions, why isnt there such monies....well, I dont have to do all the guessing myself :) parminder > > Political economy question with regard to the global communication > realm are as important as FoE questions. Just asking for greater > balance, that is all. A balance that the civil society involved with > global IG seem to have entirely entirely lost. > > parminder > > > On Tuesday 18 December 2012 02:06 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >> >> Parminder, >> >> The original figures come from another list >> (itu2012chapters at elists.isoc.org >> and WCIT at lmlist.state.gov >> ). Sorry, I’m sometimes losing track of >> who sees what since there are multiple lists where the same is >> discussed, with often the same people on multiple lists. >> >> Dave Burstein sent a message on Friday, 14 Dec, with the Subject: >> [Itu2012chapters] list of signers and those who haven't signed” and >> that contained an attachment with figures he had received from the >> ITU. There is a country-by-country list, sorted by region, and >> showing in green, red and white those who signed, those who did not, >> and those who could not. I just calculated a few statistics based on >> those numbers: >> >> 195 countries overall >> >> 7.016 billion people overall >> >> 89 (46%) countries signed (green) – representing 3.834 billion people >> (55%) >> >> 57 (29%) countries opposed (red) – representing 2.574 billion people >> (37%) >> >> 49 (25%) countries open (white) – representing 0.606 billion people (9%) >> >> I have asked Dave whether it is ok to forward his message and the >> attachment to this list. >> >> Interesting also the following infographic: >> >> http://infogr.am/-mebuell_1355447340 >> >> “There is a clear correlation between a state's ranking in the >> Democracy Index and how their position on the International >> Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) at the International >> Telecommunication Union's (ITU) World Conference on Information >> Technology (WCIT-12). “ >> >> The chart categorizes countries in four categories (full democracy, >> flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime) and shows >> percentages of those in each category who voted for (red) or against >> (green) the ITRs. (Note: color code reversed versus the ITU coding). >> >> Regards, >> >> Peter >> >> Peter H. Hellmonds >> >> Public & International Affairs >> >> peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu >> >> +49 (160) 360-2852 >> >> *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder >> *Gesendet:* 17 December 2012 05:42 >> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US >> walkout in Dubai >> >> >> Peter >> >> Yes, it is useful to get the right figures. The important figure is >> of those who have refused to sign. As for those who havent refused >> and havent signed, it may be useful to know that it is normal for >> many countries to sign such important and binding documents like >> treaties after a round of consultation at home. In 1988, 112 >> countries signed up on the last day of the WCIT and 75 signed up >> later.... So, a huge number of countries deciding to take time is >> quite normal. Many reports are making this number look as suggesting >> much less support for the ITRs than there actually is. This side of >> mis- representation must also be kept in mind. >> >> The NYT correspondent says that " By Friday evening, 89 of 144 >> countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and >> about two dozen had indicated that they would not...." >> >> You say " Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) >> signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of >> the countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital...." >> >> Can you share the source of your information. The number actually >> saying they 'wont sign' is most significant. And there seems to a >> confusion in this regard vis a vis your numbers (is it 57? ) and >> other reports - NYT says 24 have said they 'wont sign'. What is the >> actual count of 'those who have refused to sign' ... >> >> parminder >> >> On Sunday 16 December 2012 09:02 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >> >> The New York Times wrote: >> >> “The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, >> derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most >> other nations signed it.” >> >> Guess we need to send the NY Times reporter some real statistics >> and correct the reporting: >> >> _Regarding the “handful of Western allies”:_ >> >> Of the 42 European countries, 35 countries refused to sign the >> treaty. >> >> Of the 35 countries in The Americas, 6 countries refused to sign >> the treaty. >> >> So, while the American delegation was joined by only a handful of >> allies in The Americas, it was forcefully supported by seven >> handfuls of European allies, plus 3 handfuls of allies from >> African, Asian and CIS countries. >> >> And it is clear that the European countries were not merely >> following the lead of the US, but had very clearly stated in >> prior consultations what they would stand for and what not. The >> “what not” was that Europe did not want the ITRs to extend to the >> Internet or content, including spam, or security issues. >> >> _Regarding the “most other nations signed it”:_ >> >> Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed >> the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the >> countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital. >> How could this reporter claim that “most other nations signed it”?? >> >> Peter H. Hellmonds >> >> Public & International Affairs >> >> peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu >> >> +49 (160) 360-2852 >> >> *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von >> *parminder >> *Gesendet:* 16 December 2012 14:23 >> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> *Betreff:* [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US >> walkout in Dubai >> >> >> >> >> New York Times >> >> >> Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World >> >> * /by/ ERIC PFANNER >> * Dec. 14, 2012 >> >> At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the >> United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to >> sign the document and left in a huff. >> >> What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of >> the Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States >> but now has many more users in the rest of the world? >> >> It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the >> coming years. But it might mean everything about the United >> States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of >> the network. >> >> The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, >> derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most >> other nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks >> of talks here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans >> had been negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to >> engage in a public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they >> did near midnight on Thursday as the signing deadline approached. >> >> The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that >> it was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement >> in its current form.” United States delegates said the pact could >> encourage censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off >> approach to Internet oversight and replace it with government >> control. >> >> Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these >> assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page >> text, which deals mostly with matters like the fees that >> telecommunications networks should charge one another for >> connecting calls across borders. After being excised from the >> pact at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a >> soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty. >> >> The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do >> not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” >> That convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer >> to the Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by >> name so no one could call it an Internet treaty. >> >> A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the >> regulations “in a manner that respects and upholds their human >> rights obligations.” >> >> Both of these provisions were added during the final days of >> haggling in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If >> anything, the new treaty appears to make it more intellectually >> challenging for governments like China and Iran to justify their >> current censorship of the Internet. >> >> What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the >> United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty >> signers should share control over the Internet address-assignment >> system — a function now handled by an international group based >> in the United States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ >> behest, called for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to >> pay telecommunications networks for delivering material to users. >> >> Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in >> the negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour >> intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like >> Britain and Canada? >> >> In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. >> Kramer cited a few remaining objections, like references to >> countering spam and to ensuring “the security and robustness of >> international telecommunications networks.” This wording, he >> argued, could be used by nefarious governments to justify >> crackdowns on free speech. >> >> But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less >> tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that >> had mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other >> words, saw a chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong >> statement about the importance of Internet freedom. But by >> refusing to sign the treaty and boycotting the closing ceremony, >> they made clear that even to talk about the appearance of global >> rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter. >> >> It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in >> Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand >> would underline the importance of keeping the Internet open. >> >> “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of Internet >> freedom,” said Jochem de Groot, senior policy officer for the >> Internet and human rights in the Foreign Ministry of the >> Netherlands, which joined the United States in opposition to the >> pact. >> >> That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency, the >> International Telecommunication Union — took place in this >> economically liberal but socially and politically battened-down >> emirate underscored the symbolism of the United States boycott of >> the final treaty. >> >> “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries around the >> world,” said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of the Tunisian >> Internet Agency, in an interview. “It’s a good message to start >> the debate.” >> >> Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian government of >> President Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of Tunisia, that country has >> taken a strong stand in support of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, >> Mr. Chakchouk said his government would sign the >> telecommunications treaty because he was satisfied with the >> free-speech guarantees that had been written into it. >> >> “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he said. “It’s >> not good when one country doesn’t understand the issues.” >> >> Working together could become more challenging as the Internet — >> especially bandwidth-hungry video applications — accounts for an >> ever greater share of global telecommunications traffic, and as >> more people in developing countries go online. >> >> According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the >> telecommunication union, the goal of the treaty was not to take >> control of the Internet — as critics had contended — but to >> narrow the digital divide. >> >> While the United States was talking about the open Internet, Mr. >> Touré and developing countries were talking about opening the >> Internet to more of the 4.5 billion people around the world who >> remain offline. >> >> Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating investment >> in broadband networks, for reducing cellphone roaming costs and >> for extending Internet access to disabled people in developing >> countries. The goal was to expand broadband at an affordable >> cost, not to regulate the content that travels on the Internet, >> he said. >> >> “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no highways >> for them to drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news conference on >> Friday, where the telecommunication union tried to put a positive >> spin on the messy pileup of the previous evening. >> >> As developing countries gain better access, the numbers game will >> continue to tilt against the United States and other developed >> countries that have championed the cause of an open Internet. The >> Internet population of China — 538 million as of June, according >> to the Chinese government — is already nearly double that of the >> United States. >> >> Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in developing >> countries, governments and citizens of these countries might also >> grow more tolerant of it. >> >> “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in its view >> of the Internet and its relationship to society in the coming >> century,” Mr. Kramer said. >> >> By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote >> had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that >> they would not, Mr. Touré said, with the rest still undecided or >> undeclared. Holdouts could change their minds and sign later. Mr. >> Touré said he was hopeful that the United States would eventually >> do so, though Mr. Kramer said this was unlikely. >> >> Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious prospect of a >> treaty largely negotiated to suit the United States’ position and >> applying mostly to developing countries, many of which seemed >> perfectly happy with the outcome. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1110 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 Mon Dec 17 21:54:56 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:24:56 +0530 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai Message-ID: Besides that the criteria can be and are subjective and fuzzy for such a ranking unless you identify a respected and neutral benchmark and ratings system. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "parminder" To: Subject: AW: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai Date: Tue, Dec 18, 2012 8:09 AM On Tuesday 18 December 2012 08:04 AM, parminder wrote: > > More seriously, why not match an index of whether a country allows > software patents or not, and in general how strong (or bad) is its > digital IP policy -- an issue very germane to global regulation of the > digital space, or of the Internet...... I can try to hazard a guess on why a digital IP policy wise ranking of votes at WCIT wont be done... It is that there isnt enough money to support organisations and participants that would do such kind of work.... That brings us to the questions, why isnt there such monies....well, I dont have to do all the guessing myself :) parminder > > Political economy question with regard to the global communication > realm are as important as FoE questions. Just asking for greater > balance, that is all. A balance that the civil society involved with > global IG seem to have entirely entirely lost. > > parminder > > > On Tuesday 18 December 2012 02:06 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >> >> Parminder, >> >> The original figures come from another list >> (itu2012chapters at elists.isoc.org >> and WCIT at lmlist.state.gov >> ). Sorry, I’m sometimes losing track of >> who sees what since there are multiple lists where the same is >> discussed, with often the same people on multiple lists. >> >> Dave Burstein sent a message on Friday, 14 Dec, with the Subject: >> [Itu2012chapters] list of signers and those who haven't signed” and >> that contained an attachment with figures he had received from the >> ITU. There is a country-by-country list, sorted by region, and >> showing in green, red and white those who signed, those who did not, >> and those who could not. I just calculated a few statistics based on >> those numbers: >> >> 195 countries overall >> >> 7.016 billion people overall >> >> 89 (46%) countries signed (green) – representing 3.834 billion people >> (55%) >> >> 57 (29%) countries opposed (red) – representing 2.574 billion people >> (37%) >> >> 49 (25%) countries open (white) – representing 0.606 billion people (9%) >> >> I have asked Dave whether it is ok to forward his message and the >> attachment to this list. >> >> Interesting also the following infographic: >> >> http://infogr.am/-mebuell_1355447340 >> >> “There is a clear correlation between a state's ranking in the >> Democracy Index and how their position on the International >> Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) at the International >> Telecommunication Union's (ITU) World Conference on Information >> Technology (WCIT-12). “ >> >> The chart categorizes countries in four categories (full democracy, >> flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime) and shows >> percentages of those in each category who voted for (red) or against >> (green) the ITRs. (Note: color code reversed versus the ITU coding). >> >> Regards, >> >> Peter >> >> Peter H. Hellmonds >> >> Public & International Affairs >> >> peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu >> >> +49 (160) 360-2852 >> >> *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder >> *Gesendet:* 17 December 2012 05:42 >> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Betreff:* Re: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US >> walkout in Dubai >> >> >> Peter >> >> Yes, it is useful to get the right figures. The important figure is >> of those who have refused to sign. As for those who havent refused >> and havent signed, it may be useful to know that it is normal for >> many countries to sign such important and binding documents like >> treaties after a round of consultation at home. In 1988, 112 >> countries signed up on the last day of the WCIT and 75 signed up >> later.... So, a huge number of countries deciding to take time is >> quite normal. Many reports are making this number look as suggesting >> much less support for the ITRs than there actually is. This side of >> mis- representation must also be kept in mind. >> >> The NYT correspondent says that " By Friday evening, 89 of 144 >> countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and >> about two dozen had indicated that they would not...." >> >> You say " Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) >> signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of >> the countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital...." >> >> Can you share the source of your information. The number actually >> saying they 'wont sign' is most significant. And there seems to a >> confusion in this regard vis a vis your numbers (is it 57? ) and >> other reports - NYT says 24 have said they 'wont sign'. What is the >> actual count of 'those who have refused to sign' ... >> >> parminder >> >> On Sunday 16 December 2012 09:02 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: >> >> The New York Times wrote: >> >> “The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, >> derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most >> other nations signed it.” >> >> Guess we need to send the NY Times reporter some real statistics >> and correct the reporting: >> >> _Regarding the “handful of Western allies”:_ >> >> Of the 42 European countries, 35 countries refused to sign the >> treaty. >> >> Of the 35 countries in The Americas, 6 countries refused to sign >> the treaty. >> >> So, while the American delegation was joined by only a handful of >> allies in The Americas, it was forcefully supported by seven >> handfuls of European allies, plus 3 handfuls of allies from >> African, Asian and CIS countries. >> >> And it is clear that the European countries were not merely >> following the lead of the US, but had very clearly stated in >> prior consultations what they would stand for and what not. The >> “what not” was that Europe did not want the ITRs to extend to the >> Internet or content, including spam, or security issues. >> >> _Regarding the “most other nations signed it”:_ >> >> Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed >> the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the >> countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital. >> How could this reporter claim that “most other nations signed it”?? >> >> Peter H. Hellmonds >> >> Public & International Affairs >> >> peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu >> >> +49 (160) 360-2852 >> >> *Von:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von >> *parminder >> *Gesendet:* 16 December 2012 14:23 >> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> *Betreff:* [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US >> walkout in Dubai >> >> >> >> >> New York Times >> >> >> Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World >> >> * /by/ ERIC PFANNER >> * Dec. 14, 2012 >> >> At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the >> United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to >> sign the document and left in a huff. >> >> What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of >> the Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States >> but now has many more users in the rest of the world? >> >> It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the >> coming years. But it might mean everything about the United >> States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of >> the network. >> >> The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, >> derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most >> other nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks >> of talks here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans >> had been negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to >> engage in a public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they >> did near midnight on Thursday as the signing deadline approached. >> >> The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that >> it was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement >> in its current form.” United States delegates said the pact could >> encourage censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off >> approach to Internet oversight and replace it with government >> control. >> >> Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these >> assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page >> text, which deals mostly with matters like the fees that >> telecommunications networks should charge one another for >> connecting calls across borders. After being excised from the >> pact at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a >> soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty. >> >> The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do >> not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” >> That convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer >> to the Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by >> name so no one could call it an Internet treaty. >> >> A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the >> regulations “in a manner that respects and upholds their human >> rights obligations.” >> >> Both of these provisions were added during the final days of >> haggling in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If >> anything, the new treaty appears to make it more intellectually >> challenging for governments like China and Iran to justify their >> current censorship of the Internet. >> >> What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the >> United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty >> signers should share control over the Internet address-assignment >> system — a function now handled by an international group based >> in the United States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ >> behest, called for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to >> pay telecommunications networks for delivering material to users. >> >> Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in >> the negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour >> intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like >> Britain and Canada? >> >> In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. >> Kramer cited a few remaining objections, like references to >> countering spam and to ensuring “the security and robustness of >> international telecommunications networks.” This wording, he >> argued, could be used by nefarious governments to justify >> crackdowns on free speech. >> >> But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less >> tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that >> had mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other >> words, saw a chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong >> statement about the importance of Internet freedom. But by >> refusing to sign the treaty and boycotting the closing ceremony, >> they made clear that even to talk about the appearance of global >> rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter. >> >> It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in >> Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand >> would underline the importance of keeping the Internet open. >> >> “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of Internet >> freedom,” said Jochem de Groot, senior policy officer for the >> Internet and human rights in the Foreign Ministry of the >> Netherlands, which joined the United States in opposition to the >> pact. >> >> That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency, the >> International Telecommunication Union — took place in this >> economically liberal but socially and politically battened-down >> emirate underscored the symbolism of the United States boycott of >> the final treaty. >> >> “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries around the >> world,” said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of the Tunisian >> Internet Agency, in an interview. “It’s a good message to start >> the debate.” >> >> Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian government of >> President Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of Tunisia, that country has >> taken a strong stand in support of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, >> Mr. Chakchouk said his government would sign the >> telecommunications treaty because he was satisfied with the >> free-speech guarantees that had been written into it. >> >> “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he said. “It’s >> not good when one country doesn’t understand the issues.” >> >> Working together could become more challenging as the Internet — >> especially bandwidth-hungry video applications — accounts for an >> ever greater share of global telecommunications traffic, and as >> more people in developing countries go online. >> >> According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the >> telecommunication union, the goal of the treaty was not to take >> control of the Internet — as critics had contended — but to >> narrow the digital divide. >> >> While the United States was talking about the open Internet, Mr. >> Touré and developing countries were talking about opening the >> Internet to more of the 4.5 billion people around the world who >> remain offline. >> >> Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating investment >> in broadband networks, for reducing cellphone roaming costs and >> for extending Internet access to disabled people in developing >> countries. The goal was to expand broadband at an affordable >> cost, not to regulate the content that travels on the Internet, >> he said. >> >> “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no highways >> for them to drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news conference on >> Friday, where the telecommunication union tried to put a positive >> spin on the messy pileup of the previous evening. >> >> As developing countries gain better access, the numbers game will >> continue to tilt against the United States and other developed >> countries that have championed the cause of an open Internet. The >> Internet population of China — 538 million as of June, according >> to the Chinese government — is already nearly double that of the >> United States. >> >> Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in developing >> countries, governments and citizens of these countries might also >> grow more tolerant of it. >> >> “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in its view >> of the Internet and its relationship to society in the coming >> century,” Mr. Kramer said. >> >> By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote >> had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that >> they would not, Mr. Touré said, with the rest still undecided or >> undeclared. Holdouts could change their minds and sign later. Mr. >> Touré said he was hopeful that the United States would eventually >> do so, though Mr. Kramer said this was unlikely. >> >> Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious prospect of a >> treaty largely negotiated to suit the United States’ position and >> applying mostly to developing countries, many of which seemed >> perfectly happy with the outcome. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Dec 17 21:58:55 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:58:55 -0500 Subject: AW: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:34 PM, parminder wrote: > > Peter > > In your listing, the number 57, which is actually indicated as eligible to > sign but not (yet) signed somehow seem to have magically changed to > '*opposed*'.... How did you make that shift? > > As I mentioned earlier, for the 1988 ITRs 75 members signed later on, > which makes the practise appear quite common. > > The real figure to focus on is the number of countries that have said > 'they wont sign' - I figure this number at present is between 12 to 20. I > am happy to be corrected on this 'key figure'. > > As for matching democracy indices, these are spins being put that are > unnecessary > Unnecessary does not mean "not revealing". -- 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 Mon Dec 17 23:35:10 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 05:35:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Avri Doria wrote: [snip] And I have not the faintest idea what you mean when you speak of 'hares > running.' > > avri > > *It's frenglish. Hunting a hare (courir un lièvre) means pursuing an objective. Flush a hare (lever un lièvre) means uncover a new snag. 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 anriette at apc.org Tue Dec 18 02:51:13 2012 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:51:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] UNGA In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <50D02071.5070608@apc.org> Dear all It would be very good to have civil society participants at the Peru CSTD intersessional. Business will be represented. Not sure about tech community. But there is no doubt that they will begin to talk about membership and working modalities. I suggest that we: - send a written submission - try to get someone therefrom CS Remember that any CS entity accredited to WSIS can attend CSTD meetings. Anyone able to go? Anriette On 16/12/2012 22:20, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Wolfgang, here > > > Better than the earlier drafts, so perhaps lobbying works. Good. > > The first CSTD meeting will be in Peru, 07-09 January 2013 > But > that it too early to begin substantive discussion, modalities and > membership? (I'm interested this time around) > > Adam > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Dec 18 02:52:23 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:52:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] UNGA In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2C35964A-2C17-455C-81BA-783C34D7A3BC@alfa-redi.org> <20121217150330.70494px7pi5y24r6@www.ciencitec.com> Message-ID: Hi, you are right. The link nolonger works. It did, but not now. Try this (and file attached) José, participation in the CSTD meeting in Peru seems to be open Best, Adam On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Antonio Medina Gómez wrote: > What I am stating is that this link does not allow access. > this is my mistake? > Antonio Medina Gomez > Presidente > Asociacion Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet. > > > 2012/12/17 Antonio Medina Gómez >> >> upppp >> >> NO AUTHORIZATION >> >> In case you use personal firewall, please adjust the privacy settings for >> this web site. >> >> >> >> 2012/12/17 >>> >>> Dear Adam: >>> Good afternoon, representing Internauta Peru, how can we participate?, >>> Civil Society, requires not only information but also greater participation. >>> thanks >>> José F. Callo Romero >>> CEO ciencitec.com >>> Internauta Peru >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UN-GA N1264119.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 57302 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 18 03:26:10 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:26:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] WikiLeaks initiative to beat banking blockade (EFF, Wikileaks and Press Freedom... well done... ) Message-ID: <50D028A2.3060104@gmail.com> Return to frontpage News » International Published: December 17, 2012 23:06 IST | Updated: December 17, 2012 23:20 IST WikiLeaks initiative to beat banking blockade Hasan Suroor This December 17, 2012 screen grab shows the home page of the Freedom of the Press Foundation site. This December 17, 2012 screen grab shows the home page of the Freedom of the Press Foundation site. WikiLeaks on Monday announced the launch of a new platform called the Freedom of the Press Foundation to beat the "the extra-judicial" banking blockade against it, and to promote "aggressive, public-interest journalism focused on exposing mismanagement, corruption and law-breaking in government". It said the Foundation was an initiative of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a U.S.-based non-profit digital rights advocacy group, and was backed, among others, by former Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and actor John Cusack. "They will crowd-source fundraising and support for organisations or individuals under attack for publishing the truth," it said. WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange vowed to fight "this immoral blockade" which had led to 95 per cent of the contributions to the organisation being stopped. "We've fought this immoral blockade for two long years. We smashed it in the courts. We smashed it in the Treasury. We smashed it in France. We smashed it in Germany. And now, with strong and generous friends who still believe in First Amendment rights, we're going to smash it in the United States as well", he said. In a statement, WikiLeaks said its "running primary cash reserves" were down from more than a million dollars in 2010 to under a thousand dollars, as of December 2012, because of the blockade. "Only an aggressive attack against the blockade will permit WikiLeaks to continue publishing through 2013. The new initiative, combined with a recent victory in Germany, means contributions to WikiLeaks now have tax-deductible status throughout the United States and Europe," it said. Explaining how the system would work, it said: "The Foundation's first 'bundle' will crowd-source funds for WikiLeaks, the National Security Archive, The UpTake and MuckRock News. Donors will be able to use a slider to set how much of their donation they wish each organisation to receive and can donate to WikiLeaks using their credit cards. The Foundation holds 501(c) charitable status, so donations are tax-deductible in the U.S. Other courageous press organisations will be added as time goes by. It will not be possible to see by banking records what portion of a donor's contribution, if any, goes to WikiLeaks." John Perry Barlow, a board member of the Foundation, said the initiative aimed to achieve more than just crowd-sourced fundraising. "We hope it makes a moral argument against these sorts of actions. But it could also be the basis of a legal challenge. We now have private organisations with the ability to stifle free expression. These companies have no bill of rights that applies to their action --- they only have terms of service", he said. WikiLeaks says the blockade by Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, Western Union and a host of other financial institutions is "unlawful" and part of a "politically motivated" retaliation by American authorities against it for publishing leaked secret diplomatic cables. "In heavily redacted European Commission documents recently released by WikiLeaks, MasterCard Europe admitted that U.S. Senate Homeland Security Chairman Joseph Lieberman and Congressman Peter T. King were both directly involved in instigating the blockade," it said. Keywords: WikiLeaks , banking blockade , Freedom of the Press Foundation , Electronic Frontier Foundation , digital rights advocacy group , Pentagon Papers , Daniel Ellsberg , John Cusack RELATED NEWS WikiLeaks fights back in the face of financial blockade and arm-twisting Statements on financial blockade of WikiLeaks Major exposes by WikiLeaks (2007-11) Financial Blockade: Chronology More In: International | News Comments Recommended Post a comment Printable version | Dec 18, 2012 1:55:10 PM | http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/wikileaks-initiative-to-beat-banking-blockade/article4210468.ece © The Hindu *The Hindu:* Home | News | Opinion | Sport | Business | Arts | Life & Style | S & T | Education | Health | Homes & Gardens | Jobs | Classifieds | Topics | *The Site:* | About Us | Contacts | Archives | Subscriptions | RSS Feeds | Site Map *Group Sites: * The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Disclaimer: /The Hindu/ is not responsible for the content of external internet sites. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of /The Hindu./ Comments to: web.thehindu at thehindu.co.in Copyright© 2012, The Hindu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 14000 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wki_1302033f.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 41501 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Dec 18 04:21:31 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:21:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] UNGA In-Reply-To: <50D02071.5070608@apc.org> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <50D02071.5070608@apc.org> Message-ID: I sent the wrong attachment. The Nov 9 version was draft. Final version attached. Important, the final version is a *great* improvement. Adam On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > It would be very good to have civil society participants at the Peru CSTD > intersessional. Business will be represented. Not sure about tech > community. But there is no doubt that they will begin to talk about > membership and working modalities. > > I suggest that we: > > - send a written submission > - try to get someone there from CS > > Remember that any CS entity accredited to WSIS can attend CSTD meetings. > > Anyone able to go? > > Anriette > > > On 16/12/2012 22:20, Adam Peake wrote: > > Hi Wolfgang, here > > > Better than the earlier drafts, so perhaps lobbying works. Good. > > The first CSTD meeting will be in Peru, 07-09 January 2013 > But > that it too early to begin substantive discussion, modalities and > membership? (I'm interested this time around) > > Adam > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: UN GA document N1258164.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 56917 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Dec 18 05:10:12 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:40:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] UNGA In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <50D02071.5070608@apc.org> Message-ID: <50D04104.6030704@itforchange.net> Adam the one attached to your email was the G 77 proposed text, not the final version final version is attached.. parminder On Tuesday 18 December 2012 02:51 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > I sent the wrong attachment. The Nov 9 version was draft. Final > version attached. Important, the final version is a *great* > improvement. > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Dear all >> >> It would be very good to have civil society participants at the Peru CSTD >> intersessional. Business will be represented. Not sure about tech >> community. But there is no doubt that they will begin to talk about >> membership and working modalities. >> >> I suggest that we: >> >> - send a written submission >> - try to get someone there from CS >> >> Remember that any CS entity accredited to WSIS can attend CSTD meetings. >> >> Anyone able to go? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 16/12/2012 22:20, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Hi Wolfgang, here >> >> >> Better than the earlier drafts, so perhaps lobbying works. Good. >> >> The first CSTD meeting will be in Peru, 07-09 January 2013 >> But >> that it too early to begin substantive discussion, modalities and >> membership? (I'm interested this time around) >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICTD res dec 12.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 57302 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Dec 18 06:05:19 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:05:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] UNGA In-Reply-To: <50D04104.6030704@itforchange.net> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <50D02071.5070608@apc.org> <50D04104.6030704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I sent the wrong file twice... I shall not multi-task in future. Thanks for catching. Discussed and adopted in New York while WCIT was ongoing in Dubai. The resolution originally proposed by Algeria on behalf of the G77 and China. Contrast in language between WCIT and GA. The references to WSIS (ITU resolution pre-Tunis phase, GA much fuller, basically honest.) etc. Adam On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 7:10 PM, parminder wrote: > > Adam > > the one attached to your email was the G 77 proposed text, not the final > version > > final version is attached.. > > parminder > > On Tuesday 18 December 2012 02:51 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > I sent the wrong attachment. The Nov 9 version was draft. Final > version attached. Important, the final version is a *great* > improvement. > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > > Dear all > > It would be very good to have civil society participants at the Peru CSTD > intersessional. Business will be represented. Not sure about tech > community. But there is no doubt that they will begin to talk about > membership and working modalities. > > I suggest that we: > > - send a written submission > - try to get someone there from CS > > Remember that any CS entity accredited to WSIS can attend CSTD meetings. > > Anyone able to go? > > Anriette > > > On 16/12/2012 22:20, Adam Peake wrote: > > Hi Wolfgang, here > > > Better than the earlier drafts, so perhaps lobbying works. Good. > > The first CSTD meeting will be in Peru, 07-09 January 2013 > But > that it too early to begin substantive discussion, modalities and > membership? (I'm interested this time around) > > Adam > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 miguel.alcaine at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 08:05:57 2012 From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:05:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <50CC3936.3020708@cavebear.com> <04A0107A-8321-4A36-863B-79CD87662186@istaff.org> Message-ID: Dear All: +1 to Bertrand, specially when He says "to combine opposing principles in a dynamic, positive tension. ". Ignoring the issues do not solve them. There is the need to differentiate between tools and people using tools. E.g. A surgery. Miguel On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle < bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote: > +1 to Karl-John exchange below. > > Particularly: > > *"User traffic should be considered* > * private, and not monitored and except to the extent necessary* > * for network operations or per lawful order" is far more* > * useful than "Don't deploy DPI or traffic monitoring"* > > > Correct formulation of an issue/objective is 90% of solving/achieving it. > (Should we say governance is 90% formulation and 10% perspiration ?) A > major purpose of multi-stakeholder deliberations is to provide the full > picture (with all technical, economic, ethical and social aspects), to > prevent exchanges spiralling down into acrimonious opposition between > apparently incompatible high-level principles. > > In many cases, the choice is not either/or, but how - if possible - to > combine opposing principles in a dynamic, positive tension. > > Bertrand > > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 2:51 PM, John Curran wrote: > >> On Dec 15, 2012, at 3:47 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> > >> > One thing that I've always wanted to see is some line that allows those >> > of us who diagnose and repair networks to do our work without being >> > accused of being nefarious beings of malevolent intent. >> > >> > A surgeon brings sharp, potentially dangerous tools to the operating >> table. >> > >> > Those of us who diagnose and repair networks also have sharp tools in >> > our toolkits. >> > >> > In both cases those tools are ambiguous - they could cause harm or cause >> > good. >> > >> > There needs to be some sort of demarcation that allows for network >> > diagnosis and repair. This goes not merely to the use of tools but also >> > some recognition that during repair and diagnosis that sometimes things >> > that are private are revealed to the repair team. >> > >> > Otherwise the security measures that "endeavour to ensure the security >> > and robustness of international telecommunication networks" could easily >> > become barriers that cause networks to be, in sum, less robust. >> >> Karl - >> >> 100% agreement. If we need controls, then we need them >> on actual acts of harm, not the tools or their use. The >> surgeon cuts flesh, but they are doing it for the right >> reason. The network engineer might indeed have to turn >> on packet monitoring, e.g. to find the control network >> behind a DDoS attack, etc. >> >> I'm not certain this point is well-understood by folks, >> and it comes back down to making sure that guidance from >> those who make public policy is sufficiently high-level >> based on outcomes, i.e. "User traffic should be considered >> private, and not monitored and except to the extent necessary >> for network operations or per lawful order" is far more >> useful than "Don't deploy DPI or traffic monitoring" >> >> FYI, >> /John >> >> Disclaimer: My views alone. Note to traffic monitoring >> equipment: Interception of this email constitutes acceptance >> of my terms and conditions; in short, you now owe me a latte. >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Tue Dec 18 08:31:04 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:31:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: <50CEEFF4.1040601@panamo.eu> References: <50CEEFF4.1040601@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <50D07018.2060701@panamo.eu> Hi, The third part deals with the price of interconnection in Africa. The return of political matters is normal and must not be hidden. And the conclusion proposes the creation of a new agency organizing improvements and cooperation of ICANN and ITU. http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/18/strategies-en-haute-mer/ @+, cheers, Dominique Le 17/12/12 11:12, Dominique Lacroix a écrit : > Hi, > For those who can read French or a translator, Kavé Salamatian > proposes interesting interpretations of WCIT issues and prospects : > > Le cyberespace et ses Indiens : > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/16/le-cyberespace-et-ses-indiens/ > Jeux de coopération au Bazar : > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/17/jeux-de-cooperation-au-bazar/ > > @+, best, 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Dec 18 09:16:37 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:46:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <95E1EF0F-6876-44DA-8CD6-87DAC2EF65D4@gmail.com> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <50C77D88.7050108@uni-graz.at> <95E1EF0F-6876-44DA-8CD6-87DAC2EF65D4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50D07AC5.5030201@itforchange.net> Dear Bertrand/ Others On Wednesday 12 December 2012 01:43 AM, bdelachapelle at gmail.com wrote: > Dear Matthias, > > I agree with your thesis. Which I understand, to quote Matthias' email, is about "...crystallization of the application of the international customary law norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the stability and functionality of the Internet can by now be clearly considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by international law. States that violate this common obligation engage their international responsibility." Now what have you all to say about the US and its allies walking out of the WCIT on the point of refusing to sign on preambular language that simply "recognize(s) the right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services". This point above seems central to all the discussions here on what is being called as 'a new approach to Internet governance'. Wonder, why the US is able to get away with such monstrosities, and civil society choses to look the other way when they happen. Nay, people have in fact been defending US's position of not signing the above text on this list and other CS forums..... One wonders what is happening!!! parminder > Very happy to hear about this article of yours. > > My German is unfortunately probably not good enough to get all of it, > but Paul Fehlinger (copied on this mail), who is working with me on > the I&J project, is German and will certainly help me get the best of it. > > Would you have it in electronic format? > > By the way, this contributes to the documentation of cases > illustrating the non-trains boundary harm principle introduced in the > Council of Europe recommendation. > > Thanks very much for the information. We will read with great interest. > > This will. > > Sent from my iPad > > On 11 déc. 2012, at 19:38, "Matthias C. Kettemann" > > wrote: > >> Cher Bertrand, dear all, >> >> I'd even go one step further. In a article published in the >> Heidelberg Journal of International Law, I argued that the example of >> Egypt is not only reflective of an emerging international principle >> but even indicative of the crystallization of the application of the >> international customary law norm of non-interference to other states' >> Internet access. Indeed, the stability and functionality of the >> Intenret can by now be clearly considered to lie in the common >> interest. As such, it is protected by international law. States that >> violate this common obligation engage their international responsibility. >> >> (I'm happy to share the article on an individual basis if you're >> interested (but it's in German): /K//ettemann/, Das Internet als >> internationales Schutzgut: Entwicklungsperspek­tiven des >> Internetvölkerrechts anlässlich des Arabischen Frühlings [The >> Internet als a Global Object of Protection: Perspectives on >> International Internet Law in Light of the Arab >> Spring],ZaöRV/Heidelberg Journal of Int'l Law 72 (2012), 469-482) >> >> Kind regards >> Matthias >> >> >> Am 11.12.2012 18:11, schrieb Bertrand de La Chapelle: >>> Dear Nick, >>> >>> Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an >>> interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe >>> that Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international >>> principle of "*non-tampering with transit traffic*" when it blocked >>> access to the Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the >>> transit traffic serving the easter coast of Africa. >>> >>> Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could >>> probably be part of an international/global regime. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bertrand >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart >>> > wrote: >>> >>> Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few >>> weeks as an interesting construct for the legal protection of >>> the open flow of data. >>> >>> It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - >>> but in maritime law ships are also physical and registered with >>> a state. However, the space they travel through, beyond the >>> territorial waters limit, is open sea and by definition not >>> owned by anyone. >>> >>> If we used this construct to protect the flow of international >>> data, that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea >>> embodied in UNCLOS is, after all, largely simply a distillation >>> of internationally-understood principles about maritime law that >>> go back to the Roman period. >>> >>> We could do much worse than an international understanding that >>> data, when transiting any country between a source and >>> destination in third countries, was legally not actually 'in' >>> the territory or subject to the laws of the state it was >>> transiting, but subject only to an international regime. >>> >>> (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told >>> you at Baku I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that >>> might have potential). >>> >>> FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the >>> USG has yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current >>> Administration is very much in favour of doing so, however, as >>> are many members of the legislative branch). >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Nick Ashton-Hart >>> Geneva Representative >>> Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) >>> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 >>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >>> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >>> USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 >>> >>> *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both >>> here: http://meetme.so/nashton* >>> >>> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse >>> linguistic mangling. >>> >>> On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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") >>> >> >> -- >> >> Univ.-Ass. Mag. Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) >> >> Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen >> Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz >> >> Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich >> >> T | +43 316 380 6711 (Büro) >> M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobil) >> F | +43 316 380 9455 >> E |matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at >> Blog |internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com >> >> >> -- >> >> Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) >> >> Institute of International Law and International Relations >> University of Graz >> >> Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria >> >> T | +43 316 380 6711 (office) >> M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobile) >> F | +43 316 380 9455 >> E |matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at >> Blog |internationallawandtheinternet.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 Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Tue Dec 18 09:30:56 2012 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:30:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers [Post WCIT and Analysis of Outcomes] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, I am also ready to volunteer. Regards -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh On 17 December 2012 10:59, Kabani wrote: > Greetings > > Kindly also include me. > > Regards > > Asif Kabani > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Tue Dec 18 09:47:48 2012 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at)) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:47:48 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <50D07AC5.5030201@itforchange.net> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <50C77D88.7050108@uni-graz.at> <95E1EF0F-6876-44DA-8CD6-87DAC2EF65D4@gmail.com> <50D07AC5.5030201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, The right of states to have no other state interfere with their access to the Internet is, in my view, not conditional upon an international treaty but rather, as I’ve argued in the mail you quoted from, in the process of crystallizing into a customary norm. Treaties can be evidence of such a crystallization, but they are not necessary for the process. Not signing a treaty than contains many different provisions cannot be used as an argument against any one single norm’s customary character. Further evidence, such as clear statements by states evidencing opinio iuris, is needed. The dynamics in Dubai illustrate that we are now at a point where two different conceptions of the normative order applicable to the Internet clash. Simple dichotomies (freedom vs. control, private sector-orientation vs. sovereignity-orientation) are more misleading than helpful. The danger I see lies rather in what the Economist termed a potential “digital Cold War”. History tells us that the last Cold War didn’t lead to decades of cooperative law-making on the international plane, but rather conflict, divisions and standstill. Yet at the height of the Cold War leaders agreed, within the framework of the CSCE, on the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 which laid down essential commitments regarding political and military cooperation and human rights issues, including the Helsinki Decalogue, the “Declaration on [10] Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States” (http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true). So what do we need now: We need a Helsinki Decalogue for the Internet that can guide relation between all stakeholders in the Internet. If Russia and the US were able to agree in 1975 on the prohibition of the use of force, non-intervention, respect for human rights and fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law, they should be able to agree, in near future, on Internet Governance principles reflecting these international legal principles. The Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on Internet governance principles (https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773) provides a first template; and the IRP’s 0 Rights and Principles (http://irpcharter.org) exemplify a human rights-oriented approach. It’s there that we should look, rather than to feel sorry that Dubai didn’t work out. Kind regards Matthias -- Dr Matthias C. Kettemann, LLM (Harvard) Institute of International Law and International Relations University of Graz, Austria T | +43 316 380 6711 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012 15:17 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de la Chapelle Betreff: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Dear Bertrand/ Others On Wednesday 12 December 2012 01:43 AM, bdelachapelle at gmail.com wrote: Dear Matthias, I agree with your thesis. Which I understand, to quote Matthias' email, is about "...crystallization of the application of the international customary law norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the stability and functionality of the Internet can by now be clearly considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by international law. States that violate this common obligation engage their international responsibility." Now what have you all to say about the US and its allies walking out of the WCIT on the point of refusing to sign on preambular language that simply "recognize(s) the right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services". This point above seems central to all the discussions here on what is being called as 'a new approach to Internet governance'. Wonder, why the US is able to get away with such monstrosities, and civil society choses to look the other way when they happen. Nay, people have in fact been defending US's position of not signing the above text on this list and other CS forums..... One wonders what is happening!!! parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Tue Dec 18 09:54:39 2012 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:54:39 +0100 Subject: AW: [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> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <50C77D88.7050108@uni-graz.at> <95E1EF0F-6876-44DA-8CD6-87DAC2EF65D4@gmail.com> <50D07AC5.5030201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C037A594726@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> Interessante Überlegungen! Lesch hat sich noch nicht gemeldet, es wird aber wohl so laufen wie besprochen. LG wg Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012 15:48 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; Bertrand de la Chapelle Betreff: AW: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Dear Parminder, The right of states to have no other state interfere with their access to the Internet is, in my view, not conditional upon an international treaty but rather, as I’ve argued in the mail you quoted from, in the process of crystallizing into a customary norm. Treaties can be evidence of such a crystallization, but they are not necessary for the process. Not signing a treaty than contains many different provisions cannot be used as an argument against any one single norm’s customary character. Further evidence, such as clear statements by states evidencing opinio iuris, is needed. The dynamics in Dubai illustrate that we are now at a point where two different conceptions of the normative order applicable to the Internet clash. Simple dichotomies (freedom vs. control, private sector-orientation vs. sovereignity-orientation) are more misleading than helpful. The danger I see lies rather in what the Economist termed a potential “digital Cold War”. History tells us that the last Cold War didn’t lead to decades of cooperative law-making on the international plane, but rather conflict, divisions and standstill. Yet at the height of the Cold War leaders agreed, within the framework of the CSCE, on the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 which laid down essential commitments regarding political and military cooperation and human rights issues, including the Helsinki Decalogue, the “Declaration on [10] Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States” (http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true). So what do we need now: We need a Helsinki Decalogue for the Internet that can guide relation between all stakeholders in the Internet. If Russia and the US were able to agree in 1975 on the prohibition of the use of force, non-intervention, respect for human rights and fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law, they should be able to agree, in near future, on Internet Governance principles reflecting these international legal principles. The Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on Internet governance principles (https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773) provides a first template; and the IRP’s 0 Rights and Principles (http://irpcharter.org) exemplify a human rights-oriented approach. It’s there that we should look, rather than to feel sorry that Dubai didn’t work out. Kind regards Matthias -- Dr Matthias C. Kettemann, LLM (Harvard) Institute of International Law and International Relations University of Graz, Austria T | +43 316 380 6711 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012 15:17 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de la Chapelle Betreff: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Dear Bertrand/ Others On Wednesday 12 December 2012 01:43 AM, bdelachapelle at gmail.com wrote: Dear Matthias, I agree with your thesis. Which I understand, to quote Matthias' email, is about "...crystallization of the application of the international customary law norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the stability and functionality of the Internet can by now be clearly considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by international law. States that violate this common obligation engage their international responsibility." Now what have you all to say about the US and its allies walking out of the WCIT on the point of refusing to sign on preambular language that simply "recognize(s) the right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services". This point above seems central to all the discussions here on what is being called as 'a new approach to Internet governance'. Wonder, why the US is able to get away with such monstrosities, and civil society choses to look the other way when they happen. Nay, people have in fact been defending US's position of not signing the above text on this list and other CS forums..... One wonders what is happening!!! parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Tue Dec 18 09:56:12 2012 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:56:12 +0100 Subject: AW: [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> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <50C77D88.7050108@uni-graz.at> <95E1EF0F-6876-44DA-8CD6-87DAC2EF65D4@gmail.com> <50D07AC5.5030201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C037A594727@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at> Sorry, this was only for Matthias, whom I support in his ideas! Wolfgang Benedek Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012 15:48 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder; Bertrand de la Chapelle Betreff: AW: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Dear Parminder, The right of states to have no other state interfere with their access to the Internet is, in my view, not conditional upon an international treaty but rather, as I’ve argued in the mail you quoted from, in the process of crystallizing into a customary norm. Treaties can be evidence of such a crystallization, but they are not necessary for the process. Not signing a treaty than contains many different provisions cannot be used as an argument against any one single norm’s customary character. Further evidence, such as clear statements by states evidencing opinio iuris, is needed. The dynamics in Dubai illustrate that we are now at a point where two different conceptions of the normative order applicable to the Internet clash. Simple dichotomies (freedom vs. control, private sector-orientation vs. sovereignity-orientation) are more misleading than helpful. The danger I see lies rather in what the Economist termed a potential “digital Cold War”. History tells us that the last Cold War didn’t lead to decades of cooperative law-making on the international plane, but rather conflict, divisions and standstill. Yet at the height of the Cold War leaders agreed, within the framework of the CSCE, on the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 which laid down essential commitments regarding political and military cooperation and human rights issues, including the Helsinki Decalogue, the “Declaration on [10] Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States” (http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true). So what do we need now: We need a Helsinki Decalogue for the Internet that can guide relation between all stakeholders in the Internet. If Russia and the US were able to agree in 1975 on the prohibition of the use of force, non-intervention, respect for human rights and fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law, they should be able to agree, in near future, on Internet Governance principles reflecting these international legal principles. The Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on Internet governance principles (https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773) provides a first template; and the IRP’s 0 Rights and Principles (http://irpcharter.org) exemplify a human rights-oriented approach. It’s there that we should look, rather than to feel sorry that Dubai didn’t work out. Kind regards Matthias -- Dr Matthias C. Kettemann, LLM (Harvard) Institute of International Law and International Relations University of Graz, Austria T | +43 316 380 6711 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Google+ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012 15:17 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de la Chapelle Betreff: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Dear Bertrand/ Others On Wednesday 12 December 2012 01:43 AM, bdelachapelle at gmail.com wrote: Dear Matthias, I agree with your thesis. Which I understand, to quote Matthias' email, is about "...crystallization of the application of the international customary law norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the stability and functionality of the Internet can by now be clearly considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by international law. States that violate this common obligation engage their international responsibility." Now what have you all to say about the US and its allies walking out of the WCIT on the point of refusing to sign on preambular language that simply "recognize(s) the right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services". This point above seems central to all the discussions here on what is being called as 'a new approach to Internet governance'. Wonder, why the US is able to get away with such monstrosities, and civil society choses to look the other way when they happen. Nay, people have in fact been defending US's position of not signing the above text on this list and other CS forums..... One wonders what is happening!!! parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 09:58:54 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:58:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: <50D07AC5.5030201@itforchange.net> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <50C77D88.7050108@uni-graz.at> <95E1EF0F-6876-44DA-8CD6-87DAC2EF65D4@gmail.com> <50D07AC5.5030201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, The exchange you mention, regarding the sentence "*recognize(s) the right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services*" was probably the most sadly ironic turn of events. The reality behind the appearances is rather simple: - on one hand, the US continues to box itself in a corner because its policy vis-à-vis Cuba forces it to reject such a simple statement, that should on the contrary be something they support wholeheartedly and be even the flag-bearer for (given their general position) - there is on the other hand a strong dose of hypocrisy when some of the governmental proponents of this sentence systematically prevent their own citizens from accessing the Internet in a sufficiently free manner. This is a sad game that is being played in every single UN-type conference. One of the best examples of a purely political game that has no positive impact on users. Your comment: "This point above seems central to all the discussions here on what is being called as 'a new approach to Internet governance'" is therefore probably overstated. The real debate is elsewhere. Anyway, this certainly was not the main reason why the US and other countries refused to sign the WCIT text. The text itself was less the issue than the fact that it was adopted by voting - and Iran bears a responsibility in this outcome. But there were other issues, as you well know. That being said, I agree with one of your previous comments: this general outcome was in no way certain and the WCIT could very well have ended in a different way. Fatigue, missteps, and procedural malfunction tilted the result in one direction, but the discussions could have led to another result. In any case, this is an outcome with no winners, rather a lose-lose-lose result given the amount of energy devoted to this. The three years ahead of us (2013 to 2015) will provide a lot of occasions to continue these debates in various venues. I hope the main lesson form the WCIT will be that we all can do better than this theater. Best Bertrand On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:16 PM, parminder wrote: > > Dear Bertrand/ Others > > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 01:43 AM, bdelachapelle at gmail.com wrote: > > Dear Matthias, > > I agree with your thesis. > > > Which I understand, to quote Matthias' email, is about > > "...crystallization of the application of the international customary law > norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the > stability and functionality of the Internet can by now be clearly > considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by > international law. States that violate this common obligation engage their > international responsibility." > > Now what have you all to say about the US and its allies walking out of > the WCIT on the point of refusing to sign on preambular language that > simply "recognize(s) the right of access of Member States to international > telecommunication services". > > This point above seems central to all the discussions here on what is > being called as 'a new approach to Internet governance'. > > Wonder, why the US is able to get away with such monstrosities, and civil > society choses to look the other way when they happen. Nay, people have in > fact been defending US's position of not signing the above text on this > list and other CS forums..... One wonders what is happening!!! > > parminder > > > > Very happy to hear about this article of yours. > > My German is unfortunately probably not good enough to get all of it, > but Paul Fehlinger (copied on this mail), who is working with me on the I&J > project, is German and will certainly help me get the best of it. > > Would you have it in electronic format? > > By the way, this contributes to the documentation of cases illustrating > the non-trains boundary harm principle introduced in the Council of Europe > recommendation. > > Thanks very much for the information. We will read with great interest. > > This will. > > Sent from my iPad > > On 11 déc. 2012, at 19:38, "Matthias C. Kettemann" < > matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at> wrote: > > Cher Bertrand, dear all, > > I'd even go one step further. In a article published in the Heidelberg > Journal of International Law, I argued that the example of Egypt is not > only reflective of an emerging international principle but even indicative > of the crystallization of the application of the international customary > law norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the > stability and functionality of the Intenret can by now be clearly > considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by > international law. States that violate this common obligation engage their > international responsibility. > > (I'm happy to share the article on an individual basis if you're > interested (but it's in German): *K**ettemann*, Das Internet als > internationales Schutzgut: Entwicklungsperspek­tiven des > Internetvölkerrechts anlässlich des Arabischen Frühlings [The Internet als > a Global Object of Protection: Perspectives on International Internet Law > in Light of the Arab Spring], ZaöRV/Heidelberg Journal of Int'l Law 72 > (2012), 469-482**** ) > > Kind regards > Matthias > > > Am 11.12.2012 18:11, schrieb Bertrand de La Chapelle: > > Dear Nick, > > Just a brief comment on the issue of "transit traffic". This is an > interesting component to explore. As I have often said, I believe that > Egypt acted in reference to an implicit emerging international principle of > "*non-tampering with transit traffic*" when it blocked access to the > Internet during the Arab Spring but did not impact the transit traffic > serving the easter coast of Africa. > > Discussing this in more detail would indeed be useful and could probably > be part of an international/global regime. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> Funny, I have been thinking of the Law of the Sea for a few weeks as an >> interesting construct for the legal protection of the open flow of data. >> >> It is true that there's a built environment to the Internet - but in >> maritime law ships are also physical and registered with a state. However, >> the space they travel through, beyond the territorial waters limit, is open >> sea and by definition not owned by anyone. >> >> If we used this construct to protect the flow of international data, >> that might be a workable metaphor. The Law of the Sea embodied in UNCLOS >> is, after all, largely simply a distillation of internationally-understood >> principles about maritime law that go back to the Roman period. >> >> We could do much worse than an international understanding that data, >> when transiting any country between a source and destination in third >> countries, was legally not actually 'in' the territory or subject to the >> laws of the state it was transiting, but subject only to an international >> regime. >> >> (Bertrand: these ideas are what I was speaking of when I told you at Baku >> I had an idea for your jurisdiction project that might have potential). >> >> FWIW: For those who are about to remind me, I am aware that the USG has >> yet to ratify UNCLOS. It is clear that the current Administration is very >> much in favour of doing so, however, as are many members of the legislative >> branch). >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart >> Geneva Representative >> Computer & Communications Industry Assocation (CCIA) >> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 <%2B41%20%2822%29%20534%2099%2045> >> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 <%2B41%20%2822%29%20594-85-44> >> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 <%2B41%2079%20595%205468> >> USA DID: +1 (202) 640-5430 <%2B1%20%28202%29%20640-5430> >> >> *Need to meet with me? Schedule the time that suits us both here: >> http://meetme.so/nashton* >> >> Sent from my one of my handheld thingies, please excuse linguistic >> mangling. >> >> On 7 Dec 2012, at 16:23, "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 <%2B41%20%280%29%2022%207410435> *| **Mobile.* +41 >> (0) 797884226 <%2B41%20%280%29%20797884226> >> >> *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") > > > -- > > Univ.-Ass. Mag. Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) > > Institut für Völkerrecht und Internationale Beziehungen > Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz > > Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Österreich > > T | +43 316 380 6711 (Büro) > M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobil) > F | +43 316 380 9455 > E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at > Blog | internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com > > > -- > > Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard) > > Institute of International Law and International Relations > University of Graz > > Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria > > T | +43 316 380 6711 (office) > M | +43 676 701 7175 (mobile) > F | +43 316 380 9455 > E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at > Blog | internationallawandtheinternet.blogspot.com > > > -- ____________________ 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 10:09:09 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:09:09 +0100 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> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <50C77D88.7050108@uni-graz.at> <95E1EF0F-6876-44DA-8CD6-87DAC2EF65D4@gmail.com> <50D07AC5.5030201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I anticipate a great journalistic attraction for the meme "a Digital Cold War". It is an abusive oversimplification and worse, it presents a big risk of a self-fulfilling prophecy if people begin to think in that framework. The "us vs them" behavior on both sides, the "with us or against us", the cyber arms race, the fight between radical approaches, both caricatured to the extreme, unfortunately prevent a more balanced, cautious, and respectful approach that enables joint management of the new commons, rather than attempts to carve out territories in cyberspace. Some thinking is needed to find better formulations. And citizens' interests in all regions need to be the starting point. Civil society has a responsibility in there. Let's avoid being held hostage to the extreme views from both sides. B. On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Kettemann, Matthias ( matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > Dear Parminder, **** > > ** ** > > The right of states to have no other state interfere with their access to > the Internet is, in my view, not conditional upon an international treaty > but rather, as I’ve argued in the mail you quoted from, in the process of > crystallizing into a customary norm. Treaties can be evidence of such a > crystallization, but they are not necessary for the process. Not signing a > treaty than contains many different provisions cannot be used as an > argument against any one single norm’s customary character. Further > evidence, such as clear statements by states evidencing opinio iuris, is > needed. **** > > ** ** > > The dynamics in Dubai illustrate that we are now at a point where two > different conceptions of the normative order applicable to the Internet > clash. Simple dichotomies (freedom vs. control, private sector-orientation > vs. sovereignity-orientation) are more misleading than helpful. **** > > ** ** > > The danger I see lies rather in what the Economist termed a potential > “digital Cold War”. History tells us that the last Cold War didn’t lead to > decades of cooperative law-making on the international plane, but rather > conflict, divisions and standstill. **** > > ** ** > > Yet at the height of the Cold War leaders agreed, within the framework of > the CSCE, on the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 which laid down essential > commitments regarding political and military cooperation and human rights > issues, including the Helsinki Decalogue, the “Declaration on [10] > Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States” ( > http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true). **** > > ** ** > > So what do we need now: We need a Helsinki Decalogue for the Internet that > can guide relation between all stakeholders in the Internet. If Russia and > the US were able to agree in 1975 on the prohibition of the use of force, > non-intervention, respect for human rights and fulfillment in good faith of > obligations under international law, they should be able to agree, in near > future, on Internet Governance principles reflecting these international > legal principles.**** > > ** ** > > The Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on Internet governance > principles (https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773) provides a first > template; and the IRP’s 0 Rights and Principles (http://irpcharter.org) > exemplify a human rights-oriented approach. **** > > ** ** > > It’s there that we should look, rather than to feel sorry that Dubai > didn’t work out.**** > > ** ** > > Kind regards**** > > Matthias**** > > ** ** > > --**** > > ** ** > > Dr Matthias C. Kettemann, LLM (Harvard)**** > > Institute of International Law and International Relations**** > > University of Graz, Austria**** > > T | +43 316 380 6711 **** > > E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at**** > > Blog | Twitter| > Facebook | Google+ > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *Von:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder > *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012 15:17 > *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de la Chapelle > *Betreff:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new > approach to Internet governance!**** > > ** ** > > > Dear Bertrand/ Others > > **** > > On Wednesday 12 December 2012 01:43 AM, bdelachapelle at gmail.com wrote:**** > > Dear Matthias,**** > > ** ** > > I agree with your thesis. **** > > > Which I understand, to quote Matthias' email, is about**** > > "...crystallization of the application of the international customary law > norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the > stability and functionality of the Internet can by now be clearly > considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by > international law. States that violate this common obligation engage their > international responsibility."**** > > Now what have you all to say about the US and its allies walking out of > the WCIT on the point of refusing to sign on preambular language that > simply "recognize(s) the right of access of Member States to international > telecommunication services". > > This point above seems central to all the discussions here on what is > being called as 'a new approach to Internet governance'. > > Wonder, why the US is able to get away with such monstrosities, and civil > society choses to look the other way when they happen. Nay, people have in > fact been defending US's position of not signing the above text on this > list and other CS forums..... One wonders what is happening!!! > > parminder > > > > **** > > ** ** > -- ____________________ 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 Tue Dec 18 10:15:07 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:15:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: <50D07018.2060701@panamo.eu> References: <50CEEFF4.1040601@panamo.eu> <50D07018.2060701@panamo.eu> Message-ID: Dominique, On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Hi, > > The third part deals with the price of interconnection in Africa. Which has some misinformation in both Q' and A's. "DL : Africa is now surrounded by several submarine cables. And yet, Internet does is not take off. It is in the case mentioned, where the Africans pay dearly to the countries of the North's access to the Internet. What is going on?" Africans actually pay dearly to African ISPs. A very small portion of these subscriber fee is for Internet transit. It used to be a larger portion, as back in the day, we would pay 5000 USD per megabit per second to vsat providers, now we pay 50 usd per Mbps/month. In markets with greater scale, the wholesale price is closer to 5 USD per Mbps/month. We will get there, but first the CAPEX of the submarine cable needs to be paid. Having said that the greatest cost to African Internet subscribers by far is for last (and middle) mile costs....Again, the meme that South pays North is grossly over-exaggerated in the context of what is expensive in African Internet costs. In addition, it is NOT the case that Verisign can unilaterally remove a country from the root zone. Nor can they deny a country access to the root zone data. It is just not physically or technically possible. Propagating 10 year old paradigms and myths that were never true is just not helpful! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > The return of political matters is normal and must not be hidden. > And the conclusion proposes the creation of a new agency organizing > improvements and cooperation of ICANN and ITU. > > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/18/strategies-en-haute-mer/ > > @+, cheers, Dominique > > > Le 17/12/12 11:12, Dominique Lacroix a écrit : > > Hi, > For those who can read French or a translator, Kavé Salamatian proposes > interesting interpretations of WCIT issues and prospects : > > Le cyberespace et ses Indiens : > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/16/le-cyberespace-et-ses-indiens/ > Jeux de coopération au Bazar : > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/17/jeux-de-cooperation-au-bazar/ > > @+, best, 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 > -- 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Dec 18 10:23:25 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:23:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: <50CEEFF4.1040601@panamo.eu> References: <50CEEFF4.1040601@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <1225925042.67369.1355844205994.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k36> Thanks Dominique   for taking us back to some fundamentals that the most of the authors of the posts on this list have either forgotten or even ignored until now. Kave Salamatian has raised the very concrete questions and suggested relevant rationales and solutions. Therefore, my best thanks to him. I'd be happy to exchange some thoughts and reflections with him particularly in the frame of specific African issues.   I'll try to get in touch with both of you by a separate and personal mail.   Best regards   Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 17/12/12 11:12 > De : "Dominique Lacroix" > A : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects > >Hi, > For those who can read French or a translator, Kavé Salamatian proposes interesting interpretations of WCIT issues and prospects : > > Le cyberespace et ses Indiens : http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/16/le-cyberespace-et-ses-indiens/ > Jeux de coopération au Bazar : http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/12/17/jeux-de-cooperation-au-bazar/ > > @+, best, 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 18 10:24:01 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:24:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] map of IXPs Message-ID: http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/12/a-map-of-the-entire-internet/ "Plotted on TeleGeography’s Internet Exchange Map are the buildings that connect the cables of the whole ‘net. It’s a really good picture of what the infrastructure of the entire internet looks like. The map gives information on 274 internet exchanges and 512 buildings." -- 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 avri at Ella.com Tue Dec 18 10:25:29 2012 From: avri at Ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:25:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Message-ID: But, if it really is a digital cold war, saying that it isn't, can be just as self defeating. Let's analyze before deciding which it is. Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >I anticipate a great journalistic attraction for the meme "a Digital Cold >War". > >It is an abusive oversimplification and worse, it presents a big risk of a >self-fulfilling prophecy if people begin to think in that framework. The >"us vs them" behavior on both sides, the "with us or against us", the cyber >arms race, the fight between radical approaches, both caricatured to the >extreme, unfortunately prevent a more balanced, cautious, and respectful >approach that enables joint management of the new commons, rather than >attempts to carve out territories in cyberspace. > >Some thinking is needed to find better formulations. And citizens' >interests in all regions need to be the starting point. Civil society has a >responsibility in there. Let's avoid being held hostage to the extreme >views from both sides. > >B. > > > > >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Kettemann, Matthias ( >matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > >> Dear Parminder, **** >> >> ** ** >> >> The right of states to have no other state interfere with their access to >> the Internet is, in my view, not conditional upon an international treaty >> but rather, as I’ve argued in the mail you quoted from, in the process of >> crystallizing into a customary norm. Treaties can be evidence of such a >> crystallization, but they are not necessary for the process. Not signing a >> treaty than contains many different provisions cannot be used as an >> argument against any one single norm’s customary character. Further >> evidence, such as clear statements by states evidencing opinio iuris, is >> needed. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> The dynamics in Dubai illustrate that we are now at a point where two >> different conceptions of the normative order applicable to the Internet >> clash. Simple dichotomies (freedom vs. control, private sector-orientation >> vs. sovereignity-orientation) are more misleading than helpful. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> The danger I see lies rather in what the Economist termed a potential >> “digital Cold War”. History tells us that the last Cold War didn’t lead to >> decades of cooperative law-making on the international plane, but rather >> conflict, divisions and standstill. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Yet at the height of the Cold War leaders agreed, within the framework of >> the CSCE, on the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 which laid down essential >> commitments regarding political and military cooperation and human rights >> issues, including the Helsinki Decalogue, the “Declaration on [10] >> Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States” ( >> http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true). **** >> >> ** ** >> >> So what do we need now: We need a Helsinki Decalogue for the Internet that >> can guide relation between all stakeholders in the Internet. If Russia and >> the US were able to agree in 1975 on the prohibition of the use of force, >> non-intervention, respect for human rights and fulfillment in good faith of >> obligations under international law, they should be able to agree, in near >> future, on Internet Governance principles reflecting these international >> legal principles.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on Internet governance >> principles (https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773) provides a first >> template; and the IRP’s 0 Rights and Principles (http://irpcharter.org) >> exemplify a human rights-oriented approach. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> It’s there that we should look, rather than to feel sorry that Dubai >> didn’t work out.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Kind regards**** >> >> Matthias**** >> >> ** ** >> >> --**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Dr Matthias C. Kettemann, LLM (Harvard)**** >> >> Institute of International Law and International Relations**** >> >> University of Graz, Austria**** >> >> T | +43 316 380 6711 **** >> >> E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at**** >> >> Blog | Twitter| >> Facebook | Google+ >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *Von:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder >> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012 15:17 >> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de la Chapelle >> *Betreff:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new >> approach to Internet governance!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> Dear Bertrand/ Others >> >> **** >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 01:43 AM, bdelachapelle at gmail.com wrote:**** >> >> Dear Matthias,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I agree with your thesis. **** >> >> >> Which I understand, to quote Matthias' email, is about**** >> >> "...crystallization of the application of the international customary law >> norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the >> stability and functionality of the Internet can by now be clearly >> considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by >> international law. States that violate this common obligation engage their >> international responsibility."**** >> >> Now what have you all to say about the US and its allies walking out of >> the WCIT on the point of refusing to sign on preambular language that >> simply "recognize(s) the right of access of Member States to international >> telecommunication services". >> >> This point above seems central to all the discussions here on what is >> being called as 'a new approach to Internet governance'. >> >> Wonder, why the US is able to get away with such monstrosities, and civil >> society choses to look the other way when they happen. Nay, people have in >> fact been defending US's position of not signing the above text on this >> list and other CS forums..... One wonders what is happening!!! >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> > > > >-- >____________________ >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 suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 18 10:30:48 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:00:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is currently a rather petty fight of the sort that is playing out in the UN across the board. Hardly confined to cyber anything at all. So, a quasi Cold War probably, with maybe far less James bonds than elderly diplomats in dark suits. --srs (iPad) On 18-Dec-2012, at 20:55, Avri Doria wrote: > But, if it really is a digital cold war, saying that it isn't, can be just as self defeating. > > Let's analyze before deciding which it is. > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> I anticipate a great journalistic attraction for the meme "a Digital Cold >> War". >> >> It is an abusive oversimplification and worse, it presents a big risk of a >> self-fulfilling prophecy if people begin to think in that framework. The >> "us vs them" behavior on both sides, the "with us or against us", the cyber >> arms race, the fight between radical approaches, both caricatured to the >> extreme, unfortunately prevent a more balanced, cautious, and respectful >> approach that enables joint management of the new commons, rather than >> attempts to carve out territories in cyberspace. >> >> Some thinking is needed to find better formulations. And citizens' >> interests in all regions need to be the starting point. Civil society has a >> responsibility in there. Let's avoid being held hostage to the extreme >> views from both sides. >> >> B. >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Kettemann, Matthias ( >> matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: >> >>> Dear Parminder, **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> The right of states to have no other state interfere with their access to >>> the Internet is, in my view, not conditional upon an international treaty >>> but rather, as I’ve argued in the mail you quoted from, in the process of >>> crystallizing into a customary norm. Treaties can be evidence of such a >>> crystallization, but they are not necessary for the process. Not signing a >>> treaty than contains many different provisions cannot be used as an >>> argument against any one single norm’s customary character. Further >>> evidence, such as clear statements by states evidencing opinio iuris, is >>> needed. **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> The dynamics in Dubai illustrate that we are now at a point where two >>> different conceptions of the normative order applicable to the Internet >>> clash. Simple dichotomies (freedom vs. control, private sector-orientation >>> vs. sovereignity-orientation) are more misleading than helpful. **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> The danger I see lies rather in what the Economist termed a potential >>> “digital Cold War”. History tells us that the last Cold War didn’t lead to >>> decades of cooperative law-making on the international plane, but rather >>> conflict, divisions and standstill. **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Yet at the height of the Cold War leaders agreed, within the framework of >>> the CSCE, on the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 which laid down essential >>> commitments regarding political and military cooperation and human rights >>> issues, including the Helsinki Decalogue, the “Declaration on [10] >>> Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States” ( >>> http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true). **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> So what do we need now: We need a Helsinki Decalogue for the Internet that >>> can guide relation between all stakeholders in the Internet. If Russia and >>> the US were able to agree in 1975 on the prohibition of the use of force, >>> non-intervention, respect for human rights and fulfillment in good faith of >>> obligations under international law, they should be able to agree, in near >>> future, on Internet Governance principles reflecting these international >>> legal principles.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> The Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on Internet governance >>> principles (https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773) provides a first >>> template; and the IRP’s 0 Rights and Principles (http://irpcharter.org) >>> exemplify a human rights-oriented approach. **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> It’s there that we should look, rather than to feel sorry that Dubai >>> didn’t work out.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Kind regards**** >>> >>> Matthias**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> --**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Dr Matthias C. Kettemann, LLM (Harvard)**** >>> >>> Institute of International Law and International Relations**** >>> >>> University of Graz, Austria**** >>> >>> T | +43 316 380 6711 **** >>> >>> E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at**** >>> >>> Blog | Twitter| >>> Facebook | Google+ >>> **** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *Von:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >>> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder >>> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012 15:17 >>> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de la Chapelle >>> *Betreff:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new >>> approach to Internet governance!**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> >>> Dear Bertrand/ Others >>> >>> **** >>> >>> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 01:43 AM, bdelachapelle at gmail.com wrote:**** >>> >>> Dear Matthias,**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> I agree with your thesis. **** >>> >>> >>> Which I understand, to quote Matthias' email, is about**** >>> >>> "...crystallization of the application of the international customary law >>> norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the >>> stability and functionality of the Internet can by now be clearly >>> considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by >>> international law. States that violate this common obligation engage their >>> international responsibility."**** >>> >>> Now what have you all to say about the US and its allies walking out of >>> the WCIT on the point of refusing to sign on preambular language that >>> simply "recognize(s) the right of access of Member States to international >>> telecommunication services". >>> >>> This point above seems central to all the discussions here on what is >>> being called as 'a new approach to Internet governance'. >>> >>> Wonder, why the US is able to get away with such monstrosities, and civil >>> society choses to look the other way when they happen. Nay, people have in >>> fact been defending US's position of not signing the above text on this >>> list and other CS forums..... One wonders what is happening!!! >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> **** >>> >>> ** ** >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Tue Dec 18 10:36:58 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:36:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: References: <50CEEFF4.1040601@panamo.eu> <50D07018.2060701@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <50D08D9A.8010009@panamo.eu> OK, McTim, I take care of your objections. I'm only the interviewer. I'll discuss your arguments with the author, who is quite an expert, especially in routing, in order to find where could be misunderstandings. About Verisign, I agree that it's a short expression for an actual reality: US gov COULD cut DNS access to any country in the world. Verisign would just execute orders. I'm one of the best defenders of the idea that US Gov NEVER DID - in that way with DNS. But you could consider that in a diplomatic assembly devoted to discuss peacefully the power relations, such an asymetric situation cannot be sustainable. Especially as US Gov DID cut access by other means... I'll follow that point, not surely very quickly, but surely. @+, cheers, Dom -- 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 18/12/12 16:15, McTim a écrit : > Dominique, > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> Hi, >> >> The third part deals with the price of interconnection in Africa. > > Which has some misinformation in both Q' and A's. > > "DL : Africa is now surrounded by several submarine cables. And yet, > Internet does is not take off. It is in the case mentioned, where the > Africans pay dearly to the countries of the North's access to the > Internet. What is going on?" > > Africans actually pay dearly to African ISPs. A very small portion of > these subscriber fee is for Internet transit. > > It used to be a larger portion, as back in the day, we would pay 5000 > USD per megabit per second to vsat providers, now we pay 50 usd per > Mbps/month. > > In markets with greater scale, the wholesale price is closer to 5 USD > per Mbps/month. We will get there, but first the CAPEX of the > submarine cable needs to be paid. > > Having said that the greatest cost to African Internet subscribers by > far is for last (and middle) mile costs....Again, the meme that South > pays North is grossly over-exaggerated in the context of what is > expensive in African Internet costs. > > In addition, it is NOT the case that Verisign can unilaterally remove > a country from the root zone. Nor can they deny a country access to > the root zone data. It is just not physically or technically > possible. > > Propagating 10 year old paradigms and myths that were never true is > just not helpful! > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 18 10:46:25 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:46:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: <50D08D9A.8010009@panamo.eu> References: <50CEEFF4.1040601@panamo.eu> <50D07018.2060701@panamo.eu> <50D08D9A.8010009@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > OK, McTim, I take care of your objections. > I'm only the interviewer. right and the premise to your first question was informed by a paradigm that is no longer true! > > I'll discuss your arguments with the author, who is quite an expert, > especially in routing, in order to find where could be misunderstandings. > > About Verisign, I agree that it's a short expression for an actual reality: > US gov COULD cut DNS access to any country in the world. Verisign would just > execute orders. Please explain how this is technically possible. To my knowledge, it is not (and I have worked for 2 root-server operators). Are you talking about removing a ccTLD from the root zone? Are you talking about Verisign dropping queries from IP address blocks to the 2 root servers they operate? While the first is not possible for the USG to accomplish, the second is technically possible, but doesn't mean that a nation state would be denied access to the DNS root from all root servers. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 10:49:00 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:49:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] UNGA In-Reply-To: <50D04104.6030704@itforchange.net> References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <50D02071.5070608@apc.org> <50D04104.6030704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Adam and all, Still sadly noting that the WG to be set up on enhanced cooperation will have other stakeholders as "invitees", not full participants. *21. Requests the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to ensure that the working group on enhanced cooperation has balanced representation between Governments from the five regional groups of the Commission, and invitees from all other stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society, technical and academic communities, and intergovernmental and international organizations, drawn equally from developing and developed countries;* This unfortunately is a direct legacy of the mistakes made during the formation of the first WG on IGF improvements, and still a strong setback from the format of the WGIG where non-governmental stakeholders were full members. Here is the text of the Geneva Declaration of Principles for the WGIG: *We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, on the governance of Internet by 2005. (emphasis added)* The formulation this year is even less positive than the one used for the setting up of the WG on IGF improvements in 2010 (that tried to make reference to the text that created the WGIG): “invite the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to establish, *in an open and inclusive manner*, a working group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda,(...)". (emphasis added) At the risk of repeating myself (from what I unsuccessfully raised at the formation of the WG on IGF Improvements), the resolution asks the *Chair*of the CSTD to form a group. This is NOT a WG of the CSTD. This means there are no pre-established rules of procedure: the Chair of the CSTD and the Chair of the WG should have as much latitude to set up an open and balanced format as the Secretary General of the UN and the Chair of the WGIG had in 2004. *Who will be the Chair of the WG will therefore be extremely important* (as we witnessed for the WG on IGF improvements). It would be useful for this list to think not only about how to designate CS representatives, but also what operating principles and working methods could ensure this WG to function correctly. This may include conditions for CS participation. A more general comment: As we approach the 10-year review of the WSIS that will take place in 2015, it is saddening to see that the innovative modalities that were possible in 2004 are not even available any more. Instead of progress, we have witnessed some kind of backlash. Making sure that the 2015 WSIS+10 review will not be less participatory than the 2005 Summit is therefore an important issue to keep in mind. The resolution adopted last week in the UNGA confirms that the modalities of the WSIS+10 will be decided in the UNGA at the end of 2013 (see para 11). The upcoming WSIS+10 consultations at Unesco in February will be a good opportunity to raise the issue of the format of the 2015 review. Best Bertrand On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, parminder wrote: > > Adam > > the one attached to your email was the G 77 proposed text, not the final > version > > final version is attached.. > > parminder > > On Tuesday 18 December 2012 02:51 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > > I sent the wrong attachment. The Nov 9 version was draft. Final > version attached. Important, the final version is a *great* > improvement. > > Adam > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > Dear all > > It would be very good to have civil society participants at the Peru CSTD > intersessional. Business will be represented. Not sure about tech > community. But there is no doubt that they will begin to talk about > membership and working modalities. > > I suggest that we: > > - send a written submission > - try to get someone there from CS > > Remember that any CS entity accredited to WSIS can attend CSTD meetings. > > Anyone able to go? > > Anriette > > > On 16/12/2012 22:20, Adam Peake wrote: > > Hi Wolfgang, here > > Better than the earlier drafts, so perhaps lobbying works. Good. > > The first CSTD meeting will be in Peru, 07-09 January 2013 But > that it too early to begin substantive discussion, modalities and > membership? (I'm interested this time around) > > Adam > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Dec 18 10:42:41 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 16:42:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] The WCIT End: Good or Bad? References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <50C77D88.7050108@uni-graz.at> <95E1EF0F-6876-44DA-8CD6-87DAC2EF65D4@gmail.com> <50D07AC5.5030201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD7BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Bertrand: In any case, this is an outcome with no winners, rather a lose-lose-lose result given the amount of energy devoted to this. Wolfgang: I am not sure whether I could this subscribe. WCIT didn´t change anything and it is also not a "missed opportunity". The world can live with the old ITRs and countries which will ratify the Dubai Treaty will use the new ITRs after 2015. This is good for issue like maritime communication, communication for disabled etc., but does not affect fundamentally neither international telecommunication nor the Internet. Dubai was a shadow boxing, it was a political test, the opening of a new debate on a higher level on the future of the Internet. Insofar Dubai was a good opportunity to get a better picture what is going on and where we will go in the years ahead. Here are my positive elements: 1. WCIT helped to push Internet Governance to a higher level in the political agenda. It is now a key issue as climate change, financial crises etc. This will help to strengthen IGF, the role of the UNCSTD EC WG and the WSIS 10+ process. And it will go to G8 and G 20 meetings. 2. WCIT has helped to clarify the situation - at least among governments - who is where. We know now that there are two opposing concepts (the concept of national Internet segment and cybersovereignty/top down/ on the one hand and the concept of multistakeholder governance /bottom up/ on the other hand). It seems to me that efforts to bridge this conceptual gap is nearly impossible. This is a cold war scenario, however, even the cold war had different phases and included the Helsinki-process (as Matthias has us remembered recently). The traditional intergovernmental mechanism / treaty system has reached its limits and is unable to deliver what is needed to handle global problems.So the failure of an intergovernmental treaty making in Dubai should be seen as an encouragement to work towards an universal multistakeholder Framework of Commitments. 3. WCIT has helped to understand that the so-called "swing states" (Brazil, India, Egypt, Kenia, Ghana etc.) will play a greater role. The interesting thing here is that developing countries with no or little CS involvement followed more or less Doc. 47-E while countries which had not only traditional PTT ministries in their delegations took a rather different approach. In all those countries we will see a growing national debate on how to position itself in the global dispute. As Indian´s minister Sibal has said in Baku: We (India) are for a free and open Internet, but we are want the respect of our Indian culture and its citizens and we are working for businesses headquartered in India. This will produce on the global level a number of interesting rainbow coalitions. 4. WCIT has strengthened the role of civil society. Probably CS is the big winner of WCIT. It was well organized and played a crucial role in a number of delegations. Toure reserved 90 minutes for a dialogue with CS. Other governments did reach out to CS. It will be difficult for the ITU (and other IGOs) to go backwards. This is a big challenge for CS. Better access and broader recognition brings along more duties and higher responsibility. Will it be possible to revive the CS Plenary/Content & Themes from WSIS (2002 - 2005) in the forthcoming WSIS 10+ process? And can the IGC play a key coordination role? So my summary is: Good news from Dubai, but a long way ahead of us. We know now better what works and what does not work and we have a clearer understanding of the various opposing concepts and positions of the various camps. Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dl at panamo.eu Tue Dec 18 11:07:04 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:07:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: References: <50CEEFF4.1040601@panamo.eu> <50D07018.2060701@panamo.eu> <50D08D9A.8010009@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <50D094A8.7080300@panamo.eu> Do you agree with that drawing of the management of the root file? http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/09/02/controle-internet/ @+, Dom Le 18/12/12 16:46, McTim a écrit : > About Verisign, I agree that it's a short expression for an actual reality: > US gov COULD cut DNS access to any country in the world. Verisign would just > execute orders. > > Please explain how this is technically possible. To my knowledge, it > is not (and I have worked for 2 root-server operators). > > Are you talking about removing a ccTLD from the root zone? > > Are you talking about Verisign dropping queries from IP address blocks > to the 2 root servers they operate? > > While the first is not possible for the USG to accomplish, the second > is technically possible, but > doesn't mean that a nation state would be denied access to the DNS > root from all root servers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Tue Dec 18 11:20:33 2012 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:20:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Avri, I see your point. Let me rephrase somewhat to explain what I meant: - the current meme is going like: "this is a Digital Cold War", and the natural follow-up is: "Whose side are you on?" (remember Matt Bianco'ssong? :-), forcing people into a sterile black-and-white alternative - my formulation would be: "how can we prevent this from becoming a Digital Cold War", and this leads to: "how do we manage commons"? and "how to handle shared responsibilities". I believe this is more likely to lead to constructive solutions. I know the human brain likes simple dichotomies. It has even been an evolutionary survival competence. But tens of millions of dead people throughout history show what it can lead to in complex societies when it gets out of control. I consciously and voluntarily try not to fall in that trap in the case of Internet governance. And now is a moment to be aware of this, as we assess the outcome of WCIT and its consequences for future debates. We (the people of the world) have the power to frame description of situations and objectives in a way that helps solve issues. If we do not do it consciously, we become all prisoners of the power of words, hostages of the most radical among us and lose control of our collective destiny. My two cents. B. On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > But, if it really is a digital cold war, saying that it isn't, can be just > as self defeating. > > Let's analyze before deciding which it is. > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > >I anticipate a great journalistic attraction for the meme "a Digital Cold > >War". > > > >It is an abusive oversimplification and worse, it presents a big risk of a > >self-fulfilling prophecy if people begin to think in that framework. The > >"us vs them" behavior on both sides, the "with us or against us", the > cyber > >arms race, the fight between radical approaches, both caricatured to the > >extreme, unfortunately prevent a more balanced, cautious, and respectful > >approach that enables joint management of the new commons, rather than > >attempts to carve out territories in cyberspace. > > > >Some thinking is needed to find better formulations. And citizens' > >interests in all regions need to be the starting point. Civil society has > a > >responsibility in there. Let's avoid being held hostage to the extreme > >views from both sides. > > > >B. > > > > > > > > > >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Kettemann, Matthias ( > >matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > > > >> Dear Parminder, **** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> The right of states to have no other state interfere with their access > to > >> the Internet is, in my view, not conditional upon an international > treaty > >> but rather, as I’ve argued in the mail you quoted from, in the process > of > >> crystallizing into a customary norm. Treaties can be evidence of such a > >> crystallization, but they are not necessary for the process. Not > signing a > >> treaty than contains many different provisions cannot be used as an > >> argument against any one single norm’s customary character. Further > >> evidence, such as clear statements by states evidencing opinio iuris, is > >> needed. **** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> The dynamics in Dubai illustrate that we are now at a point where two > >> different conceptions of the normative order applicable to the Internet > >> clash. Simple dichotomies (freedom vs. control, private > sector-orientation > >> vs. sovereignity-orientation) are more misleading than helpful. **** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> The danger I see lies rather in what the Economist termed a potential > >> “digital Cold War”. History tells us that the last Cold War didn’t lead > to > >> decades of cooperative law-making on the international plane, but rather > >> conflict, divisions and standstill. **** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> Yet at the height of the Cold War leaders agreed, within the framework > of > >> the CSCE, on the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 which laid down essential > >> commitments regarding political and military cooperation and human > rights > >> issues, including the Helsinki Decalogue, the “Declaration on [10] > >> Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States” ( > >> http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true). **** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> So what do we need now: We need a Helsinki Decalogue for the Internet > that > >> can guide relation between all stakeholders in the Internet. If Russia > and > >> the US were able to agree in 1975 on the prohibition of the use of > force, > >> non-intervention, respect for human rights and fulfillment in good > faith of > >> obligations under international law, they should be able to agree, in > near > >> future, on Internet Governance principles reflecting these international > >> legal principles.**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> The Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on Internet governance > >> principles (https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773) provides a > first > >> template; and the IRP’s 0 Rights and Principles (http://irpcharter.org) > >> exemplify a human rights-oriented approach. **** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> It’s there that we should look, rather than to feel sorry that Dubai > >> didn’t work out.**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> Kind regards**** > >> > >> Matthias**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> --**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> Dr Matthias C. Kettemann, LLM (Harvard)**** > >> > >> Institute of International Law and International Relations**** > >> > >> University of Graz, Austria**** > >> > >> T | +43 316 380 6711 **** > >> > >> E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at**** > >> > >> Blog | Twitter< > http://twitter.com/#%21/MCKettemann>| > >> Facebook | Google+< > https://plus.google.com/u/0/116310540881122884114/posts> > >> **** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> *Von:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder > >> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012 15:17 > >> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de la Chapelle > >> *Betreff:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new > >> approach to Internet governance!**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> > >> Dear Bertrand/ Others > >> > >> **** > >> > >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 01:43 AM, bdelachapelle at gmail.comwrote:**** > >> > >> Dear Matthias,**** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > >> I agree with your thesis. **** > >> > >> > >> Which I understand, to quote Matthias' email, is about**** > >> > >> "...crystallization of the application of the international customary > law > >> norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the > >> stability and functionality of the Internet can by now be clearly > >> considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by > >> international law. States that violate this common obligation engage > their > >> international responsibility."**** > >> > >> Now what have you all to say about the US and its allies walking out of > >> the WCIT on the point of refusing to sign on preambular language that > >> simply "recognize(s) the right of access of Member States to > international > >> telecommunication services". > >> > >> This point above seems central to all the discussions here on what is > >> being called as 'a new approach to Internet governance'. > >> > >> Wonder, why the US is able to get away with such monstrosities, and > civil > >> society choses to look the other way when they happen. Nay, people have > in > >> fact been defending US's position of not signing the above text on this > >> list and other CS forums..... One wonders what is happening!!! > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> > >> > >> **** > >> > >> ** ** > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >____________________ > >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 > -- ____________________ 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 dl at panamo.eu Tue Dec 18 11:23:55 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:23:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50D0989B.5090701@panamo.eu> Le 18/12/12 17:20, Bertrand de La Chapelle a écrit : > "how do we manage commons"? and "how to handle shared responsibilities". +1 @+, Dom -- 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 drc at virtualized.org Tue Dec 18 11:28:06 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 08:28:06 -0800 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: <50D094A8.7080300@panamo.eu> References: <50CEEFF4.1040601@panamo.eu> <50D07018.2060701@panamo.eu> <50D08D9A.8010009@panamo.eu> <50D094A8.7080300@panamo.eu> Message-ID: Dominique, We've been over this before. It is simply not possible for the US government to _unilaterally_ remove DNS access to a country. The most the US government could do would be to direct its contractors to remove the ccTLD's records from the root zone. That inappropriately modified root zone must then be pulled from the Verisign distribution server and installed on the root servers around the world. Since the root server operators are independent, whether they accept a root zone that has been modified inappropriately is each their own decision (and several have gone on record claiming the "value add" they bring and why there can be no single body to which they are accountable is precisely to act as this check and balance). If the US government were to undertake such an action, it would immediately and irrevocably lead to a Internet-wide governance crisis in which the current mechanisms by which the root is maintained would undoubtedly be the first victim. It would not result in the country's DNS access removed, but would, instead, be _much_ more likely to remove the US government from its role in root maintenance. Regards, -drc On Dec 18, 2012, at 8:07 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Do you agree with that drawing of the management of the root file? > > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/09/02/controle-internet/ > > @+, Dom > > > Le 18/12/12 16:46, McTim a écrit : >> About Verisign, I agree that it's a short expression for an actual reality: >> US gov COULD cut DNS access to any country in the world. Verisign would just >> execute orders. >> >> Please explain how this is technically possible. To my knowledge, it >> is not (and I have worked for 2 root-server operators). >> >> Are you talking about removing a ccTLD from the root zone? >> >> Are you talking about Verisign dropping queries from IP address blocks >> to the 2 root servers they operate? >> >> While the first is not possible for the USG to accomplish, the second >> is technically possible, but >> doesn't mean that a nation state would be denied access to the DNS >> root from all root servers. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 11:39:33 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 11:39:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: <50D094A8.7080300@panamo.eu> References: <50CEEFF4.1040601@panamo.eu> <50D07018.2060701@panamo.eu> <50D08D9A.8010009@panamo.eu> <50D094A8.7080300@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Do you agree with that drawing of the management of the root file? > > http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/09/02/controle-internet/ It doesn't take into account the complexity of the process, nor does the process imply "controle-internet". See DRC's post downthread for more. -- 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 dl at panamo.eu Tue Dec 18 11:43:05 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:43:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: References: <50CEEFF4.1040601@panamo.eu> <50D07018.2060701@panamo.eu> <50D08D9A.8010009@panamo.eu> <50D094A8.7080300@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <50D09D19.1000108@panamo.eu> Le 18/12/12 17:28, David Conrad a écrit : > The most the US government could do would be to direct its contractors > to remove the ccTLD's records from the root zone. Yes, that's what I meant, and so the author in the article we're commenting. And the operating contractor IS Verisign. Return to the starting point. So you confirm that, even being a bad move provoking a crisis, it could be possible. That's exactly why it's an asymetric situation unesasy to be accepted by a lot of countries in the world. Could we imagine another process? not necessarily with a plenary UN assembly ;-) @+, best, Dom -- 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 dl at panamo.eu Tue Dec 18 12:05:10 2012 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:05:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: References: <50CEEFF4.1040601@panamo.eu> <50D07018.2060701@panamo.eu> <50D08D9A.8010009@panamo.eu> <50D094A8.7080300@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <50D0A246.3030503@panamo.eu> Whatever complexe the process could be, IT MUST exist ONE originary zone file. That is, then, duplicated. This cannot be perceived as a secure situation by other countries. Just imagine one second what the US Gov could feel and say if they were in that situation to be managed by another country! I'm never tired discussing with you and David about this subject, but just for now, I'm obliged to stop for a while. See you soon ;-) @+, Dom Le 18/12/12 17:39, McTim a écrit : > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> Do you agree with that drawing of the management of the root file? >> >> http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/09/02/controle-internet/ > It doesn't take into account the complexity of the process, nor does > the process imply "controle-internet". > > See DRC's post downthread for more. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 18 12:06:59 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:06:59 -0800 Subject: [governance] Values vs. Interests in IG Message-ID: <039201cddd42$1833a430$489aec90$@gmail.com> I think now that the smoke from Dubai is starting to clear a little, perhaps it would be a good idea for some of the fog to lift as well. It seems to me that basic to some of the broad base of confusion(s) which seemingly were at play in Dubai (and certainly were pervasive for those who weren't there on the ground) is a fundamental (and to a very considerable degree--manufactured) confusion between "interests" and "values". The quote (variously attributed to von Clausewitz, Palmerston and Anon) that "States don't have friends, they have interests", probably should be updated in the context of a (Facebook et al) broad redefinition of the nature of "friends"--to the phrase "States don't have values, they have interests".. To me, that pretty much sums up the posing and play acting that went on in Dubai and particularly frames a useful (i.e. fog free) understanding of the outcome. Clearly (to my mind at least) the US and others in the (Internet) Freedom League were promoting fairly specific commercial/national "interests" (security, trade, capital and revenue flows, profits, tax regimes etc.etc.) under the broad guise of Internet Freedom/Hands off the Internet. To my mind nothing particularly surprising about that (the obverse at least for me would have been the surprise). Equally of course, the guys in the black hats on the other side were pursuing national "interests" --security, trade, capital and revenue flows, profits, tax regimes etc.etc.--but as seen by and supportive of their team/errr side/errr coalition of the signers... nothing surprising about this either, and again one would be surprised if it wasn't thus. However, what is surprising is the way in which the (Internet) Freedom League was able to frame the discussion (they have been reading their Lakoff) so decisively as being one of (their) "good" values vs. the others "bad" interests! Where this gets even more surprising and foggy is why the technical community and civil society chose to take sides in this arena rather than siding for the Internet (and the "values" that both, but particularly the technical community so vigourly and widely have been espousing). Rather than for example, arguing for the Internet as a global public good and for the development of arrangements and mechanisms to ensure the continuity and development of the Internet in the global public interest, for whatever reason they (both the technical community and CS) chose to get lost in the fog of battle and accept the public declarations of the purity of the "values" of one side, over the rather inept if rather more honest declarations of "Interests" (in WCIT outcomes and ultimately in the operation of the Internet) by the other side. (The role of the ITU in all this as a slightly disingenuous "honest broker" is to my mind largely beside the point in this follow on discussion.) But now that the smoke is clearing and hopefully for some at least, the fog is lifting there is now a very significant role for the technical community and CS (in their respective roles and hopefully as a united coalition of coalitions) to articulate and lead the fight for a vision of how the Internet can function as a global public good (as opposed to a battlefield of multiple private interests) and what the governance structure (or process) for such a beast might look like. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 18 12:11:42 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 12:11:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: <50D09D19.1000108@panamo.eu> References: <50CEEFF4.1040601@panamo.eu> <50D07018.2060701@panamo.eu> <50D08D9A.8010009@panamo.eu> <50D094A8.7080300@panamo.eu> <50D09D19.1000108@panamo.eu> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Le 18/12/12 17:28, David Conrad a écrit : > > The most the US government could do would be to direct its contractors to > remove the ccTLD's records from the root zone. > > Yes, that's what I meant, and so the author in the article we're commenting. > > And the operating contractor IS Verisign. Return to the starting point. > > So you confirm that, even being a bad move provoking a crisis, it could be > possible. > That's exactly why it's an asymetric situation unesasy to be accepted by a > lot of countries in the world. I think we are mostly on the same page. Where we diverge is that you think that nation states should have some say in this process, whereas I do not. > Could we imagine another process? not necessarily with a plenary UN assembly I think it is problematic that one nation state has a say, (and I think you agree). Your solution adds more nation states, while my ideal solution would remove all. of them. -- 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Dec 18 12:48:11 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:48:11 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Embedded CS In-Reply-To: <008e01cddc3f$d2d70650$788512f0$@gmail.com> References: <1800981407.636333.1355612778287.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> <4C4A9EDD-1200-451C-A449-DAA565688BE4@ella.com> <082401cddbf2$15539460$3ffabd20$@gmail.com> <721C2CD5-9277-4D91-A717-6B75356FA9C9@hserus.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD793@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <008e01cddc3f$d2d70650$788512f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1789656813.75108.1355852891684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k36> Bonjour to all   I'm on the same line as Michael as far as "embedded CS" -i.e. CS members in national delegations- representativity is concerned. What we do need is an independent and competent CS members that have roots in their communities or orgs, and ow feedback to them. I know how participation for our African friends in the WSIS process is difficult mostly due to financial reasons. That's why a part of CS has always struggled for the WSIS organizers (in fact UN agencies) to create a fund that would be able at least to afford the trips costs and possibly add a kind of "perdiem" for CS delegates during the WSIS sessions. Here is the true "N-S divide" and unless we find a solution for bridging this one I wonder if we'd be able to consider the "digital divide" in DCs ans especially in Africa.   Second point : in the previous mail Wolfgang wrote < the problem with MS within the ITU is that according to the existing procedures CS can participate only via national delegations.> I can't agrree with this point of view. IMHO, the heart of the problem is that the ITU is a CS-hostile institution. It is open to the private sector (680 private enterprises, corporations and institutes are its "Sector members") but not to CS orgs ... unless they pay expensive fees and accept to be "Associated members" participating in one of its specific Working Groups. The ultimate paradox is perfect when you consider that the same ITU is the UN-designated leader for a MSH-labelled UN process ! That's why as soon as the very beginning of the WSIS I'd asked for the ITU to open itself to the CS orgs that are working in areas close to the ITU scope of functions, especially in the ICT/Telecom development sector. Unfortunately I missed any support from the WSIS CS representatives for this proposition. In the meantme, a handful of rich CS organizations were able to afford some 4000 FS for being an Associated Member in the Development sector (ITU-D) and even some 11 000 FS in the ITU-R or ITU-T sector ! In my proposal to the WSIS I suggested that an asking CS org be an Associated member in return of their expertise and contribution to ITU's activities, thus justifying their free of charge membership. To my suggestion for giving the ICT/Telecom competent CS orgs an Associated member status, the ITU Development Bureau Director and  current ITU SG answered  "no politics in the ITU" (see Annuaire suisse de politique du developpement 2003, page 120 - 121).    That's why CS is to stay firmly questioning an "open" ITU as the prerequisite for any form of multistakeholder approach/participation in the WSIS process and moreover in the IGF.    Conversely, if CS were an ITU insider ("I have a dream" ...), the WCIT could have reached a much better outcome .       Best regards   Jean-Louis fullsack > Message du 17/12/12 11:18 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "McTim" > Copie à : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "'Avri Doria'" > Objet : RE: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > Good points Wolfgang and McTim however they seem to be somewhat in tension > with each other... > > McTim quite correctly indicates that the ITU cannot be considered as MS > suggesting (I believe) that such a close linking of CS with a national > delegation might not be appropriate in a "true MS". > > Meanwhile Wolfgang suggests the problem here as being that LDC's may not > have the resources to bring CS along (suggesting that the relationship > between CS and national delegations is perhaps an on-going and desireable > mode). However (he goes on) it might be also desireable (possible) to have > a true MS consultation/negotiation where CS is participating both as part of > national delegations and a "procedure which allow(s) CS to participate > independent from their national governments (and waving the fees)". > > I'm wondering at concepts and definitions here... If we accept that a part > (at least) of the definition of CS is that it is the group that (sees itself > at least) as supporting the public interest and thus in global MS fora as > presumably supporting a/the "global public interest", and if we understand > that national delegations to global deliberations would by definition be > supporting "national" interests then how would it be possible for those > (self-identifying and publicly identified) as CS to be members of national > delegations in global (or national) MS deliberations. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:37 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria > Subject: AW: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > HI, > > the problem with MS within the ITU is that according to the existing > procedures CS can participate only via national delegations. This is a (very > small) step in the right direction but has negative sideeffect: It is > widening the North-South gap. While nothern countries have no problem to > invite CS into their national governmental delegations (and even give them a > governmental badge) this is not the case in many southern ITU member states > and countries as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran and others. Nenna can > tell a story how difficult it was to come to Dubai (regardless of the fact > that she organized a national IGF in her home country, she had no chance to > become a member of their national delagation. Finally she found another > government which invited her to the Dubai experience). She told this Toure > in our meeting and we told him that the MS model is more than to recommend > national governments to bring some non-governmental people to ITU > conferences. To have no CS from developing countries in ITU meetings is not > only a missed opportunity, it produces also imbalanced results and deepens > the conflicts. What we need is an procedure which allow CS to participate > independent from their national governments (and waving the fees). > > This should be raised as one of the future ITU policy issues during the > forthcoming World Telecommunication Policy Forum in May 2013 in Geneva and > lead to changes in the ITU Convention at PP 2014 in Korea. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Suresh > Ramasubramanian > Gesendet: Mo 17.12.2012 03:38 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: ; Avri Doria > Betreff: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > > What, in your opinion, is wrong here? Other than that civil society can't > participate on their own of course, to represent their own organization's > viewpoint? > > If they agree to be part of a USG delegation as subject matter experts, it > is in the entire delegation's collective interest not to present mixed > messages. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Dec-2012, at 6:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > > > Avri and all, > > > > I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb > Kramer's press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting > experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me > that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by > multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in > these multi-stakeholder processes. > > > > M > > > > Amb Kramer: Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a > good question, but I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have > a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government > that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department > of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being > either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so > that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. > They - as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're > representing national interests. > > > > So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one > is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in > these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going > forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the > industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that > informed our positions more broadly on a national basis. > > > > A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in > our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real > benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece > of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do > outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're > able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, > and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our > delegation. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > > > > > On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > > > > > I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not > do > > > it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure > that > > > they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had > nothing > > > to answer to them. > > > > > > i think that most of the non government types on the delegations > found their funding elsewhere. > > > > i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but > perhaps I am uninformed. anyone else know of any? > > > > they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere. > > > > and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State > delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option. > > > > avri > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus..org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.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 kerry at kdbsystems.com Tue Dec 18 13:00:51 2012 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:00:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Embedded CS In-Reply-To: <1789656813.75108.1355852891684.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k36> Message-ID: I keep hearing about trip costs, civil society, and African or developing nations. I live in a very affluent part of the world, Canada. There is no way I can afford to go things like WCIT either. Civil Society has a hard time participating no matter where they come from. There are many other barriers as well. If some CS members have costs reimbursed how are they picked? Do they have to be a member of a recognized organization? Will a lottery of some sort be used to pick random CS members who apply to attend? CS members have many different viewpoints. How will it be ensured that all CS member viewpoints are heard? I agree there needs to be a way for CS participation but just figuring out who this means and how they will contribute may be as hard as getting consensus was at WCIT :) Kerry Brown From: Jean-Louis FULLSACK > Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, Jean-Louis FULLSACK > Date: Tuesday, 18 December, 2012 9:48 AM To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, michael gurstein >, "'\"Kleinwächter Wolfgang\"'" >, McTim > Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >, 'Avri Doria' > Subject: [governance] Embedded CS Bonjour to all I'm on the same line as Michael as far as "embedded CS" -i.e. CS members in national delegations- representativity is concerned. What we do need is an independent and competent CS members that have roots in their communities or orgs, and ow feedback to them. I know how participation for our African friends in the WSIS process is difficult mostly due to financial reasons. That's why a part of CS has always struggled for the WSIS organizers (in fact UN agencies) to create a fund that would be able at least to afford the trips costs and possibly add a kind of "perdiem" for CS delegates during the WSIS sessions. Here is the true "N-S divide" and unless we find a solution for bridging this one I wonder if we'd be able to consider the "digital divide" in DCs ans especially in Africa. Second point : in the previous mail Wolfgang wrote < the problem with MS within the ITU is that according to the existing procedures CS can participate only via national delegations.> I can't agrree with this point of view. IMHO, the heart of the problem is that the ITU is a CS-hostile institution. It is open to the private sector (680 private enterprises, corporations and institutes are its "Sector members") but not to CS orgs ... unless they pay expensive fees and accept to be "Associated members" participating in one of its specific Working Groups. The ultimate paradox is perfect when you consider that the same ITU is the UN-designated leader for a MSH-labelled UN process ! That's why as soon as the very beginning of the WSIS I'd asked for the ITU to open itself to the CS orgs that are working in areas close to the ITU scope of functions, especially in the ICT/Telecom development sector. Unfortunately I missed any support from the WSIS CS representatives for this proposition. In the meantme, a handful of rich CS organizations were able to afford some 4000 FS for being an Associated Member in the Development sector (ITU-D) and even some 11 000 FS in the ITU-R or ITU-T sector ! In my proposal to the WSIS I suggested that an asking CS org be an Associated member in return of their expertise and contribution to ITU's activities, thus justifying their free of charge membership. To my suggestion for giving the ICT/Telecom competent CS orgs an Associated member status, the ITU Development Bureau Director and current ITU SG answered "no politics in the ITU" (see Annuaire suisse de politique du developpement 2003, page 120 - 121). That's why CS is to stay firmly questioning an "open" ITU as the prerequisite for any form of multistakeholder approach/participation in the WSIS process and moreover in the IGF. Conversely, if CS were an ITU insider ("I have a dream" ...), the WCIT could have reached a much better outcome . Best regards Jean-Louis fullsack > Message du 17/12/12 11:18 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "McTim" > Copie à : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "'Avri Doria'" > Objet : RE: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > Good points Wolfgang and McTim however they seem to be somewhat in tension > with each other... > > McTim quite correctly indicates that the ITU cannot be considered as MS > suggesting (I believe) that such a close linking of CS with a national > delegation might not be appropriate in a "true MS". > > Meanwhile Wolfgang suggests the problem here as being that LDC's may not > have the resources to bring CS along (suggesting that the relationship > between CS and national delegations is perhaps an on-going and desireable > mode). However (he goes on) it might be also desireable (possible) to have > a true MS consultation/negotiation where CS is participating both as part of > national delegations and a "procedure which allow(s) CS to participate > independent from their national governments (and waving the fees)". > > I'm wondering at concepts and definitions here... If we accept that a part > (at least) of the definition of CS is that it is the group that (sees itself > at least) as supporting the public interest and thus in global MS fora as > presumably supporting a/the "global public interest", and if we understand > that national delegations to global deliberations would by definition be > supporting "national" interests then how would it be possible for those > (self-identifying and publicly identified) as CS to be members of national > delegations in global (or national) MS deliberations. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:37 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria > Subject: AW: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > HI, > > the problem with MS within the ITU is that according to the existing > procedures CS can participate only via national delegations. This is a (very > small) step in the right direction but has negative sideeffect: It is > widening the North-South gap. While nothern countries have no problem to > invite CS into their national governmental delegations (and even give them a > governmental badge) this is not the case in many southern ITU member states > and countries as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran and others. Nenna can > tell a story how difficult it was to come to Dubai (regardless of the fact > that she organized a national IGF in her home country, she had no chance to > become a member of their national delagation. Finally she found another > government which invited her to the Dubai experience). She told this Toure > in our meeting and we told him that the MS model is more than to recommend > national governments to bring some non-governmental people to ITU > conferences. To have no CS from developing countries in ITU meetings is not > only a missed opportunity, it produces also imbalanced results and deepens > the conflicts. What we need is an procedure which allow CS to participate > independent from their national governments (and waving the fees). > > This should be raised as one of the future ITU policy issues during the > forthcoming World Telecommunication Policy Forum in May 2013 in Geneva and > lead to changes in the ITU Convention at PP 2014 in Korea. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Suresh > Ramasubramanian > Gesendet: Mo 17.12.2012 03:38 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: ; Avri Doria > Betreff: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > > What, in your opinion, is wrong here? Other than that civil society can't > participate on their own of course, to represent their own organization's > viewpoint? > > If they agree to be part of a USG delegation as subject matter experts, it > is in the entire delegation's collective interest not to present mixed > messages. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Dec-2012, at 6:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > > > Avri and all, > > > > I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb > Kramer's press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting > experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me > that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by > multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in > these multi-stakeholder processes. > > > > M > > > > Amb Kramer: Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a > good question, but I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have > a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government > that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department > of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being > either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so > that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. > They - as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're > representing national interests. > > > > So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one > is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in > these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going > forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the > industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that > informed our positions more broadly on a national basis. > > > > A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in > our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real > benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece > of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do > outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're > able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, > and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our > delegation. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > > > > > On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > > > > > I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not > do > > > it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure > that > > > they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had > nothing > > > to answer to them. > > > > > > i think that most of the non government types on the delegations > found their funding elsewhere. > > > > i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but > perhaps I am uninformed. anyone else know of any? > > > > they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere. > > > > and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State > delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option. > > > > avri > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus..org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.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 drc at virtualized.org Tue Dec 18 13:35:14 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:35:14 -0800 Subject: [governance] Clues for WCIT issues and prospects In-Reply-To: <50D09D19.1000108@panamo.eu> References: <50CEEFF4.1040601@panamo.eu> <50D07018.2060701@panamo.eu> <50D08D9A.8010009@panamo.eu> <50D094A8.7080300@panamo.eu> <50D09D19.1000108@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <1212AD11-7D83-44C3-B7B1-66D3750196F1@virtualized.org> Dominique, On Dec 18, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Le 18/12/12 17:28, David Conrad a écrit : >> The most the US government could do would be to direct its contractors to remove the ccTLD's records from the root zone. > Yes, that's what I meant, and so the author in the article we're commenting. > > And the operating contractor IS Verisign. Return to the starting point. No. If the USG were to direct its contractors to violate the processes over which it provides oversight, we would not be back at the starting point, we would be in uncharted territory. > So you confirm that, even being a bad move provoking a crisis, it could be possible. I confirm it is possible for the USG to direct its contractors to violate existing processes. However, this does NOT "remove DNS access for a country". As mentioned, the root servers must pick up the inappropriately modified zone. In addition, DNS caches must expire out the old information (and you may find that ccTLD name servers tend to be quite long lived in DNS caches). In the intervening time between when the root zone was inappropriately modified and when resolutions for the ccTLD name servers start to fail, it is extremely likely that the situation would either be resolved (pun intended) or an alternative mechanism would be established by which the root zone was accepted by the root servers. Since ultimately it is resolver operators (typically ISPs) that decide which root name servers to use and most of those resolver operators do not reside in a jurisdiction subject to US law, it is wildly unlikely the USG would slit their own throats by trying to violate the processes they provide oversight for. Particularly given there are much easier (and subject to greater "plausible deniability") ways to have the same effect as removing a country from the DNS. > That's exactly why it's an asymetric situation unesasy to be accepted by a lot of countries in the world. My impression is that the uneasiness is primarily driven by a misunderstanding of how root zone updates work and the role performed by the USG in those updates. As mentioned when this issue came up previously, my experience with the USG role when I was at IANA was that it was exclusively focused on ensuring ICANN hasn't run amok and that documented processes are followed. > Could we imagine another process? not necessarily with a plenary UN assembly ;-) Sure, I'm not a particular fan of the current process and there are always ways in which you can add more Byzantine complexity in order to address political concerns, however without an organization that is above national laws, you will _always_ be at the mercy of the nation that is hosting the organization that is making the root zone edits and signing the root zone. 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Dec 18 13:47:59 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:47:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] UNGA In-Reply-To: References: <50C95A7F.1020202@itforchange.net> <337072744.60532.1355674530314.JavaMail.www@wwinf2219> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD78F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <50D02071.5070608@apc.org> <50D04104.6030704@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17D8B3@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> + 1 re "It would be useful for this list to think not only about how to designate CS representatives, but also what operating principles and working methods could ensure this WG to function correctly. This may include conditions for CS participation." ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Bertrand de La Chapelle [bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:49 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] UNGA Dear Adam and all, Still sadly noting that the WG to be set up on enhanced cooperation will have other stakeholders as "invitees", not full participants. 21. Requests the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to ensure that the working group on enhanced cooperation has balanced representation between Governments from the five regional groups of the Commission, and invitees from all other stakeholders, namely, the private sector, civil society, technical and academic communities, and intergovernmental and international organizations, drawn equally from developing and developed countries; This unfortunately is a direct legacy of the mistakes made during the formation of the first WG on IGF improvements, and still a strong setback from the format of the WGIG where non-governmental stakeholders were full members. Here is the text of the Geneva Declaration of Principles for the WGIG: We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action, as appropriate, on the governance of Internet by 2005. (emphasis added) The formulation this year is even less positive than the one used for the setting up of the WG on IGF improvements in 2010 (that tried to make reference to the text that created the WGIG): “invite the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working group which would seek, compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda,(...)". (emphasis added) At the risk of repeating myself (from what I unsuccessfully raised at the formation of the WG on IGF Improvements), the resolution asks the Chair of the CSTD to form a group. This is NOT a WG of the CSTD. This means there are no pre-established rules of procedure: the Chair of the CSTD and the Chair of the WG should have as much latitude to set up an open and balanced format as the Secretary General of the UN and the Chair of the WGIG had in 2004. Who will be the Chair of the WG will therefore be extremely important (as we witnessed for the WG on IGF improvements). It would be useful for this list to think not only about how to designate CS representatives, but also what operating principles and working methods could ensure this WG to function correctly. This may include conditions for CS participation. A more general comment: As we approach the 10-year review of the WSIS that will take place in 2015, it is saddening to see that the innovative modalities that were possible in 2004 are not even available any more. Instead of progress, we have witnessed some kind of backlash. Making sure that the 2015 WSIS+10 review will not be less participatory than the 2005 Summit is therefore an important issue to keep in mind. The resolution adopted last week in the UNGA confirms that the modalities of the WSIS+10 will be decided in the UNGA at the end of 2013 (see para 11). The upcoming WSIS+10 consultations at Unesco in February will be a good opportunity to raise the issue of the format of the 2015 review. Best Bertrand On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, parminder > wrote: Adam the one attached to your email was the G 77 proposed text, not the final version final version is attached.. parminder On Tuesday 18 December 2012 02:51 PM, Adam Peake wrote: I sent the wrong attachment. The Nov 9 version was draft. Final version attached. Important, the final version is a *great* improvement. Adam On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: Dear all It would be very good to have civil society participants at the Peru CSTD intersessional. Business will be represented. Not sure about tech community. But there is no doubt that they will begin to talk about membership and working modalities. I suggest that we: - send a written submission - try to get someone there from CS Remember that any CS entity accredited to WSIS can attend CSTD meetings. Anyone able to go? Anriette On 16/12/2012 22:20, Adam Peake wrote: Hi Wolfgang, here Better than the earlier drafts, so perhaps lobbying works. Good. The first CSTD meeting will be in Peru, 07-09 January 2013 But that it too early to begin substantive discussion, modalities and membership? (I'm interested this time around) Adam ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To 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 nb at bollow.ch Tue Dec 18 13:55:10 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:55:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20121218195510.54d04f18@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > > As for matching democracy indices, these are spins being put that > > are unnecessary > > Unnecessary does not mean "not revealing". I would suggest that a correlation (as certainly seems to be present in this case) does not in itself reveal anything besides a *question* of what causes the correlation. If someone were to seriously investigate this question, I would be very interested in reading the resulting paper. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 14:25:53 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 11:25:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: <20121218195510.54d04f18@quill.bollow.ch> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> <20121218195510.54d04f18@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <04d601cddd55$7fd02b00$7f708100$@gmail.com> Norbert, I think it all depends on how you define "democracy"... given the right set of definitions I/you/anyone could find a correlation between anything and anything... This doesn't mean that these types of exercises aren't useful, some are and some aren't, but it does mean that if you want to understand what is going on you have to move quite a bit upstream from the kind of information that we have been presented with in these charts. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:55 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Cc: McTim Subject: Re: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai McTim wrote: > > As for matching democracy indices, these are spins being put that > > are unnecessary > > Unnecessary does not mean "not revealing". I would suggest that a correlation (as certainly seems to be present in this case) does not in itself reveal anything besides a *question* of what causes the correlation. If someone were to seriously investigate this question, I would be very interested in reading the resulting paper. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nashton at ccianet.org Tue Dec 18 14:37:58 2012 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:37:58 -0200 Subject: [governance] How cooperation could be defined ? In-Reply-To: <531E57A5-E5D0-4BC8-8214-443A852CAE1A@gmail.com> References: <50CE0DC4.1030805@panamo.eu> <531E57A5-E5D0-4BC8-8214-443A852CAE1A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8624DB91-038F-4F05-939A-3693D979D312@ccianet.org> Personally, I'm pragmatic. The objective is every single person having broadband that is affordable for them, and as free of restrictions on the uses to which that access can be put as possible. I'm happy to harness philanthropy to get there, I'm happy to harness self interest to get there, I'm happy if corporate greed helps us get there. Frankly I think it takes all of these and more to make that vision come about. Yes, there are unintended consequences and dangers from various things, and these have to be minimised, but the fact that these have to be dealt with shouldn't get in the way of the overarching goal. Without affordable access to the Internet, all the benefits it can bring don't happen. As to IGOs, NGOs, *GOs, Any structure or process that isn't designed to help real people is a structure or process that should be avoided. Any structure or process that excludes groups, or gives unequal access to some over others, is a process or structure that should be reformed. All my personal opinions. On 17 Dec 2012, at 16:05, riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote: > Can't speak for Dominique but the sentiment framed as more connectivity = greater market, everyone benefits distills away the fact that countries, and companies, do play for their own advantage... And to maintain them (for instance non disclosure of patents for standards setting, which changed somewhat...)... As the US is doing to maintain its hegemony (not withstanding being 'largely' responsible in how it plays its hand) ... > For Third Worldists, perhaps by definition, the divide is there... And it relates to overall outlook and manifests in various symptoms.... From Cir to iTu battles.... > > > > ...,... > > On 17 Dec 2012, at 7:05 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> I confess I too find the various assertions here difficult to understand. There is certainly much to be done to push greater connectivity at lower costs to more of the unconnected, but it is a fact that the number of developing country citizens connecting up each year is growing very dramatically overall. There are all kinds of very clever solutions to geography, limitations on supporting services (unreliable electric power being supplemented by solar-driven stations), and the like. >> >> I think the picture painted below is awfully negative and suggests that the North is somehow against the South getting connected. This isn't the case, if that's the view; why would it be? On a purely commercial level the more people are on the Internet the greater the economic opportunity to serve them with products and services, for example. >> >> If I've misunderstood the comments, I'm sure someone will let me know. >> >> On Sunday, 16 December 2012, McTim wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: >> > Hello world :-) >> > >> > Fadi Chehadé explains : >> > There is no war between ITU and ICANN, and there will not. >> > We must engage in a new season of cooperation, in the respect of each role. >> > Fadi Chehadé Explains the Decision to Attend the WCIT Opening Ceremony in Dubai | 28 Nov 2012 >> > >> > The first part of the WCIT shows disagrement between North and South. >> > Because Northern governments and companies would be satisfied without >> > regulation, as in the great era of the free seas and freedom of commerce. >> > And South cannot access and build Net services in such conditions. Too >> > expensive... >> >> >> Do you have any evidence of this assertion? >> >> I'm currently wearing a t-shirt that says "Ushahidi", an example (one >> of hundreds I could name) of net services coming from Africa. >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart >> >> Geneva Representative >> Computer & Communcations Industry Association (CCIA) >> Tel: +41 (22) 534 99 45 >> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 >> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 >> USA Tel: +1 (202) 640-5430 >> email: nashton at ccianet.org >> Skype: nashtonhart >> http://www.ccianet.org >> >> Instead of sending cards to commemorate the festive season this year, CCIA Geneva has made a donation to Medecins sans Frontieres in the name of our member companies and our colleagues and friends in the Permanent Missions and UN system in Geneva. >> Need to schedule a meeting or call with me? Feel free to pick a time and date convenient for you at http://meetme.so/nashton >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Dec 18 14:41:00 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 06:41:00 +1100 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <583F59E5223B464A84B0673B4A961294@Toshiba> This really strikes a chord with me – Bertrand wrote ”We (the people of the world) have the power to frame description of situations and objectives in a way that helps solve issues. If we do not do it consciously, we become all prisoners of the power of words, hostages of the most radical among us and lose control of our collective destiny. “ Perhaps a good thing to bear in mind for this list for 2013! This caucus presents a great diversity of viewpoints, sometimes seemingly opposite – and that is one of the great strengths of this group. Vive la difference, and may we not just tolerate the different viewpoints here, but accept that the diversity represented is our great potential source of strength! Ian Peter From: Bertrand de La Chapelle Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 3:20 AM To: Avri Doria Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! Avri, I see your point. Let me rephrase somewhat to explain what I meant: - the current meme is going like: "this is a Digital Cold War", and the natural follow-up is: "Whose side are you on?" (remember Matt Bianco's song? :-), forcing people into a sterile black-and-white alternative - my formulation would be: "how can we prevent this from becoming a Digital Cold War", and this leads to: "how do we manage commons"? and "how to handle shared responsibilities". I believe this is more likely to lead to constructive solutions. I know the human brain likes simple dichotomies. It has even been an evolutionary survival competence. But tens of millions of dead people throughout history show what it can lead to in complex societies when it gets out of control. I consciously and voluntarily try not to fall in that trap in the case of Internet governance. And now is a moment to be aware of this, as we assess the outcome of WCIT and its consequences for future debates. We (the people of the world) have the power to frame description of situations and objectives in a way that helps solve issues. If we do not do it consciously, we become all prisoners of the power of words, hostages of the most radical among us and lose control of our collective destiny. My two cents. B. On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: But, if it really is a digital cold war, saying that it isn't, can be just as self defeating. Let's analyze before deciding which it is. Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >I anticipate a great journalistic attraction for the meme "a Digital Cold >War". > >It is an abusive oversimplification and worse, it presents a big risk of a >self-fulfilling prophecy if people begin to think in that framework. The >"us vs them" behavior on both sides, the "with us or against us", the cyber >arms race, the fight between radical approaches, both caricatured to the >extreme, unfortunately prevent a more balanced, cautious, and respectful >approach that enables joint management of the new commons, rather than >attempts to carve out territories in cyberspace. > >Some thinking is needed to find better formulations. And citizens' >interests in all regions need to be the starting point. Civil society has a >responsibility in there. Let's avoid being held hostage to the extreme >views from both sides. > >B. > > > > >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Kettemann, Matthias ( >matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > >> Dear Parminder, **** >> >> ** ** >> >> The right of states to have no other state interfere with their access to >> the Internet is, in my view, not conditional upon an international treaty >> but rather, as I’ve argued in the mail you quoted from, in the process of >> crystallizing into a customary norm. Treaties can be evidence of such a >> crystallization, but they are not necessary for the process. Not signing a >> treaty than contains many different provisions cannot be used as an >> argument against any one single norm’s customary character. Further >> evidence, such as clear statements by states evidencing opinio iuris, is >> needed. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> The dynamics in Dubai illustrate that we are now at a point where two >> different conceptions of the normative order applicable to the Internet >> clash. Simple dichotomies (freedom vs. control, private sector-orientation >> vs. sovereignity-orientation) are more misleading than helpful. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> The danger I see lies rather in what the Economist termed a potential >> “digital Cold War”. History tells us that the last Cold War didn’t lead to >> decades of cooperative law-making on the international plane, but rather >> conflict, divisions and standstill. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Yet at the height of the Cold War leaders agreed, within the framework of >> the CSCE, on the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 which laid down essential >> commitments regarding political and military cooperation and human rights >> issues, including the Helsinki Decalogue, the “Declaration on [10] >> Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States” ( >> http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true). **** >> >> ** ** >> >> So what do we need now: We need a Helsinki Decalogue for the Internet that >> can guide relation between all stakeholders in the Internet. If Russia and >> the US were able to agree in 1975 on the prohibition of the use of force, >> non-intervention, respect for human rights and fulfillment in good faith of >> obligations under international law, they should be able to agree, in near >> future, on Internet Governance principles reflecting these international >> legal principles.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on Internet governance >> principles (https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773) provides a first >> template; and the IRP’s 0 Rights and Principles (http://irpcharter.org) >> exemplify a human rights-oriented approach. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> It’s there that we should look, rather than to feel sorry that Dubai >> didn’t work out.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Kind regards**** >> >> Matthias**** >> >> ** ** >> >> --**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Dr Matthias C. Kettemann, LLM (Harvard)**** >> >> Institute of International Law and International Relations**** >> >> University of Graz, Austria**** >> >> T | +43 316 380 6711 **** >> >> E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at**** >> >> Blog | Twitter| >> Facebook | Google+ >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *Von:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder >> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012 15:17 >> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de la Chapelle >> *Betreff:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new >> approach to Internet governance!**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> Dear Bertrand/ Others >> >> **** >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 01:43 AM, bdelachapelle at gmail.com wrote:**** >> >> Dear Matthias,**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I agree with your thesis. **** >> >> >> Which I understand, to quote Matthias' email, is about**** >> >> "...crystallization of the application of the international customary law >> norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the >> stability and functionality of the Internet can by now be clearly >> considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by >> international law. States that violate this common obligation engage their >> international responsibility."**** >> >> Now what have you all to say about the US and its allies walking out of >> the WCIT on the point of refusing to sign on preambular language that >> simply "recognize(s) the right of access of Member States to international >> telecommunication services". >> >> This point above seems central to all the discussions here on what is >> being called as 'a new approach to Internet governance'. >> >> Wonder, why the US is able to get away with such monstrosities, and civil >> society choses to look the other way when they happen. Nay, people have in >> fact been defending US's position of not signing the above text on this >> list and other CS forums..... One wonders what is happening!!! >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> > > > >-- >____________________ >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 -- ____________________ 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Tue Dec 18 15:09:58 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:09:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: <04d601cddd55$7fd02b00$7f708100$@gmail.com> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> <20121218195510.54d04f18@quill.bollow.ch> <04d601cddd55$7fd02b00$7f708100$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121218210958.7b095581@quill.bollow.ch> Michael, maybe you are right that a careful investigation would find that the correlation comes from the "democracy index" having been measured by means of checking for the presence of values and institutions which are e.g. more directly related to willingness to follow US leadership than to democracy itself. That in itself would be a significant insight, as it would point to a need for developing a better set of indicators for the quality of democratic structures. Another potential result could be that certain kinds of socioeconomic conditions make it hard to implement good governance systems of any kind (which would inevitably lead to low scores on the "democracy index") and that in such kinds of situations, "follow the kind of leadership that is currently offered by the US" is not likely to be a promising strategy for economic improvement. In any case, I think that democracy is so extremely important that all kinds of related topics deserve a careful treatment. And I agree with the need to look "upstream from the kind of information that we have been presented with in these charts". Greetings, Norbert Michael Gurstein wrote: > Norbert, I think it all depends on how you define "democracy"... > given the right set of definitions I/you/anyone could find a > correlation between anything and anything... This doesn't mean that > these types of exercises aren't useful, some are and some aren't, but > it does mean that if you want to understand what is going on you have > to move quite a bit upstream from the kind of information that we > have been presented with in these charts. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert > Bollow Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 10:55 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Cc: McTim > Subject: Re: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout > in Dubai > > McTim wrote: > > > > As for matching democracy indices, these are spins being put that > > > are unnecessary > > > > Unnecessary does not mean "not revealing". > > I would suggest that a correlation (as certainly seems to be present > in this case) does not in itself reveal anything besides a *question* > of what causes the correlation. > > If someone were to seriously investigate this question, I would be > very interested in reading the resulting paper. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 15:24:10 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:24:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: <20121218210958.7b095581@quill.bollow.ch> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> <20121218195510.54d04f18@quill.bollow.ch> <04d601cddd55$7fd02b00$7f708100$@gmail.com> <20121218210958.7b095581@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Michael, > > maybe you are right that a careful investigation would find that the > correlation comes from the "democracy index" having been measured by > means of checking for the presence of values and institutions which are > e.g. more directly related to willingness to follow US leadership than > to democracy itself. That in itself would be a significant insight, as > it would point to a need for developing a better set of indicators for > the quality of democratic structures. read all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index > > Another potential result could be that certain kinds of socioeconomic > conditions make it hard to implement good governance systems of any > kind (which would inevitably lead to low scores on the "democracy > index") and that in such kinds of situations, "follow the kind of > leadership that is currently offered by the US" The USA is leading from the middle on this one, coming in at #19! -- 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 nb at bollow.ch Tue Dec 18 17:18:09 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:18:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> <20121218195510.54d04f18@quill.bollow.ch> <04d601cddd55$7fd02b00$7f708100$@gmail.com> <20121218210958.7b095581@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20121218231809.79e70082@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Michael, > > > > maybe you are right that a careful investigation would find that the > > correlation comes from the "democracy index" having been measured by > > means of checking for the presence of values and institutions which > > are e.g. more directly related to willingness to follow US > > leadership than to democracy itself. That in itself would be a > > significant insight, as it would point to a need for developing a > > better set of indicators for the quality of democratic structures. > > read all about it here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index Thanks a lot for this link! I've also read what they write about their methodology in the actual report for 2011; it looks reasonable enough to me. So unless someone points out flaws that I have missed, I'll dismiss the possibility of the correlation with democracy not being real but an artifact caused by invalid methodology in the determination of "democracy". The big question is of course what the causalities are... Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Dec 18 19:10:54 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 00:10:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> References: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22A77F5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Olivier: I've posted a new blog article which, among other things, replies to your reply http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/18/itu-phobia-why-wcit-was-derailed/ > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:55 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > Dear all, > > I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's blog post > here, to widen the discussion. Please find below. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kovenronald at aol.com Tue Dec 18 19:25:30 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:25:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] The WCIT End: Good or Bad? In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD7BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <50C1FF11.4080409@diplomacy.edu> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D5DB914F5@W8-EXMB-DP.unam.local> <9034199914746369705@unknownmsgid> <50C77D88.7050108@uni-graz.at> <95E1EF0F-6876-44DA-8CD6-87DAC2EF65D4@gmail.com> <50D07AC5.5030201@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD7BC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <8CFAB967C293F0A-B48-2A53C@webmail-m045.sysops.aol.com> Wolfgang -- That's a very useful analysis indeed, and as usual, balanced and nuanced. Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolf gang" To: governance ; Bertrand de La Chapelle ; parminder Cc: governance Sent: Tue, Dec 18, 2012 4:52 pm Subject: [governance] The WCIT End: Good or Bad? Bertrand: In any case, this is an outcome with no winners, rather a lose-lose-lose result given the amount of energy devoted to this. Wolfgang: I am not sure whether I could this subscribe. WCIT didn´t change anything and it is also not a "missed opportunity". The world can live with the old ITRs and countries which will ratify the Dubai Treaty will use the new ITRs after 2015. This is good for issue like maritime communication, communication for disabled etc., but does not affect fundamentally neither international telecommunication nor the Internet. Dubai was a shadow boxing, it was a political test, the opening of a new debate on a higher level on the future of the Internet. Insofar Dubai was a good opportunity to get a better picture what is going on and where we will go in the years ahead. Here are my positive elements: 1. WCIT helped to push Internet Governance to a higher level in the political agenda. It is now a key issue as climate change, financial crises etc. This will help to strengthen IGF, the role of the UNCSTD EC WG and the WSIS 10+ process. And it will go to G8 and G 20 meetings. 2. WCIT has helped to clarify the situation - at least among governments - who is where. We know now that there are two opposing concepts (the concept of national Internet segment and cybersovereignty/top down/ on the one hand and the concept of multistakeholder governance /bottom up/ on the other hand). It seems to me that efforts to bridge this conceptual gap is nearly impossible. This is a cold war scenario, however, even the cold war had different phases and included the Helsinki-process (as Matthias has us remembered recently). The traditional intergovernmental mechanism / treaty system has reached its limits and is unable to deliver what is needed to handle global problems.So the failure of an intergovernmental treaty making in Dubai should be seen as an encouragement to work towards an universal multistakeholder Framework of Commitments. 3. WCIT has helped to understand that the so-called "swing states" (Brazil, India, Egypt, Kenia, Ghana etc.) will play a greater role. The interesting thing here is that developing countries with no or little CS involvement followed more or less Doc. 47-E while countries which had not only traditional PTT ministries in their delegations took a rather different approach. In all those countries we will see a growing national debate on how to position itself in the global dispute. As Indian´s minister Sibal has said in Baku: We (India) are for a free and open Internet, but we are want the respect of our Indian culture and its citizens and we are working for businesses headquartered in India. This will produce on the global level a number of interesting rainbow coalitions. 4. WCIT has strengthened the role of civil society. Probably CS is the big winner of WCIT. It was well organized and played a crucial role in a number of delegations. Toure reserved 90 minutes for a dialogue with CS. Other governments did reach out to CS. It will be difficult for the ITU (and other IGOs) to go backwards. This is a big challenge for CS. Better access and broader recognition brings along more duties and higher responsibility. Will it be possible to revive the CS Plenary/Content & Themes from WSIS (2002 - 2005) in the forthcoming WSIS 10+ process? And can the IGC play a key coordination role? So my summary is: Good news from Dubai, but a long way ahead of us. We know now better what works and what does not work and we have a clearer understanding of the various opposing concepts and positions of the various camps. Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Tue Dec 18 19:30:07 2012 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 01:30:07 +0100 Subject: AW: AW: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <00af01cddba2$8931ce60$9b956b20$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <016001cddc96$28d36480$7a7a2d80$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <014d01cddd7f$ff72ef80$fe58ce80$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Parminder, Ok, I checked my spreadsheet again and found two errand entries in my calculation. So, not 57, but only 55 countries “reserved the right to sign later”, i.e. refused to sign on the spot. The 49 other countries were not eligible to sign for some reason or another. Peter Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: 18 December 2012 03:34 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai Peter In your listing, the number 57, which is actually indicated as eligible to sign but not (yet) signed somehow seem to have magically changed to '*opposed*'.... How did you make that shift? As I mentioned earlier, for the 1988 ITRs 75 members signed later on, which makes the practise appear quite common. The real figure to focus on is the number of countries that have said 'they wont sign' - I figure this number at present is between 12 to 20. I am happy to be corrected on this 'key figure'. As for matching democracy indices, these are spins being put that are unnecessary... Wonder is someone wants to do a colour of skin index match as well . More seriously, why not match an index of whether a country allows software patents or not, and in general how strong (or bad) is its digital IP policy -- an issue very germane to global regulation of the digital space, or of the Internet...... Political economy question with regard to the global communication realm are as important as FoE questions. Just asking for greater balance, that is all. A balance that the civil society involved with global IG seem to have entirely entirely lost. parminder On Tuesday 18 December 2012 02:06 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: Parminder, The original figures come from another list (itu2012chapters at elists.isoc.org and WCIT at lmlist.state.gov). Sorry, I’m sometimes losing track of who sees what since there are multiple lists where the same is discussed, with often the same people on multiple lists. Dave Burstein sent a message on Friday, 14 Dec, with the Subject: [Itu2012chapters] list of signers and those who haven't signed” and that contained an attachment with figures he had received from the ITU. There is a country-by-country list, sorted by region, and showing in green, red and white those who signed, those who did not, and those who could not. I just calculated a few statistics based on those numbers: 195 countries overall 7.016 billion people overall 89 (46%) countries signed (green) – representing 3.834 billion people (55%) 57 (29%) countries opposed (red) – representing 2.574 billion people (37%) 49 (25%) countries open (white) – representing 0.606 billion people (9%) I have asked Dave whether it is ok to forward his message and the attachment to this list. Interesting also the following infographic: http://infogr.am/-mebuell_1355447340 “There is a clear correlation between a state's ranking in the Democracy Index and how their position on the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) at the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) World Conference on Information Technology (WCIT-12). “ The chart categorizes countries in four categories (full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime) and shows percentages of those in each category who voted for (red) or against (green) the ITRs. (Note: color code reversed versus the ITU coding). Regards, Peter Peter H. Hellmonds Public & International Affairs peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu +49 (160) 360-2852 Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: 17 December 2012 05:42 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai Peter Yes, it is useful to get the right figures. The important figure is of those who have refused to sign. As for those who havent refused and havent signed, it may be useful to know that it is normal for many countries to sign such important and binding documents like treaties after a round of consultation at home. In 1988, 112 countries signed up on the last day of the WCIT and 75 signed up later.... So, a huge number of countries deciding to take time is quite normal. Many reports are making this number look as suggesting much less support for the ITRs than there actually is. This side of mis- representation must also be kept in mind. The NYT correspondent says that " By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would not...." You say " Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital...." Can you share the source of your information. The number actually saying they 'wont sign' is most significant. And there seems to a confusion in this regard vis a vis your numbers (is it 57? ) and other reports - NYT says 24 have said they 'wont sign'. What is the actual count of 'those who have refused to sign' ... parminder On Sunday 16 December 2012 09:02 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: The New York Times wrote: “The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it.” Guess we need to send the NY Times reporter some real statistics and correct the reporting: Regarding the “handful of Western allies”: Of the 42 European countries, 35 countries refused to sign the treaty. Of the 35 countries in The Americas, 6 countries refused to sign the treaty. So, while the American delegation was joined by only a handful of allies in The Americas, it was forcefully supported by seven handfuls of European allies, plus 3 handfuls of allies from African, Asian and CIS countries. And it is clear that the European countries were not merely following the lead of the US, but had very clearly stated in prior consultations what they would stand for and what not. The “what not” was that Europe did not want the ITRs to extend to the Internet or content, including spam, or security issues. Regarding the “most other nations signed it”: Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital. How could this reporter claim that “most other nations signed it”?? Peter H. Hellmonds Public & International Affairs peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu +49 (160) 360-2852 Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: 16 December 2012 14:23 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai NewYork Times Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World * by ERIC PFANNER * Dec. 14, 2012 At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff. What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now has many more users in the rest of the world? It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network. The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks of talks here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to engage in a public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they did near midnight on Thursday as the signing deadline approached. The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that it was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement in its current form.” United States delegates said the pact could encourage censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet oversight and replace it with government control. Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page text, which deals mostly with matters like the fees that telecommunications networks should charge one another for connecting calls across borders. After being excised from the pact at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty. The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” That convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to the Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by name so no one could call it an Internet treaty. A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the regulations “in a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations.” Both of these provisions were added during the final days of haggling in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If anything, the new treaty appears to make it more intellectually challenging for governments like China and Iran to justify their current censorship of the Internet. What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty signers should share control over the Internet address-assignment system — a function now handled by an international group based in the United States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to pay telecommunications networks for delivering material to users. Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in the negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like Britain and Canada? In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. Kramer cited a few remaining objections, like references to countering spam and to ensuring “the security and robustness of international telecommunications networks.” This wording, he argued, could be used by nefarious governments to justify crackdowns on free speech. But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that had mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other words, saw a chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong statement about the importance of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty and boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that even to talk about the appearance of global rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter. It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand would underline the importance of keeping the Internet open. “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of Internet freedom,” said Jochem de Groot, senior policy officer for the Internet and human rights in the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands, which joined the United States in opposition to the pact. That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency, the International Telecommunication Union — took place in this economically liberal but socially and politically battened-down emirate underscored the symbolism of the United States boycott of the final treaty. “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries around the world,” said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of the Tunisian Internet Agency, in an interview. “It’s a good message to start the debate.” Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian government of President Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of Tunisia, that country has taken a strong stand in support of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, Mr. Chakchouk said his government would sign the telecommunications treaty because he was satisfied with the free-speech guarantees that had been written into it. “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he said. “It’s not good when one country doesn’t understand the issues.” Working together could become more challenging as the Internet — especially bandwidth-hungry video applications — accounts for an ever greater share of global telecommunications traffic, and as more people in developing countries go online. According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the telecommunication union, the goal of the treaty was not to take control of the Internet — as critics had contended — but to narrow the digital divide. While the United States was talking about the open Internet, Mr. Touré and developing countries were talking about opening the Internet to more of the 4.5 billion people around the world who remain offline. Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating investment in broadband networks, for reducing cellphone roaming costs and for extending Internet access to disabled people in developing countries. The goal was to expand broadband at an affordable cost, not to regulate the content that travels on the Internet, he said. “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no highways for them to drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news conference on Friday, where the telecommunication union tried to put a positive spin on the messy pileup of the previous evening. As developing countries gain better access, the numbers game will continue to tilt against the United States and other developed countries that have championed the cause of an open Internet. The Internet population of China — 538 million as of June, according to the Chinese government — is already nearly double that of the United States. Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in developing countries, governments and citizens of these countries might also grow more tolerant of it. “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in its view of the Internet and its relationship to society in the coming century,” Mr. Kramer said. By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would not, Mr. Touré said, with the rest still undecided or undeclared. Holdouts could change their minds and sign later. Mr. Touré said he was hopeful that the United States would eventually do so, though Mr. Kramer said this was unlikely. Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious prospect of a treaty largely negotiated to suit the United States’ position and applying mostly to developing countries, many of which seemed perfectly happy with the outcome. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1110 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 ocl at gih.com Tue Dec 18 19:54:09 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 01:54:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22A77F5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22A77F5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <50D11031.70507@gih.com> Thanks for the reply blog post, Milton. It makes for fun reading, although a bit long. Kind regards, Olivier On 19/12/2012 01:10, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Olivier: > I've posted a new blog article which, among other things, replies to your reply > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/18/itu-phobia-why-wcit-was-derailed/ > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- >> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:55 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post >> >> Dear all, >> >> I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's blog post >> here, to widen the discussion. Please find below. >> -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 19:58:36 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:58:36 +1300 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22A77F5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22A77F5@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Olivier: > I've posted a new blog article which, among other things, replies to your > reply > > http://www.internetgovernance.org/2012/12/18/itu-phobia-why-wcit-was-derailed/ > I enjoyed reading your blog Milton. :) > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > > Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 4:55 PM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > > > Dear all, > > > > I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's blog post > > here, to widen the discussion. Please find below. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 20:40:59 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 20:40:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: <20121218231809.79e70082@quill.bollow.ch> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> <20121218195510.54d04f18@quill.bollow.ch> <04d601cddd55$7fd02b00$7f708100$@gmail.com> <20121218210958.7b095581@quill.bollow.ch> <20121218231809.79e70082@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > read all about it here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index > > So unless someone points out flaws that I have missed, I'll dismiss the > possibility of the correlation with democracy not being real but an > artifact caused by invalid methodology in the determination of > "democracy". > The notion of a Democracy INDEX consisting of *weighted averages* is flawed. A weighted *average*, by its very nature, allows conditions that defeat a core definitional requirement for democracy to nevertheless result in a passing, but degraded, democracy grade. Only if democracy were defined by such a point system in which high grades in one or more areas could make up for failing grades in one or more areas would such a weighted average index not be a flawed assessment. One sociocultural (but non-legal and non-rights based) definition of democracy is that it is a "habit of the heart" in that the democratic spirit exhibits a willingness to work with others cooperatively, a willingness to speak and to listen, and so forth. This definition *is not really one of democracy, but of a certain view of the democratic spirit*. This spirit can survive long after democracy itself is long dead, and can also presage a resurgence of democracy as a political system as a culture gears up with democratic values. A real measure of democracy would have to have core measurements that have clear cut failing points at which the country as a whole fails to be democratic. The index appears to be willing to extend the name of "democratic" to "flawed democracies" and even "hybrid democracies." A mule is a hybrid of a female horse and a male ass (donkey), but is very rarely called a "hybrid horse." Apparently, the authors of the Democracy Index would call mules "hybrid horses" since the horse is the animal with the better reputation, but mules are still not horses. The Democracy Index basically creates work for a bunch of unnamed experts when the question of whether a country is democratic or not, even though contested, is clearly within the grasp of any person wishing to reasonably inform themselves on and come to their own opinion. In the end, that's what democracy's about, not about experts telling us what to think about countries, like the Democracy Index's experts do. Paul Lehto, J.D. > The big question is of course what the causalities are... > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4965 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Tue Dec 18 21:17:45 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 21:17:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers [Post WCIT and Analysis of Outcomes] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Is it possible to enroll now? On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Kivuva wrote: > Hi, > > I am also ready to volunteer. > > Regards > > > -- > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva > twitter.com/lordmwesh > > On 17 December 2012 10:59, Kabani wrote: > >> Greetings >> >> Kindly also include me. >> >> Regards >> >> Asif Kabani >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 Tue Dec 18 21:20:35 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 07:50:35 +0530 Subject: AW: AW: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai Message-ID: There were about 17 countries marked ineligible to sign in an earlier communique from the SG, something about non payment of ITU dues. And more than one country delegation might have gone off shopping on the day of the vote. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Peter H. Hellmonds" To: , "'parminder'" Subject: AW: AW: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai Date: Wed, Dec 19, 2012 6:00 AM Parminder, Ok, I checked my spreadsheet again and found two errand entries in my calculation. So, not 57, but only 55 countries “reserved the right to sign later”, i.e. refused to sign on the spot. The 49 other countries were not eligible to sign for some reason or another. Peter Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: 18 December 2012 03:34 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: AW: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai Peter In your listing, the number 57, which is actually indicated as eligible to sign but not (yet) signed somehow seem to have magically changed to '*opposed*'.... How did you make that shift? As I mentioned earlier, for the 1988 ITRs 75 members signed later on, which makes the practise appear quite common. The real figure to focus on is the number of countries that have said 'they wont sign' - I figure this number at present is between 12 to 20. I am happy to be corrected on this 'key figure'. As for matching democracy indices, these are spins being put that are unnecessary... Wonder is someone wants to do a colour of skin index match as well . More seriously, why not match an index of whether a country allows software patents or not, and in general how strong (or bad) is its digital IP policy -- an issue very germane to global regulation of the digital space, or of the Internet...... Political economy question with regard to the global communication realm are as important as FoE questions. Just asking for greater balance, that is all. A balance that the civil society involved with global IG seem to have entirely entirely lost. parminder On Tuesday 18 December 2012 02:06 AM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: Parminder, The original figures come from another list (itu2012chapters at elists.isoc.org and WCIT at lmlist.state.gov). Sorry, I’m sometimes losing track of who sees what since there are multiple lists where the same is discussed, with often the same people on multiple lists. Dave Burstein sent a message on Friday, 14 Dec, with the Subject: [Itu2012chapters] list of signers and those who haven't signed” and that contained an attachment with figures he had received from the ITU. There is a country-by-country list, sorted by region, and showing in green, red and white those who signed, those who did not, and those who could not. I just calculated a few statistics based on those numbers: 195 countries overall 7.016 billion people overall 89 (46%) countries signed (green) – representing 3.834 billion people (55%) 57 (29%) countries opposed (red) – representing 2.574 billion people (37%) 49 (25%) countries open (white) – representing 0.606 billion people (9%) I have asked Dave whether it is ok to forward his message and the attachment to this list. Interesting also the following infographic: http://infogr.am/-mebuell_1355447340 “There is a clear correlation between a state's ranking in the Democracy Index and how their position on the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITR) at the International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) World Conference on Information Technology (WCIT-12). “ The chart categorizes countries in four categories (full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime) and shows percentages of those in each category who voted for (red) or against (green) the ITRs. (Note: color code reversed versus the ITU coding). Regards, Peter Peter H. Hellmonds Public & International Affairs peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu +49 (160) 360-2852 Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: 17 December 2012 05:42 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: Re: AW: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai Peter Yes, it is useful to get the right figures. The important figure is of those who have refused to sign. As for those who havent refused and havent signed, it may be useful to know that it is normal for many countries to sign such important and binding documents like treaties after a round of consultation at home. In 1988, 112 countries signed up on the last day of the WCIT and 75 signed up later.... So, a huge number of countries deciding to take time is quite normal. Many reports are making this number look as suggesting much less support for the ITRs than there actually is. This side of mis- representation must also be kept in mind. The NYT correspondent says that " By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would not...." You say " Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital...." Can you share the source of your information. The number actually saying they 'wont sign' is most significant. And there seems to a confusion in this regard vis a vis your numbers (is it 57? ) and other reports - NYT says 24 have said they 'wont sign'. What is the actual count of 'those who have refused to sign' ... parminder On Sunday 16 December 2012 09:02 PM, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: The New York Times wrote: “The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it.” Guess we need to send the NY Times reporter some real statistics and correct the reporting: Regarding the “handful of Western allies”: Of the 42 European countries, 35 countries refused to sign the treaty. Of the 35 countries in The Americas, 6 countries refused to sign the treaty. So, while the American delegation was joined by only a handful of allies in The Americas, it was forcefully supported by seven handfuls of European allies, plus 3 handfuls of allies from African, Asian and CIS countries. And it is clear that the European countries were not merely following the lead of the US, but had very clearly stated in prior consultations what they would stand for and what not. The “what not” was that Europe did not want the ITRs to extend to the Internet or content, including spam, or security issues. Regarding the “most other nations signed it”: Of 195 countries listed (including the Vatican), 89 (46%) signed the treaty, whereas 57 (29%) did not sign it and 49 (25%) of the countries were undecided or needed to consult with their capital. How could this reporter claim that “most other nations signed it”?? Peter H. Hellmonds Public & International Affairs peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu +49 (160) 360-2852 Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von parminder Gesendet: 16 December 2012 14:23 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai NewYork Times Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World * by ERIC PFANNER * Dec. 14, 2012 At the global treaty conference on telecommunications here, the United States got most of what it wanted. But then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff. What was that all about? And what does it say about the future of the Internet — which was virtually invented by the United States but now has many more users in the rest of the world? It may mean little about how the Internet will operate in the coming years. But it might mean everything about the United States’ refusal to acknowledge even symbolic global oversight of the network. The American delegation, joined by a handful of Western allies, derided the treaty as a threat to Internet freedom. But most other nations signed it. And other participants in the two weeks of talks here were left wondering on Friday whether the Americans had been negotiating in good faith or had planned all along to engage in a public debate only to make a dramatic exit, as they did near midnight on Thursday as the signing deadline approached. The head of the American delegation, Terry Kramer, announced that it was “with a heavy heart” that he could not “sign the agreement in its current form.” United States delegates said the pact could encourage censorship and undermine the existing, hands-off approach to Internet oversight and replace it with government control. Anyone reading the treaty, though, might be puzzled by these assertions. “Internet” does not appear anywhere in the 10-page text, which deals mostly with matters like the fees that telecommunications networks should charge one another for connecting calls across borders. After being excised from the pact at United States insistence, the I-word was consigned to a soft-pedaled resolution that is attached to the treaty. The first paragraph of the treaty states: “These regulations do not address the content-related aspects of telecommunications.” That convoluted phrasing was understood by all parties to refer to the Internet, delegates said, but without referring to it by name so no one could call it an Internet treaty. A preamble to the treaty commits the signers to adopt the regulations “in a manner that respects and upholds their human rights obligations.” Both of these provisions were added during the final days of haggling in Dubai, with the support of the United States. If anything, the new treaty appears to make it more intellectually challenging for governments like China and Iran to justify their current censorship of the Internet. What’s more, two other proposals that raised objections from the United States were removed. One of those stated that treaty signers should share control over the Internet address-assignment system — a function now handled by an international group based in the United States. The other, also removed at the Americans’ behest, called for Internet companies like Google and Facebook to pay telecommunications networks for delivering material to users. Given that the United States achieved many of its stated goals in the negotiations, why did it reject the treaty in an 11th-hour intervention that had clearly been coordinated with allies like Britain and Canada? In a Dubai conference call with reporters early on Friday, Mr. Kramer cited a few remaining objections, like references to countering spam and to ensuring “the security and robustness of international telecommunications networks.” This wording, he argued, could be used by nefarious governments to justify crackdowns on free speech. But even Mr. Kramer acknowledged that his real concerns were less tangible, saying it was the “normative” tone of the debate that had mattered most. The United States and its allies, in other words, saw a chance to use the treaty conference to make a strong statement about the importance of Internet freedom. But by refusing to sign the treaty and boycotting the closing ceremony, they made clear that even to talk about the appearance of global rules for cyberspace was a nonstarter. It may have been grandstanding, but some United States allies in Europe were happy to go along, saying the strong American stand would underline the importance of keeping the Internet open. “This could be a watershed moment in the discussion of Internet freedom,” said Jochem de Groot, senior policy officer for the Internet and human rights in the Foreign Ministry of the Netherlands, which joined the United States in opposition to the pact. That the talks — convened by a United Nations agency, the International Telecommunication Union — took place in this economically liberal but socially and politically battened-down emirate underscored the symbolism of the United States boycott of the final treaty. “There were a lot of messages being sent to countries around the world,” said Moez Chakchouk, chief executive of the Tunisian Internet Agency, in an interview. “It’s a good message to start the debate.” Since the Arab Spring deposed the authoritarian government of President Zine el-Abidine Ben-Ali of Tunisia, that country has taken a strong stand in support of Internet freedom. Nonetheless, Mr. Chakchouk said his government would sign the telecommunications treaty because he was satisfied with the free-speech guarantees that had been written into it. “It’s important for all of us to work together,” he said. “It’s not good when one country doesn’t understand the issues.” Working together could become more challenging as the Internet — especially bandwidth-hungry video applications — accounts for an ever greater share of global telecommunications traffic, and as more people in developing countries go online. According to Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the telecommunication union, the goal of the treaty was not to take control of the Internet — as critics had contended — but to narrow the digital divide. While the United States was talking about the open Internet, Mr. Touré and developing countries were talking about opening the Internet to more of the 4.5 billion people around the world who remain offline. Mr. Touré emphasized treaty proposals for stimulating investment in broadband networks, for reducing cellphone roaming costs and for extending Internet access to disabled people in developing countries. The goal was to expand broadband at an affordable cost, not to regulate the content that travels on the Internet, he said. “What is the meaning of building cars if there are no highways for them to drive on?” Mr. Touré said at a news conference on Friday, where the telecommunication union tried to put a positive spin on the messy pileup of the previous evening. As developing countries gain better access, the numbers game will continue to tilt against the United States and other developed countries that have championed the cause of an open Internet. The Internet population of China — 538 million as of June, according to the Chinese government — is already nearly double that of the United States. Mr. Kramer said that as Internet use expands in developing countries, governments and citizens of these countries might also grow more tolerant of it. “It is clear that the world community is a crossroads in its view of the Internet and its relationship to society in the coming century,” Mr. Kramer said. By Friday evening, 89 of 144 countries that were eligible to vote had signed the document and about two dozen had indicated that they would not, Mr. Touré said, with the rest still undecided or undeclared. Holdouts could change their minds and sign later. Mr. Touré said he was hopeful that the United States would eventually do so, though Mr. Kramer said this was unlikely. Otherwise, the events in Dubai raise the curious prospect of a treaty largely negotiated to suit the United States’ position and applying mostly to developing countries, many of which seemed perfectly happy with the outcome. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 18 21:46:33 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:46:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] In Memoriam: Panos London - Development Experiences, Progress and Lessons Message-ID: <06d501cddd93$10a3e580$31ebb080$@gmail.com> A sad passing... Panos was a model of its kind... M -----Original Message----- From: Warren Feek [mailto:wfeek at comminit.com] Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 5:39 AM To: mgurst at vcn.bc.ca Subject: [SPAM] In Memoriam: Panos London - Development Experiences, Progress and Lessons Re: IN MEMORIAM: PANOS LONDON http://www.comminit.com/policy-blogs/content/memoriam-panos-london (and some excerpts below) Greetings Michael "Panos was a curious blend of independent journalism and participatory communication, but it was not about advocacy. The development world is full of advocates keen to communicate their analysis and their prescriptions. This has been responsible for much of the energy and success of development in recent years but there is - or at least was - room too for development analysis that seeks to explain and illuminate rather than persuade. As advocacy fills the development sphere, that role seems more relevant now than ever." (James Deane) http://www.comminit.com/policy-blogs/content/memoriam-panos-london In any field of work there will be times that prompt you to pause for serious reflection and analysis. For me the closing of our very valued partner Panos London provides the stimulus for such reflection and analysis. This was one of the original agencies to place now central issues such as the environment and HIV/AIDS onto the development agenda. It was also at the forefront of respecting and supporting the voices, information and analysis of the people and countries that were directly experiencing the major development issues. Reflecting its principles Panos developed a structure in which all of the Panos' offices across Asia, Africa, the Caribbean and Europe were equal - rather than the still predominant and traditional HQ in the North and "branch" offices in countries. (Please note that it is only Panos London that is closing) James Deane who held numerous posts in Panos London has written a blog - see http://www.comminit.com/policy-blogs/content/memoriam-panos-london - in which he reflects on the strategic principles that drove Panos London, the contribution it made to development thinking and action, and the challenges that remain for all of us when one reviews the state of development from the prism of the Panos perspective. A few excerpts follow. Can I please encourage you, your colleagues and networks to access the full blog at http://www.comminit.com/policy-blogs/content/memoriam-panos-london and take a few minutes to review James's analysis, enter your reactions into the Comments block, provide a rating of how valuable this blog is to your work and share the blog with your online networks. Your response, analysis, questions and ideas will help all of us to further refine and improve our work. EXCERPTS "Panos, and organisations like Earthscan before them, believed that the foundation of human progress is built on people having access to the information that shapes their lives, and to communicate with each other and to those in authority." "Increasingly we described our work as generating informed debate on the issues that mostmattered to the people of developing countries." "The organisation became known for its championing of participatory approaches to communication, including its much respected Oral Testimony programme. That participatory focus, for some a departure from its original journalistic remit, was as much pragmatic as it was principled. By the mid 1990s, it was clear that the big social marketing and other large scale communication programmes focused on preventing the spread of HIV were failing." "The story of the response to AIDS was in my view a catastrophic systemic failure by the international community and I have always been puzzled why no real international enquiry has been held into how an epidemic that affected perhaps a few million people in 1985 could end up infecting more than 30 million." The full blog is at http://www.comminit.com/policy-blogs/content/memoriam-panos-london Michael - Please do review this blog. We look forward to your comments and critique. Best wishes - Warren Warren Feek Executive Director The Communication Initiative http://www.comminit.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/warrencomminit Facebook: The Communication Initiative Network http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Communication-Initiative-Network/344005148 956579 LinkedIn: Warren Feek Skype: Warren Feek Office - 1-250-658-6372 Mobile 1-250-588-8795 Fax 1-250-658-1728 !DSPAM:2676,50cc7dad25489493711174! -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From joy at apc.org Tue Dec 18 22:43:17 2012 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:43:17 +1300 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <50CF4036.4080407@itforchange.net> References: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> <50CF4036.4080407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50D137D5.4050103@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, Without in any way wanting to detract from the wider conversation, I'd like to point out that in the international human rights system it is quite clear that "human rights and fundamental freedoms" (both collective and individual) belong to people or peoples (e.g. indigenous peoples). States or governments do not have "human rights" - - rather they have duties to respect, protect and promote the rights and freedoms of their citizens. "Collective rights" are a recognised category of rights, as Parminder correctly points out. But to my knowledge, no human rights or global civil society groups have argued that governments or States as "collective entities" have rights on an equal footing with the people or peoples they govern. Nor would they: but they would argue strongly that States should be accountable for how they represent the views of their citizens (I see that point is on a different part of this discussion thread). States might have done better to argue they had obligations to provide access to the internet and necessary infrastructure, which is the point that Frank la Rue made in his annual report in 2011, when he highlighted States obligations under existing international law. See Paras 85-88 here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/a.hrc.17.27_en.pdf Regards Joy Liddicoat www.apc.org On 18/12/2012 4:54 a.m., parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 16 December 2012 03:24 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's >> blog post here, to widen the discussion. Please find below. >> >> --- snip --- snip --- snip --- >> >> But for some governments this was not enough! They insisted on >> the right of States to telecommunication services and put it on a >> par basis with Human Rights. They argued the Rights of States was >> the same as the Rights of individuals. One of the most balanced >> Countries, Switzerland, expressed its outrage. Tension was rising >> fast. We got lectured by some countries that oppress their people >> about Human Rights. And then Iran called for an abrupt end to the >> discussion, after having intervened more than any country in the >> past 2 weeks, and called for a vote — when I remind you that on >> many many occasions Dr. Touré and the Chair has assured us there >> would be no vote. This derailment was self-inflicted and this was >> the drop that got the vase to overflow. > Dear Olivier, > > thanks for your detailed comments. There are a few aspects of what > happened at Dubai that I will like to comment upon. However, since > you stress the point of vote on the clause that 'all countries have > right to access international telecom networks' as one of the most > important ones let me respond to you on this. > > Collective rights are a recognised category under UN human rights > system. Why do you think that the collective entity of a country > should *not* have a right to international telecom networks.... > Isnt it something basic that must underpin any global treaty on > international telecom? What does an international telecom treaty > mean without stating such a right. It is most surprising, even > shocking, for me that people from civil society should be speaking > against such a right. I can understand why US doesnt want it, but > global civil society ??? > > Before you say anything about collective entities like a country, I > will remind you that below you do proudly refer to your > participation in such an entity. You say that you are proud that > 'your' country did not sign. Why would other people not > legitimately resist and be unhappy/ angry if their country is > denied access to international telecom. And what would your > response as someone from global civil society be to the plight of > such people - in existing sanctioned countries and potential ones. > > And you also seem to be proud that you were representing 'your > country' and were able to influence its decision.... Can other > people not legitimately have such collective feeling, and > collective rights.... > > parminder > >> Where the heck was the consensus? What kind of shotgun tactics >> are those? It was obvious by the numbers that the countries >> opposing the aggressive manner in which this was conducted, would >> lose a vote. For me, sitting in this room, this was Game, Set and >> Match. My country, the UK, did not sign and I am ever so glad >> they did not. Yes, I had a say in the matter since I was a full >> UK delegate, one of the many countries which brought multiple >> stakeholders at the table and guess what, most of these countries >> have not signed. Does this not tell you something? >> >> So that is my personal assessment of what happened and I was at >> the heart of it. I saw some very ugly stuff going on there, stuff >> which I would really like the Internet to be preserved from. >> >> But I am sad too. I am sad because I also heard some very valid >> concerns from developing countries that they were not able to >> participate in the multi-stakeholder model because of lack of >> funding, lack of understanding and a lack of proactive work from >> our “own” side. I am planning to report fully to ICANN on the >> matter – we should do more to bridge the gap. At the moment, >> these countries only have two fora in which they can participate >> and that’s the IGF where nobody listens to them and the ITU where >> they have a voice. During the hour that followed the dramatic >> vote, I went to see my “opponents”. Many of us did – and whilst >> not apologizing for not signing, we exchanged business cards and >> I intend on following up. In fact, many European countries are >> intent on following up with countries that do not appear to have >> hidden intentions are are genuine about the level of despair they >> displayed at this conference. Because sadly, there was despair >> too. This is the start of a better dialogue, one which we must >> make efforts in promoting, reaching out, building capacity. >> >> In closing, I’d say that this was not only a failure of the ITRs >> and the ITU, it was a failure of Internet Governance too. Civil >> Society has the ability to bridge the gap – and I know of several >> governments that have understood this. Let’s work together to >> ensure we will never live again a similar WCIT full of mistrust >> and despair. >> >> Olivier (speaking entirely on my own behalf) >> >> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ0TfVAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq6OwH/3jREjRRVMRX4yZS7rjteqS5 7YLeCX9fHQ305K0agxtD/YzzMVsc7eIzkwvlYVQSHh/xCiDwFVc63+Wsp7zaLPtq 8gzJg8oI5JS6bxkOazB5jrBcnR2ec/eBe0ZngVTryoVh1WPI5tc7twU8Dr2rpmXX pj39REkMZAzDxr6Y4+LXgkryjevZKNqTznHcksSsQC6DDkzJ3kfADwGFXof+gFBt FApJysq0zGtTfL8zXvg0joF+Uqxfl0qVUDK8yUmT4LGcPuG5XnpmRTay9OnMeUOh WM4u1NJWaPY+3bXcve/btZrR2D3lWKvLd5DlJAC1WeJF0975Vtss01pID4AuwZ0= =yGLG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 19 01:31:39 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 12:01:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <50D137D5.4050103@apc.org> References: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> <50CF4036.4080407@itforchange.net> <50D137D5.4050103@apc.org> Message-ID: <50D15F4B.8070408@itforchange.net> Hi Joy Thanks for your response.... It is not claimed that statescountries have human rights, or otherwise have rights " on an equal footing with the people or peoples they govern". However, rights of states are frequently mentioned in international treaties etc. See for instance one here signed by the US. Another document here speaks of rights of states regarding underwater cables and pipelines, an issue very connected to the present discussion. It was also open to delegates at Dubai to say, to the statement of right of member states to access internationl telecom we will like to add the right to people to access international telecom...... That would have really given then the moral high ground... In fact putting right to access in the ITRs and other ITU documents should have been one of the main advoacy pitches of the civil society. ITU Chief was been making positive noises about this right for many months now, and we should have used the oppurtunity.... However the CS present in Dubai and otherwise following WCIT seemed to be unifocal about just one negative agenda - keep the Internet out somehow... parminder On Wednesday 19 December 2012 09:13 AM, joy wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi all, > Without in any way wanting to detract from the wider conversation, I'd > like to point out that in the international human rights system it is > quite clear that "human rights and fundamental freedoms" (both > collective and individual) belong to people or peoples (e.g. > indigenous peoples). States or governments do not have "human rights" > - - rather they have duties to respect, protect and promote the rights > and freedoms of their citizens. > "Collective rights" are a recognised category of rights, as Parminder > correctly points out. But to my knowledge, no human rights or global > civil society groups have argued that governments or States as > "collective entities" have rights on an equal footing with the people > or peoples they govern. Nor would they: but they would argue strongly > that States should be accountable for how they represent the views of > their citizens (I see that point is on a different part of this > discussion thread). > States might have done better to argue they had obligations to provide > access to the internet and necessary infrastructure, which is the > point that Frank la Rue made in his annual report in 2011, when he > highlighted States obligations under existing international law. See > Paras 85-88 here: > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/a.hrc.17.27_en.pdf > > Regards > > Joy Liddicoat > www.apc.org > > On 18/12/2012 4:54 a.m., parminder wrote: >> On Sunday 16 December 2012 03:24 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >> wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's >>> blog post here, to widen the discussion. Please find below. >>> >>> --- snip --- snip --- snip --- >>> >>> But for some governments this was not enough! They insisted on >>> the right of States to telecommunication services and put it on a >>> par basis with Human Rights. They argued the Rights of States was >>> the same as the Rights of individuals. One of the most balanced >>> Countries, Switzerland, expressed its outrage. Tension was rising >>> fast. We got lectured by some countries that oppress their people >>> about Human Rights. And then Iran called for an abrupt end to the >>> discussion, after having intervened more than any country in the >>> past 2 weeks, and called for a vote — when I remind you that on >>> many many occasions Dr. Touré and the Chair has assured us there >>> would be no vote. This derailment was self-inflicted and this was >>> the drop that got the vase to overflow. >> Dear Olivier, >> >> thanks for your detailed comments. There are a few aspects of what >> happened at Dubai that I will like to comment upon. However, since >> you stress the point of vote on the clause that 'all countries have >> right to access international telecom networks' as one of the most >> important ones let me respond to you on this. >> >> Collective rights are a recognised category under UN human rights >> system. Why do you think that the collective entity of a country >> should *not* have a right to international telecom networks.... >> Isnt it something basic that must underpin any global treaty on >> international telecom? What does an international telecom treaty >> mean without stating such a right. It is most surprising, even >> shocking, for me that people from civil society should be speaking >> against such a right. I can understand why US doesnt want it, but >> global civil society ??? >> >> Before you say anything about collective entities like a country, I >> will remind you that below you do proudly refer to your >> participation in such an entity. You say that you are proud that >> 'your' country did not sign. Why would other people not >> legitimately resist and be unhappy/ angry if their country is >> denied access to international telecom. And what would your >> response as someone from global civil society be to the plight of >> such people - in existing sanctioned countries and potential ones. >> >> And you also seem to be proud that you were representing 'your >> country' and were able to influence its decision.... Can other >> people not legitimately have such collective feeling, and >> collective rights.... >> >> parminder >> >>> Where the heck was the consensus? What kind of shotgun tactics >>> are those? It was obvious by the numbers that the countries >>> opposing the aggressive manner in which this was conducted, would >>> lose a vote. For me, sitting in this room, this was Game, Set and >>> Match. My country, the UK, did not sign and I am ever so glad >>> they did not. Yes, I had a say in the matter since I was a full >>> UK delegate, one of the many countries which brought multiple >>> stakeholders at the table and guess what, most of these countries >>> have not signed. Does this not tell you something? >>> >>> So that is my personal assessment of what happened and I was at >>> the heart of it. I saw some very ugly stuff going on there, stuff >>> which I would really like the Internet to be preserved from. >>> >>> But I am sad too. I am sad because I also heard some very valid >>> concerns from developing countries that they were not able to >>> participate in the multi-stakeholder model because of lack of >>> funding, lack of understanding and a lack of proactive work from >>> our “own” side. I am planning to report fully to ICANN on the >>> matter – we should do more to bridge the gap. At the moment, >>> these countries only have two fora in which they can participate >>> and that’s the IGF where nobody listens to them and the ITU where >>> they have a voice. During the hour that followed the dramatic >>> vote, I went to see my “opponents”. Many of us did – and whilst >>> not apologizing for not signing, we exchanged business cards and >>> I intend on following up. In fact, many European countries are >>> intent on following up with countries that do not appear to have >>> hidden intentions are are genuine about the level of despair they >>> displayed at this conference. Because sadly, there was despair >>> too. This is the start of a better dialogue, one which we must >>> make efforts in promoting, reaching out, building capacity. >>> >>> In closing, I’d say that this was not only a failure of the ITRs >>> and the ITU, it was a failure of Internet Governance too. Civil >>> Society has the ability to bridge the gap – and I know of several >>> governments that have understood this. Let’s work together to >>> ensure we will never live again a similar WCIT full of mistrust >>> and despair. >>> >>> Olivier (speaking entirely on my own behalf) >>> >>> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) > Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ0TfVAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq6OwH/3jREjRRVMRX4yZS7rjteqS5 > 7YLeCX9fHQ305K0agxtD/YzzMVsc7eIzkwvlYVQSHh/xCiDwFVc63+Wsp7zaLPtq > 8gzJg8oI5JS6bxkOazB5jrBcnR2ec/eBe0ZngVTryoVh1WPI5tc7twU8Dr2rpmXX > pj39REkMZAzDxr6Y4+LXgkryjevZKNqTznHcksSsQC6DDkzJ3kfADwGFXof+gFBt > FApJysq0zGtTfL8zXvg0joF+Uqxfl0qVUDK8yUmT4LGcPuG5XnpmRTay9OnMeUOh > WM4u1NJWaPY+3bXcve/btZrR2D3lWKvLd5DlJAC1WeJF0975Vtss01pID4AuwZ0= > =yGLG > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 19 01:37:18 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 01:37:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <50D15F4B.8070408@itforchange.net> References: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> <50CF4036.4080407@itforchange.net> <50D137D5.4050103@apc.org> <50D15F4B.8070408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 1:31 AM, parminder wrote: > > Hi Joy > > Thanks for your response.... > > It is not claimed that states countries have human rights, or otherwise have > rights " on an equal footing with the people or peoples they govern". Are you sure? Read the transcript again, it seemed to me to be exactly what was claimed. > > However, rights of states are frequently mentioned in international treaties > etc. See for instance one here signed by the US. Another document here > speaks of rights of states regarding underwater cables and pipelines, an > issue very connected to the present discussion. > > It was also open to delegates at Dubai to say, to the statement of right of > member states to access internationl telecom we will like to add the right > to people to access international telecom...... That would have really given > then the moral high ground... That text was tried and failed. In fact putting right to access in the ITRs > and other ITU documents should have been one of the main advoacy pitches of > the civil society. 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Dec 19 02:55:21 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 08:55:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] democracy (was Re: NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai) In-Reply-To: References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> <20121218195510.54d04f18@quill.bollow.ch> <04d601cddd55$7fd02b00$7f708100$@gmail.com> <20121218210958.7b095581@quill.bollow.ch> <20121218231809.79e70082@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20121219085521.2988bbec@quill.bollow.ch> Paul Lehto wrote: > A real measure of democracy would have to have core measurements that > have clear cut failing points at which the country as a whole fails > to be democratic. Azerbaijan, Germany, Kenya, Switzerland and the U.S.A. (listed in alphabetic order) would in my opinion all fail any reasonable such test of the "country as a whole" being democratic. (I think that probably every country in the world could be added to this list, but I wanted to list only countries about which I know enough that I can defend my assertion if someone challenges it.) But some of these failures are worse (or in the case of Azerbaijan, very much worse) than others. I would suggest that that "Democracy Index" gives an indication of how bad the failures are in the various countries. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Wed Dec 19 03:17:24 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 09:17:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] treaty development processes (was Re: NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai) In-Reply-To: References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> <20121218195510.54d04f18@quill.bollow.ch> <04d601cddd55$7fd02b00$7f708100$@gmail.com> <20121218210958.7b095581@quill.bollow.ch> <20121218231809.79e70082@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20121219091724.7a8912d4@quill.bollow.ch> I had written: > > The big question is of course what the causalities are... After looking at http://infogr.am/-mebuell_1355447340 again, I now say: There's nothing really surprising there: Of course there is a correlation between democracy and not wanting to sign _without_consultations_. Maybe there is something fundamentally wrong with the kind of treaty development process that is intended to culminate in an immediate treaty-signing party? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 03:42:00 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:42:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] How cooperation could be defined ? In-Reply-To: <8624DB91-038F-4F05-939A-3693D979D312@ccianet.org> References: <50CE0DC4.1030805@panamo.eu> <531E57A5-E5D0-4BC8-8214-443A852CAE1A@gmail.com> <8624DB91-038F-4F05-939A-3693D979D312@ccianet.org> Message-ID: <50D17DD8.9010701@gmail.com> On 2012/12/18 09:37 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Personally, I'm pragmatic. The objective is every single person having > broadband that is affordable for them, and as free of restrictions on > the uses to which that access can be put as possible. I'm happy to > harness philanthropy to get there, I'm happy to harness self interest > to get there, I'm happy if corporate greed helps us get there. I agree. But this position is diametrically different from "market is best" or private enterprise is the favoured "vehicle" - it simply all depends. > > Frankly I think it takes all of these and more to make that vision > come about. Yes, there are unintended consequences and dangers from > various things, and these have to be minimised, but the fact that > these have to be dealt with shouldn't get in the way of the > overarching goal. Without affordable access to the Internet, all the > benefits it can bring don't happen. +1 > > As to IGOs, NGOs, *GOs, Any structure or process that isn't designed > to help real people is a structure or process that should be avoided. > Any structure or process that excludes groups, or gives unequal access > to some over others, is a process or structure that should be reformed. +1 > > All my personal opinions. > > On 17 Dec 2012, at 16:05, riaz.tayob at gmail.com > wrote: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 03:53:19 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 10:53:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> <20121218195510.54d04f18@quill.bollow.ch> <04d601cddd55$7fd02b00$7f708100$@gmail.com> <20121218210958.7b095581@quill.bollow.ch> <20121218231809.79e70082@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <50D1807F.5020202@gmail.com> On 2012/12/19 03:40 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: > > The notion of a Democracy INDEX consisting of /weighted averages/ is > flawed. A Thanks for this. There IS a real problem with applying quantitative methods to qualitative issues - and the quant method should not be taken too much for reality. > real measure of democracy would have to have core measurements that > have clear cut failing points at which the country as a whole fails to > be democratic. Recognising the limitations above, something can be gleaned from the statistics and insights - depending on the level of abstraction and/or position (for instance this tension is shown perfectly and is understandable for Americans to have an American Exceptionalism approach for their local issues; and likewise for some in the South it is clear that democracy at home in the rich countries does not imply democratic spirit in external relations). The point is to have a quant and qualitative understanding, recognising the limits of the tools as well as their uses while avoiding the paradox of "names". Riaz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 08:31:26 2012 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:31:26 +0500 Subject: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new approach to Internet governance! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Mr. Bertrnad, I agree with you 100%, Kindly also guide on this, as you I have came back to Pakistan, and we this digital war on daily bases on Internet. Guide us the solutions. Avri Point I disagree. Regards On 18 December 2012 21:20, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Avri, > > I see your point. Let me rephrase somewhat to explain what I meant: > > - the current meme is going like: "this is a Digital Cold War", and the > natural follow-up is: "Whose side are you on?" (remember Matt Bianco'ssong? :-), forcing people into a sterile black-and-white alternative > > - my formulation would be: "how can we prevent this from becoming a > Digital Cold War", and this leads to: "how do we manage commons"? and "how > to handle shared responsibilities". > > I believe this is more likely to lead to constructive solutions. > > I know the human brain likes simple dichotomies. It has even been an > evolutionary survival competence. But tens of millions of dead people > throughout history show what it can lead to in complex societies when it > gets out of control. I consciously and voluntarily try not to fall in that > trap in the case of Internet governance. And now is a moment to be aware of > this, as we assess the outcome of WCIT and its consequences for future > debates. > > We (the people of the world) have the power to frame description of > situations and objectives in a way that helps solve issues. If we do not do > it consciously, we become all prisoners of the power of words, hostages of > the most radical among us and lose control of our collective destiny. > > My two cents. > > B. > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> But, if it really is a digital cold war, saying that it isn't, can be >> just as self defeating. >> >> Let's analyze before deciding which it is. >> >> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> >> >I anticipate a great journalistic attraction for the meme "a Digital Cold >> >War". >> > >> >It is an abusive oversimplification and worse, it presents a big risk of >> a >> >self-fulfilling prophecy if people begin to think in that framework. The >> >"us vs them" behavior on both sides, the "with us or against us", the >> cyber >> >arms race, the fight between radical approaches, both caricatured to the >> >extreme, unfortunately prevent a more balanced, cautious, and respectful >> >approach that enables joint management of the new commons, rather than >> >attempts to carve out territories in cyberspace. >> > >> >Some thinking is needed to find better formulations. And citizens' >> >interests in all regions need to be the starting point. Civil society >> has a >> >responsibility in there. Let's avoid being held hostage to the extreme >> >views from both sides. >> > >> >B. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Kettemann, Matthias ( >> >matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: >> > >> >> Dear Parminder, **** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> The right of states to have no other state interfere with their access >> to >> >> the Internet is, in my view, not conditional upon an international >> treaty >> >> but rather, as I’ve argued in the mail you quoted from, in the process >> of >> >> crystallizing into a customary norm. Treaties can be evidence of such a >> >> crystallization, but they are not necessary for the process. Not >> signing a >> >> treaty than contains many different provisions cannot be used as an >> >> argument against any one single norm’s customary character. Further >> >> evidence, such as clear statements by states evidencing opinio iuris, >> is >> >> needed. **** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> The dynamics in Dubai illustrate that we are now at a point where two >> >> different conceptions of the normative order applicable to the Internet >> >> clash. Simple dichotomies (freedom vs. control, private >> sector-orientation >> >> vs. sovereignity-orientation) are more misleading than helpful. **** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> The danger I see lies rather in what the Economist termed a potential >> >> “digital Cold War”. History tells us that the last Cold War didn’t >> lead to >> >> decades of cooperative law-making on the international plane, but >> rather >> >> conflict, divisions and standstill. **** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> Yet at the height of the Cold War leaders agreed, within the framework >> of >> >> the CSCE, on the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 which laid down essential >> >> commitments regarding political and military cooperation and human >> rights >> >> issues, including the Helsinki Decalogue, the “Declaration on [10] >> >> Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States” ( >> >> http://www.osce.org/mc/39501?download=true). **** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> So what do we need now: We need a Helsinki Decalogue for the Internet >> that >> >> can guide relation between all stakeholders in the Internet. If Russia >> and >> >> the US were able to agree in 1975 on the prohibition of the use of >> force, >> >> non-intervention, respect for human rights and fulfillment in good >> faith of >> >> obligations under international law, they should be able to agree, in >> near >> >> future, on Internet Governance principles reflecting these >> international >> >> legal principles.**** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> The Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on Internet governance >> >> principles (https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1835773) provides a >> first >> >> template; and the IRP’s 0 Rights and Principles (http://irpcharter.org >> ) >> >> exemplify a human rights-oriented approach. **** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> It’s there that we should look, rather than to feel sorry that Dubai >> >> didn’t work out.**** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> Kind regards**** >> >> >> >> Matthias**** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> --**** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> Dr Matthias C. Kettemann, LLM (Harvard)**** >> >> >> >> Institute of International Law and International Relations**** >> >> >> >> University of Graz, Austria**** >> >> >> >> T | +43 316 380 6711 **** >> >> >> >> E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at**** >> >> >> >> Blog | Twitter< >> http://twitter.com/#%21/MCKettemann>| >> >> Facebook | Google+< >> https://plus.google.com/u/0/116310540881122884114/posts> >> >> **** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> *Von:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *parminder >> >> *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 18. Dezember 2012 15:17 >> >> *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Bertrand de la Chapelle >> >> *Betreff:* Re: [governance] Internetistan, or the Bit Boat... a new >> >> approach to Internet governance!**** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Bertrand/ Others >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> >> On Wednesday 12 December 2012 01:43 AM, bdelachapelle at gmail.comwrote:**** >> >> >> >> Dear Matthias,**** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> I agree with your thesis. **** >> >> >> >> >> >> Which I understand, to quote Matthias' email, is about**** >> >> >> >> "...crystallization of the application of the international customary >> law >> >> norm of non-interference to other states' Internet access. Indeed, the >> >> stability and functionality of the Internet can by now be clearly >> >> considered to lie in the common interest. As such, it is protected by >> >> international law. States that violate this common obligation engage >> their >> >> international responsibility."**** >> >> >> >> Now what have you all to say about the US and its allies walking out of >> >> the WCIT on the point of refusing to sign on preambular language that >> >> simply "recognize(s) the right of access of Member States to >> international >> >> telecommunication services". >> >> >> >> This point above seems central to all the discussions here on what is >> >> being called as 'a new approach to Internet governance'. >> >> >> >> Wonder, why the US is able to get away with such monstrosities, and >> civil >> >> society choses to look the other way when they happen. Nay, people >> have in >> >> fact been defending US's position of not signing the above text on this >> >> list and other CS forums..... One wonders what is happening!!! >> >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> **** >> >> >> >> ** ** >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >____________________ >> >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 >> > > > > -- > ____________________ > 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 > > -- *Follow me @* * **Before you print think about the** **ENVIRONMENT* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 08:51:59 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 15:51:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] The Emperor of All Identities In-Reply-To: <50D1C4B3.20202@bluewin.ch> References: <50D1C4B3.20202@bluewin.ch> Message-ID: <50D1C67F.5090003@gmail.com> The Emperor of All Identities By PAMELA JONES HARBOUR Washington A FEW years after it was founded, Google adopted a list of guiding principles it titled, "Ten things we know to be true." No. 4 was "Democracy on the Web works." That's a worthy sentiment --- though a bit surprising coming from the Web's emperor. For that, arguably, is what Google has become. Its search engine accounts for nearly 80 percent of all Web searches in the United States --- and a remarkable 98 percent of searches from mobile devices. In that role, Google is not just an eponymous verb but perhaps the most central conduit of information in the nation --- and, indeed, on the planet. No other search engine comes close. News accounts suggest that the Federal Trade Commission will delay any decision on whether to file an antitrust lawsuit against Google until perhaps next year. That decision had been expected to come this week. The F.T.C. has spent nearly two years investigating whether Google's search engine favors the company's own commercial endeavors over rival offerings, thereby stifling competition. And even now, some analysts believe that the commission might forgo any legal action against the company in exchange for Google's willingness to make some modest changes in the way it uses certain consumer information. This would be a severe setback for Internet users. It will allow Google to continue to amass unbridled control over data gathering, with grave consequences for privacy and for consumer choice. (European regulators are conducting their own antitrust inquiry into Google.) Google has been modest about its dominance in the modern information society, asserting that competing search engines, like Yahoo or Microsoft's Bing, are just "one click away" if people wish to use them. The Internet is an extraordinarily complex domain with equally powerful challengers, the company points out. Facebook makes Google's own social media platform look like a joke. Far more shoppers begin their online product searches through Amazon than Google. In short, there's enough competition out there, Google says, that consumers ought not to fear the company's mighty role in the information economy. But we need to look at Google's market role --- and behavior --- through a different prism. Google is not just a "search engine company," or an "online services company," or a publisher, or an advertising platform. At its core, it's a data collection company. Its "market" is data by, from and about consumers --- you, that is. And in that realm, its role is so dominant as to be overwhelming, and scary. Data is the engine of online markets and has become, indeed, a new asset class. In March, when Google replaced the more than 60 privacy guidelines that governed its products and services with a single policy, it also moved to consolidate the personal data it collects. The company creates as much data in two days --- roughly 5 exabytes --- as the world produced from the dawn of humanity until 2003, according to a 2010 statement by Eric Schmidt, the company's chairman, who later declared that he didn't "believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable, and recorded by everyone all the time." For now, Google uses the data to sell targeted ads, but who says the company's use of the data will be restricted to that purpose? Opt out of Google's data collection? Sure, you can do that --- but you'll also have to delete your Gmail account and leave Google's ecosystem. With Google's Android operating system --- which is activated in 1.3 million new mobile devices every day, and is used by more people than use Apple's iPhone --- that ecosystem is growing. I've been concerned about Google's dominant role in data collection --- and the profound privacy concerns it raises --- since my time at the F.T.C. When the commission approved Google's 2007 acquisition of DoubleClick, I dissented --- because I was concerned that combining the two companies' vast troves of consumer information would allow Google, which was largely unchecked by competition, to develop invasive profiles of individuals' Internet habits. Now, the F.T.C. has another chance to protect consumers, promote innovation and ensure fair competition online. In making its decision, it must understand that while Google may be the runaway leader in Web search and online advertising, its most troubling dominance is in the marketplace of private consumer data. If real competition in this area can be restored, I am confident that market forces will provide the incentives necessary for companies to offer attractive services and relevant, engaging ads without violating consumer privacy. I am no longer an F.T.C. commissioner, but a lawyer representing companies --- including Microsoft --- that are concerned about Google's power as a data collector. Yes, there's some irony in that --- it wasn't long ago that Microsoft faced its own major antitrust lawsuit and had to change its anticompetitive practices. But then, an emperor is an emperor. And when it comes to the Web, as Google's wise founders said, democracy works best. Pamela Jones Harbour , a member of the Federal Trade Commission from 2003 to 2010, is a lawyer at Fulbright & Jaworski, where she represents technology companies, including Microsoft. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at uzh.ch Wed Dec 19 11:04:10 2012 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:04:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty References: <139196D2-D858-4197-9C67-1677AA9C8C32@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <22C7BD8E-D35E-4661-97C7-B1667EF2458E@uzh.ch> I guess this thread started here, didn't notice it'd moved Begin forwarded message: > From: William Drake > Date: December 19, 2012 4:35:09 PM GMT+01:00 > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty > Reply-To: William Drake > > On Dec 19, 2012, at 5:02 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi Milton, >> >> A point I think you miss is that the word "Internet' does not need to be spelled out for the hooks to be there for Internet control. > > +1 > > I've been puzzled by the insistence on this point. We spent two weeks in Dubai talking about almost nothing but the Internet and that is clearly what many administrations think is covered in the provisions on OAs, spam, security, exchange points, nondiscrimination/states rights, routing, and so on, not to mention the resolution. We'll see how things go in the implementation phase. > > The other point is obviously that if not for the "keep the net out of it" campaigning that's been so derided by the ITU, friendly states, and some bloggers, the word Internet would be all over the text. So for anyone to look at the final, note its absence, and proclaim see, there was nothing to worry about, totally misses the point that it was the worrying that made the nothing, such as it is perceived to be. > > Bill > >> >> e.g. >> What is telecommunications about SPAM - no matter what euphemism they use >> What kind of security is there in telecommunications beyond robustness. >> And if ROA isn't good enough anymore, who exactly is going to be covered by AOA? >> >> You think that doing a word search is analysis of the text? After spending 23 days and nights among these folk I have lot of respect for their ability to use language and to say what they want to say without using the red flagged words. >> >> As I have said elsewhere, I think they negotiated to a drawl. the Internet is in the ITRs even of the words aren't, but subtly and not in any way near as strong and emphatic as they (many Member states) want and will keep pushing for it. This is a tussle that isn't even close to finished. >> >> And I can't wait for the next episodes. >> >> avri >> >> PS. I do beleive the camel got its nose in the tent. >> >> >> >> >> On 19 Dec 2012, at 01:46, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of >>>> Avri Doria >>>> Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 2:30 AM >>> >>>> In this case, the ITR treaty, was seen as threatening the Internet and >>>> Internet governance in some ways, especially with regard to Internet >>>> content and the scope of Member State and ITU control over the Internet. >>>> >>>> For me one the major issues related to the security and robustness of >>>> the Internet being a Member State responsibility. >>> >>> [Milton L Mueller] Avri, >>> Did you notice that the word Internet does not appear in the ITRs? >>> >>> >>>> " >>>> ARTICLE 5A >>>> >>>> Security and robustness of networks >>>> >>>> 41B Member States shall individually and collectively >>>> endeavour to ensure the security and robustness of international >>>> telecommunication networks in order to achieve effective use thereof and >>>> avoidance of technical harm thereto, as well as the harmonious >>>> development of international telecommunication services offered to the >>>> public. >>> >>> [Milton L Mueller] international telecommunication services is not "Internet". And have you read all >>> >>>> First what is security at the telecommunication layer other that >>>> robustness? And what does it mean to apply this security not only to >>>> the physical network but also to harmonious development... The worst >>> >>> [Milton L Mueller] ...of services. Harmonious development of services. No one knows wtf that means. If your point is that vague calls for peace and harmony can do enormous harm in the international sphere, better take a look at virtually every resolution, every document that comes out of the UN system. Better yet, give us one example, just ONE, of how the ITRs or any similar treaty have been used in the past to expand scope beyond what its drafters intended, beyond what the language says >>> >>>> power of the ITRs is what they allow Member States to do inside their >>>> countries with permission of international law. Also what is envisioned >>> >>> [Milton L Mueller] which they do already. With or without permission >>> >>>> It does not take much imagination to see the future actions of >>>> repressive states with regard to their power to protect the security of >>>> the network from disharmony. >>> >>> [Milton L Mueller] it does not take any imagination at all, because it is already happening - in dozens of jurisdictions. This provision does exactly nothing. >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 19 12:37:11 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:37:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] WG: Information on the CSTD panel in Lima References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD7C2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi all CSTD will have an intersessional meeting early january in Lima/Peru. The meetring is open. Please contact Jason if you have a chance to participate (contacts are below). As you can see from the agenda, next to Broadband there is also a WSIS 10+ sessions where Peter Major will give a statement. This will touch certainly also the new CSTD WG on EC. Best wolfgang Registration is still open through Friday, December 21st. We are also pleased to provide information on how to participate remotely. Jason W. Munyan United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Palais des Nations, E 7063 | 1211 Geneva 10 | Switzerland phone: +41 22 917 30 18 / fax: +41 22 917 00 52 jason.munyan at unctad.org ----- Forwarded by Jason Munyan/UNCTAD/GVA/UNO on 19.12.2012 15:49 ----- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Programme 19Dec12.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 385339 bytes Desc: Draft Programme 19Dec12.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Information Note 19Dec12 EN.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1243926 bytes Desc: Information Note 19Dec12 EN.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Information Note 19Dec12 ES.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1249531 bytes Desc: Information Note 19Dec12 ES.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2012-2013 Intersessional Reg Form EN.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 87282 bytes Desc: 2012-2013 Intersessional Reg Form EN.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2012-2013 Intersessional Reg Form ES.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 88923 bytes Desc: 2012-2013 Intersessional Reg Form ES.docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Remote Participation.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 293014 bytes Desc: Remote Participation.pdf URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 19 12:55:13 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:55:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Good Journal References: <50D1C4B3.20202@bluewin.ch> <50D1C67F.5090003@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD7C4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://ejlt.org/ wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Wed Dec 19 12:58:21 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:58:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: References: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> <50CF4036.4080407@itforchange.net> <50D137D5.4050103@apc.org> <50D15F4B.8070408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50D2003D.9040400@gih.com> On 19/12/2012 07:37, McTim wrote: >> It was also open to delegates at Dubai to say, to the statement of right of >> > member states to access internationl telecom we will like to add the right >> > to people to access international telecom...... That would have really given >> > then the moral high ground... > That text was tried and failed. ...because Civil Society had no voice at all in the plenaries. And just to rub salt into the wounds, Touré said afterwards that Civil Society could have spoken. Easy to say afterwards - why not encourage it in the session? Because some countries would have barked, as they did when the EU Commissioner took the floor from the Cyprus bench. The barking was not impressive. 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Dec 19 13:12:33 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 13:12:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: democracy (was Re: NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai) In-Reply-To: <20121219085521.2988bbec@quill.bollow.ch> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> <20121218195510.54d04f18@quill.bollow.ch> <04d601cddd55$7fd02b00$7f708100$@gmail.com> <20121218210958.7b095581@quill.bollow.ch> <20121218231809.79e70082@quill.bollow.ch> <20121219085521.2988bbec@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Because democracy is highly believed in around the world, and because the powers that be wish to maintain their freedom of action to pursue their self interest, the powers that be will support a Democracy Index approach that avoids definitional tests. In this way, and even in the worst case scenario, actions taken by the powers that be can only degrade the Democracy Index incrementally but can not destroy democracy, leaving the powers that be almost totally free to do whatever they like in terms of tinkering with systems and rights. Paul Lehto, J.D. On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Paul Lehto wrote: > > > A real measure of democracy would have to have core measurements that > > have clear cut failing points at which the country as a whole fails > > to be democratic. > > Azerbaijan, Germany, Kenya, Switzerland and the U.S.A. (listed in > alphabetic order) would in my opinion all fail any reasonable such test > of the "country as a whole" being democratic. (I think that probably > every country in the world could be added to this list, but I wanted to > list only countries about which I know enough that I can defend my > assertion if someone challenges it.) > > But some of these failures are worse (or in the case of Azerbaijan, very > much worse) than others. > > I would suggest that that "Democracy Index" gives an indication of how > bad the failures are in the various countries. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4965 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Dec 19 12:43:51 2012 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 18:43:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Values vs. Interests in IG In-Reply-To: <039201cddd42$1833a430$489aec90$@gmail.com> References: <039201cddd42$1833a430$489aec90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <66533BF7-B2CE-40D4-BB72-47214F61C7D3@ciroap.org> On 18/12/2012, at 6:06 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > However, what is surprising is the way in which the (Internet) Freedom League was able to frame the discussion (they have been reading their Lakoff) so decisively as being one of (their) "good" values vs. the others "bad" interests! > > Where this gets even more surprising and foggy is why the technical community and civil society chose to take sides in this arena rather than siding for the Internet (and the "values" that both, but particularly the technical community so vigourly and widely have been espousing). I don't know, count me as less surprised than you. :-) We yearn for simplicity because simple messages are easiest to communicate persuasively. But building a simple message that is also uncontested, is tricky - sometimes it's down to luck, othertimes hard work, and sometimes compromises have to be made along the way, most of those to do with the funding that makes it all possible (but it's hardly just Google that influences the framing of our work). As for how things worked out on the ground in Dubai, personal interests and friendships (or hatreds!) are supposed to be irrelevant to the broader public interests that we are trying to balance and advance, but they are not. Besides cultural and gender differences, personalities (and personality styles such as introversion/extroversion; mine is introversion so you know!) also intervene. (Hell, even spelling and punctuation intervene. Life is complicated. :-) > But now that the smoke is clearing and hopefully for some at least, the fog is lifting there is now a very significant role for the technical community and CS (in their respective roles and hopefully as a united coalition of coalitions) to articulate and lead the fight for a vision of how the Internet can function as a global public good (as opposed to a battlefield of multiple private interests) and what the governance structure (or process) for such a beast might look like. Yep, we will work together to articulate a vision for this. But perhaps with a little let-up for the holiday season. Certainly, plus one to your message here: that we may have different interests, but that doesn't mean we should descend into painting others as black devils and our friends as saintly white. Some of us (not too many of them active on this list, though) crossed a line there. -- 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 jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Dec 19 16:53:00 2012 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:53:00 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post Message-ID: <911725506.38983.1355953980455.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d05> Bonjour all I'm on the same line as Michael as far as "embedded CS" -i.e. CS members in national delegations- representativity is concerned. What we do need is an independent and competent CS members that have roots in their communities or orgs, and ow feedback to them. I know how participation for our African friends in the WSIS process is difficult mostly due to financial reasons. That's why a part of CS has always struggled for the WSIS organizers (in fact UN agencies) to create a fund that would be able at least to afford the trips costs and possibly add a kind of "perdiem" for CS delegates during the WSIS sessions. Here is the true "N-S divide" and unless we find a solution for bridging this one I wonder if we'd be able to consider the "digital divide" in DCs ans especially in Africa. Second point : in the previous mail Wolfgang wrote< the problem with MS within the ITU is that according to the existing procedures CS can participate only via national delegations.> I can't agrree with this point of view. IMHO, the heart of the problem is that the ITU is a CS-hostile institution. It is open to the private sector (680 private enterprises, corporations and institutes are its "Sector members") but not to CS orgs ... unless they pay expensive fees and accept to be "Associated members" participating in one of its specific Working Groups. The ultimate paradox is perfect when you consider that the same ITU is the UN-designated leader for a MSH-labelled UN process ! That's why as soon as the very beginning of the WSIS I'd asked for the ITU to open itself to the CS orgs that are working in areas close to the ITU scope of functions, especially in the ICT/Telecom development sector. Unfortunately I missed any support from the WSIS CS representatives for this proposition. In the meantme, a handful of rich CS organizations were able to afford some 4000 FS for being an Associated Member in the Development sector (ITU-D) and even some 11 000 FS in the ITU-R or ITU-T sector ! In my proposal to the WSIS I suggested that an asking CS org be an Associated member in return of their expertise and contribution to ITU's activities, thus justifying their free of charge membership. To my suggestion for giving the ICT/Telecom competent CS orgs an Associated member status, the ITU Development Bureau Director and current ITU SG answered "no politics in the ITU" (see Annuaire suisse de politique du developpement 2003, page 120 - 121). That's why CS is to stay firmly questioning an "open" ITU as the prerequisite for any form of multistakeholder approach/participation in the WSIS process and moreover in the IGF. Conversely, if CS were an ITU insider ("I have a dream" ...), the WCIT could have reached a much better outcome . Best regards Jean-Louis fullsack > Message du 17/12/12 11:18 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "McTim" > Copie à : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "'Avri Doria'" > Objet : RE: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > Good points Wolfgang and McTim however they seem to be somewhat in tension > with each other... > > McTim quite correctly indicates that the ITU cannot be considered as MS > suggesting (I believe) that such a close linking of CS with a national > delegation might not be appropriate in a "true MS". > > Meanwhile Wolfgang suggests the problem here as being that LDC's may not > have the resources to bring CS along (suggesting that the relationship > between CS and national delegations is perhaps an on-going and desireable > mode). However (he goes on) it might be also desireable (possible) to have > a true MS consultation/negotiation where CS is participating both as part of > national delegations and a "procedure which allow(s) CS to participate > independent from their national governments (and waving the fees)". > > I'm wondering at concepts and definitions here... If we accept that a part > (at least) of the definition of CS is that it is the group that (sees itself > at least) as supporting the public interest and thus in global MS fora as > presumably supporting a/the "global public interest", and if we understand > that national delegations to global deliberations would by definition be > supporting "national" interests then how would it be possible for those > (self-identifying and publicly identified) as CS to be members of national > delegations in global (or national) MS deliberations. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:37 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria > Subject: AW: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > HI, > > the problem with MS within the ITU is that according to the existing > procedures CS can participate only via national delegations. This is a (very > small) step in the right direction but has negative sideeffect: It is > widening the North-South gap. While nothern countries have no problem to > invite CS into their national governmental delegations (and even give them a > governmental badge) this is not the case in many southern ITU member states > and countries as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran and others. Nenna can > tell a story how difficult it was to come to Dubai (regardless of the fact > that she organized a national IGF in her home country, she had no chance to > become a member of their national delagation. Finally she found another > government which invited her to the Dubai experience). She told this Toure > in our meeting and we told him that the MS model is more than to recommend > national governments to bring some non-governmental people to ITU > conferences. To have no CS from developing countries in ITU meetings is not > only a missed opportunity, it produces also imbalanced results and deepens > the conflicts. What we need is an procedure which allow CS to participate > independent from their national governments (and waving the fees). > > This should be raised as one of the future ITU policy issues during the > forthcoming World Telecommunication Policy Forum in May 2013 in Geneva and > lead to changes in the ITU Convention at PP 2014 in Korea. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Suresh > Ramasubramanian > Gesendet: Mo 17.12.2012 03:38 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: ; Avri Doria > Betreff: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > > What, in your opinion, is wrong here? Other than that civil society can't > participate on their own of course, to represent their own organization's > viewpoint? > > If they agree to be part of a USG delegation as subject matter experts, it > is in the entire delegation's collective interest not to present mixed > messages. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Dec-2012, at 6:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > > > Avri and all, > > > > I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb > Kramer's press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting > experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me > that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by > multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in > these multi-stakeholder processes. > > > > M > > > > Amb Kramer: Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a > good question, but I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have > a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government > that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department > of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being > either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so > that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. > They - as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're > representing national interests. > > > > So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one > is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in > these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going > forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the > industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that > informed our positions more broadly on a national basis. > > > > A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in > our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real > benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece > of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do > outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're > able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, > and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our > delegation. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > > > > > On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > > > > > I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not > do > > > it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure > that > > > they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had > nothing > > > to answer to them. > > > > > > i think that most of the non government types on the delegations > found their funding elsewhere. > > > > i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but > perhaps I am uninformed. anyone else know of any? > > > > they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere. > > > > and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State > delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option. > > > > avri > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus..org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Dec 19 17:13:46 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:13:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> Message-ID: <9G5WTPzawj0QFAcP@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 18:30:33 on Mon, 17 Dec 2012, Avri Doria writes >Exactly where are these well established definitions? Within the resources of numerous anti-spam initiatives. You could try CAUCE, Spamhaus, the London Action Plan and even RIPE-NCC document 206 (which is a re-release of a LINX document). Then there are the various worldwide regulations, including the European Privacy Directive 2002/58, and the US's CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. >Which ITU treaty or ITU standard defines what "Unsolicited bulk communications" means? None so far, but I expect they'll have to discuss it in one of the Study Groups if they really do want to make any progress. They have a huge body of literature to fall back on. >And I have not the faintest idea what you mean when you speak of 'hares running.' Apologies for using an idiom. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Dec 19 17:22:15 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:22:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <911725506.38983.1355953980455.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d05> References: <911725506.38983.1355953980455.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d05> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B17ED3A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> +1 If I may follow on from Jean-Louis' note, and rewind the clock to tell a story, this is the existential dilemma ITU has been stuck on since the dawn of the Internet epoch: ~20 years ago with DARPA broadband project $ I supported an MIT student to spend summer assisting ITU with a TIES upgrade to make its docs more easily accessible across the pre-public, not web, net. Of course, my and DARPA's motivations was to make the ITU's standards and related docs more accessible. Which my student helped ITU do...for all those dues paying members Jean-Louis mentioned. So DARPA (and I) got nowhere 20 years ago, Jean-Louis got nowhere 10-5 years ago; and we are surprised by how things proceeded at WCIT? The ITU's - business model - is stuck in the 1980s, and can't get out. That's the core problem. It makes it very hard for everyone else when trying to deal with a 'public international' agency whose core internal metric is - dues, and document charges. Since governments have never funded ITU lavishly assuming given its sectoral responsibilities, it should be able to pay its own way more than say UNCTAD, or UNGA. Jean-Louis asking for a few free seats for invited CS experts threatens to crumble the whole show, hence Toure's reaction back in the day. And hence the irony of ITU convening WSIS, for which it should be applauded; but being unable to internalize its principles; eg at WCIT. Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Jean-Louis FULLSACK [jlfullsack at orange.fr] Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 4:53 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; '"Kleinwächter Wolfgang"'; McTim Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Avri Doria' Subject: RE: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post Bonjour all I'm on the same line as Michael as far as "embedded CS" -i.e. CS members in national delegations- representativity is concerned. What we do need is an independent and competent CS members that have roots in their communities or orgs, and ow feedback to them. I know how participation for our African friends in the WSIS process is difficult mostly due to financial reasons. That's why a part of CS has always struggled for the WSIS organizers (in fact UN agencies) to create a fund that would be able at least to afford the trips costs and possibly add a kind of "perdiem" for CS delegates during the WSIS sessions. Here is the true "N-S divide" and unless we find a solution for bridging this one I wonder if we'd be able to consider the "digital divide" in DCs ans especially in Africa. Second point : in the previous mail Wolfgang wrote < the problem with MS within the ITU is that according to the existing procedures CS can participate only via national delegations.> I can't agrree with this point of view. IMHO, the heart of the problem is that the ITU is a CS-hostile institution. It is open to the private sector (680 private enterprises, corporations and institutes are its "Sector members") but not to CS orgs ... unless they pay expensive fees and accept to be "Associated members" participating in one of its specific Working Groups. The ultimate paradox is perfect when you consider that the same ITU is the UN-designated leader for a MSH-labelled UN process ! That's why as soon as the very beginning of the WSIS I'd asked for the ITU to open itself to the CS orgs that are working in areas close to the ITU scope of functions, especially in the ICT/Telecom development sector. Unfortunately I missed any support from the WSIS CS representatives for this proposition. In the meantme, a handful of rich CS organizations were able to afford some 4000 FS for being an Associated Member in the Development sector (ITU-D) and even some 11 000 FS in the ITU-R or ITU-T sector ! In my proposal to the WSIS I suggested that an asking CS org be an Associated member in return of their expertise and contribution to ITU's activities, thus justifying their free of charge membership. To my suggestion for giving the ICT/Telecom competent CS orgs an Associated member status, the ITU Development Bureau Director and current ITU SG answered "no politics in the ITU" (see Annuaire suisse de politique du developpement 2003, page 120 - 121). That's why CS is to stay firmly questioning an "open" ITU as the prerequisite for any form of multistakeholder approach/participation in the WSIS process and moreover in the IGF. Conversely, if CS were an ITU insider ("I have a dream" ...), the WCIT could have reached a much better outcome . Best regards Jean-Louis fullsack > Message du 17/12/12 11:18 > De : "michael gurstein" > A : "'"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"'" , governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "McTim" > Copie à : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "'Avri Doria'" > Objet : RE: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > Good points Wolfgang and McTim however they seem to be somewhat in tension > with each other... > > McTim quite correctly indicates that the ITU cannot be considered as MS > suggesting (I believe) that such a close linking of CS with a national > delegation might not be appropriate in a "true MS". > > Meanwhile Wolfgang suggests the problem here as being that LDC's may not > have the resources to bring CS along (suggesting that the relationship > between CS and national delegations is perhaps an on-going and desireable > mode). However (he goes on) it might be also desireable (possible) to have > a true MS consultation/negotiation where CS is participating both as part of > national delegations and a "procedure which allow(s) CS to participate > independent from their national governments (and waving the fees)". > > I'm wondering at concepts and definitions here... If we accept that a part > (at least) of the definition of CS is that it is the group that (sees itself > at least) as supporting the public interest and thus in global MS fora as > presumably supporting a/the "global public interest", and if we understand > that national delegations to global deliberations would by definition be > supporting "national" interests then how would it be possible for those > (self-identifying and publicly identified) as CS to be members of national > delegations in global (or national) MS deliberations. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:37 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Avri Doria > Subject: AW: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > HI, > > the problem with MS within the ITU is that according to the existing > procedures CS can participate only via national delegations. This is a (very > small) step in the right direction but has negative sideeffect: It is > widening the North-South gap. While nothern countries have no problem to > invite CS into their national governmental delegations (and even give them a > governmental badge) this is not the case in many southern ITU member states > and countries as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Iran and others. Nenna can > tell a story how difficult it was to come to Dubai (regardless of the fact > that she organized a national IGF in her home country, she had no chance to > become a member of their national delagation. Finally she found another > government which invited her to the Dubai experience). She told this Toure > in our meeting and we told him that the MS model is more than to recommend > national governments to bring some non-governmental people to ITU > conferences. To have no CS from developing countries in ITU meetings is not > only a missed opportunity, it produces also imbalanced results and deepens > the conflicts. What we need is an procedure which allow CS to participate > independent from their national governments (and waving the fees). > > This should be raised as one of the future ITU policy issues during the > forthcoming World Telecommunication Policy Forum in May 2013 in Geneva and > lead to changes in the ITU Convention at PP 2014 in Korea. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Suresh > Ramasubramanian > Gesendet: Mo 17.12.2012 03:38 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: ; Avri Doria > Betreff: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > > What, in your opinion, is wrong here? Other than that civil society can't > participate on their own of course, to represent their own organization's > viewpoint? > > If they agree to be part of a USG delegation as subject matter experts, it > is in the entire delegation's collective interest not to present mixed > messages. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 17-Dec-2012, at 6:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: > > > > Avri and all, > > > > I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb > Kramer's press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting > experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me > that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by > multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in > these multi-stakeholder processes. > > > > M > > > > Amb Kramer: Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a > good question, but I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have > a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government > that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department > of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being > either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so > that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. > They - as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're > representing national interests. > > > > So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one > is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in > these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going > forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the > industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that > informed our positions more broadly on a national basis. > > > > A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in > our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real > benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece > of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do > outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're > able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, > and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our > delegation. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > > > > > On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > > > > > I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not > do > > > it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure > that > > > they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had > nothing > > > to answer to them. > > > > > > i think that most of the non government types on the delegations > found their funding elsewhere. > > > > i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but > perhaps I am uninformed. anyone else know of any? > > > > they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere. > > > > and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State > delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option. > > > > avri > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus..org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.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 Wed Dec 19 17:29:13 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 17:29:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <082401cddbf2$15539460$3ffabd20$@gmail.com> References: <1800981407.636333.1355612778287.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> <4C4A9EDD-1200-451C-A449-DAA565688BE4@ella.com> <082401cddbf2$15539460$3ffabd20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7EF81E28-09B0-4C33-A517-8A7516214AD9@acm.org> Hi, Not sure what you are asking. But that won't stop me from trying to answer. Though, I long ago gave up thinking about the Ism associated with the participatory democratic form of governance we currently are working to further and calling the multistakeholder model. Of course no part of WTSA/WCT/[anything to do with ITU] was[is] adequately multistakeholder. It barely had a slight bit of multistakeholder about it. Yes, on the US delegation we were participating as advisors. And as expert advisors I beleive we did our best to make sure that as much of the CS perspectives as possible got fed into discussions. I know that in the internal discussions we got to speak freely and openly and I believe were heard. Decisions were made by others at the end of the discussions. On other delegations the CS people participated as delegates. They would have to tell us about the degree to which their delegation was multistakeholder in its processes. In some I know they participated freely, in others I know they remained closeted. I think a step forward in the multistakeholder process was the creation of the CS meta-delgation composed of the CS people who happened to be there either as members of delegations of as the public to whom the meetings were partially opened. This group also included many people who were participating remotely. This group put out statements, met with Toure - and argued for making the ITU process more multistakeholder, and worked on sharing messages among delegations. CS was at the meeting. Barely, and without proper consideration of its role as stakeholders. But yet it was heard. A step in the right direction. Don't know if this answers your question, but it is the best I can do. avri On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:01, michael gurstein wrote: > Avri and all, > > I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb Kramer's press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in these multi-stakeholder processes. > > M > > Amb Kramer: Now your second question – you said “lobbying.” It’s a good question, but I’ll rephrase it. It’s not lobbying per se. We had – have a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. They – as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they’re representing national interests. > > So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they – the industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed our positions more broadly on a national basis. > > A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that’s the real benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you’re able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, and share the points of view. And that’s been a huge benefit of our delegation. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > > On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > > > I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not do > > it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure that > > they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had nothing > > to answer to them. > > > i think that most of the non government types on the delegations found their funding elsewhere. > > i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but perhaps I am uninformed. anyone else know of any? > > they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere. > > and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option. > > avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 joy at apc.org Wed Dec 19 18:58:18 2012 From: joy at apc.org (joy) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:58:18 +1300 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <50D15F4B.8070408@itforchange.net> References: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> <50CF4036.4080407@itforchange.net> <50D137D5.4050103@apc.org> <50D15F4B.8070408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50D2549A.5040906@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Parminder, again, not to labour the point, but by way of clarification. Your comment was: >>>> Collective rights are a recognised category under UN human >>>> rights system. Why do you think that the collective entity of >>>> a country should *not* have a right to international telecom >>>> networks.... Simply, under the UN human rights framework "the collective entity of a country" is not recognised as a holder of human rights. Assertion of other "rights" by a State (such as the sovereign "rights" of States to defend it's own borders or private trade or treaty rights negotiated between States) are quite different matters as they are not "human rights". Since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Charter, these are in any event subject to human rights. I'm just concerned to be sure that these different categories are not lumped together as if they are all the same. In any event, Frank La Rue's conclusion was that under the international human rights framework there is no postive "right" to access the internet, but rather obligations on States to provide such access. Joy On 19/12/2012 7:31 p.m., parminder wrote: > > Hi Joy > > Thanks for your response.... > > It is not claimed that statescountries have human rights, or > otherwise have rights " on an equal footing with the people or > peoples they govern". > > However, rights of states are frequently mentioned in > international treaties etc. See for instance one here > > > signed by the US. Another document here > > > speaks of rights of states regarding underwater cables and pipelines, an > issue very connected to the present discussion. > > It was also open to delegates at Dubai to say, to the statement of > right of member states to access internationl telecom we will like > to add the right to people to access international telecom...... > That would have really given then the moral high ground... In fact > putting right to access in the ITRs and other ITU documents should > have been one of the main advoacy pitches of the civil society. ITU > Chief was been making positive noises about this right for many > months now, and we should have used the oppurtunity.... However the > CS present in Dubai and otherwise following WCIT seemed to be > unifocal about just one negative agenda - keep the Internet out > somehow... > > parminder > > > > On Wednesday 19 December 2012 09:13 AM, joy wrote: Hi all, Without > in any way wanting to detract from the wider conversation, I'd like > to point out that in the international human rights system it is > quite clear that "human rights and fundamental freedoms" (both > collective and individual) belong to people or peoples (e.g. > indigenous peoples). States or governments do not have "human > rights" - rather they have duties to respect, protect and promote > the rights and freedoms of their citizens. "Collective rights" are > a recognised category of rights, as Parminder correctly points out. > But to my knowledge, no human rights or global civil society groups > have argued that governments or States as "collective entities" > have rights on an equal footing with the people or peoples they > govern. Nor would they: but they would argue strongly that States > should be accountable for how they represent the views of their > citizens (I see that point is on a different part of this > discussion thread). States might have done better to argue they had > obligations to provide access to the internet and necessary > infrastructure, which is the point that Frank la Rue made in his > annual report in 2011, when he highlighted States obligations under > existing international law. See Paras 85-88 here: > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/a.hrc.17.27_en.pdf > > Regards > > Joy Liddicoat www.apc.org > > On 18/12/2012 4:54 a.m., parminder wrote: >>>> On Sunday 16 December 2012 03:24 AM, Olivier MJ >>>> Crepin-Leblond wrote: >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> I've been asked by several people to post my reply to >>>>> Milton's blog post here, to widen the discussion. Please >>>>> find below. >>>>> >>>>> --- snip --- snip --- snip --- >>>>> >>>>> But for some governments this was not enough! They insisted >>>>> on the right of States to telecommunication services and >>>>> put it on a par basis with Human Rights. They argued the >>>>> Rights of States was the same as the Rights of individuals. >>>>> One of the most balanced Countries, Switzerland, expressed >>>>> its outrage. Tension was rising fast. We got lectured by >>>>> some countries that oppress their people about Human >>>>> Rights. And then Iran called for an abrupt end to the >>>>> discussion, after having intervened more than any country >>>>> in the past 2 weeks, and called for a vote — when I remind >>>>> you that on many many occasions Dr. Touré and the Chair has >>>>> assured us there would be no vote. This derailment was >>>>> self-inflicted and this was the drop that got the vase to >>>>> overflow. >>>> Dear Olivier, >>>> >>>> thanks for your detailed comments. There are a few aspects of >>>> what happened at Dubai that I will like to comment upon. >>>> However, since you stress the point of vote on the clause >>>> that 'all countries have right to access international >>>> telecom networks' as one of the most important ones let me >>>> respond to you on this. >>>> >>>> Collective rights are a recognised category under UN human >>>> rights system. Why do you think that the collective entity of >>>> a country should *not* have a right to international telecom >>>> networks.... Isnt it something basic that must underpin any >>>> global treaty on international telecom? What does an >>>> international telecom treaty mean without stating such a >>>> right. It is most surprising, even shocking, for me that >>>> people from civil society should be speaking against such a >>>> right. I can understand why US doesnt want it, but global >>>> civil society ??? >>>> >>>> Before you say anything about collective entities like a >>>> country, I will remind you that below you do proudly refer to >>>> your participation in such an entity. You say that you are >>>> proud that 'your' country did not sign. Why would other >>>> people not legitimately resist and be unhappy/ angry if their >>>> country is denied access to international telecom. And what >>>> would your response as someone from global civil society be >>>> to the plight of such people - in existing sanctioned >>>> countries and potential ones. >>>> >>>> And you also seem to be proud that you were representing >>>> 'your country' and were able to influence its decision.... >>>> Can other people not legitimately have such collective >>>> feeling, and collective rights.... >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>>> Where the heck was the consensus? What kind of shotgun >>>>> tactics are those? It was obvious by the numbers that the >>>>> countries opposing the aggressive manner in which this was >>>>> conducted, would lose a vote. For me, sitting in this room, >>>>> this was Game, Set and Match. My country, the UK, did not >>>>> sign and I am ever so glad they did not. Yes, I had a say >>>>> in the matter since I was a full UK delegate, one of the >>>>> many countries which brought multiple stakeholders at the >>>>> table and guess what, most of these countries have not >>>>> signed. Does this not tell you something? >>>>> >>>>> So that is my personal assessment of what happened and I >>>>> was at the heart of it. I saw some very ugly stuff going on >>>>> there, stuff which I would really like the Internet to be >>>>> preserved from. >>>>> >>>>> But I am sad too. I am sad because I also heard some very >>>>> valid concerns from developing countries that they were not >>>>> able to participate in the multi-stakeholder model because >>>>> of lack of funding, lack of understanding and a lack of >>>>> proactive work from our “own” side. I am planning to report >>>>> fully to ICANN on the matter – we should do more to bridge >>>>> the gap. At the moment, these countries only have two fora >>>>> in which they can participate and that’s the IGF where >>>>> nobody listens to them and the ITU where they have a voice. >>>>> During the hour that followed the dramatic vote, I went to >>>>> see my “opponents”. Many of us did – and whilst not >>>>> apologizing for not signing, we exchanged business cards >>>>> and I intend on following up. In fact, many European >>>>> countries are intent on following up with countries that do >>>>> not appear to have hidden intentions are are genuine about >>>>> the level of despair they displayed at this conference. >>>>> Because sadly, there was despair too. This is the start of >>>>> a better dialogue, one which we must make efforts in >>>>> promoting, reaching out, building capacity. >>>>> >>>>> In closing, I’d say that this was not only a failure of the >>>>> ITRs and the ITU, it was a failure of Internet Governance >>>>> too. Civil Society has the ability to bridge the gap – and >>>>> I know of several governments that have understood this. >>>>> Let’s work together to ensure we will never live again a >>>>> similar WCIT full of mistrust and despair. >>>>> >>>>> Olivier (speaking entirely on my own behalf) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ0lSZAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqEF0IAKAzp4yTy+7HdJ7Wi7SaDMHV msWYZjIrdOA12M8Mki9Gfg/x08z90kEbFybHTfmLn9HOW3Nn1nrt601FDxgcE5sf 1HzL3zxRwiXTbwPZwTXc7BF1SBquqPHVcwo2YhAz3z8uTEDaooQaDBdayBCz4T08 kdToZuBinl8kYabiu5QywaMh9DHmCGTazei54+ocoQd0bRxg13+qeUZVLOzxIl+F Fb8/QRLDmqtd+y4wpAYGf6ZHLj3XHE8vkfkMWBisZe+VkPds9tdWAfl1Ig0cAT60 PSTTorMS8REGBWYBC94z6AUlXndP6xsUYgP7haNjzLuffAMjZy9UeELlJeyRz8w= =ZQU7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 19 19:22:16 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:22:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <7EF81E28-09B0-4C33-A517-8A7516214AD9@acm.org> References: <1800981407.636333.1355612778287.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> <4C4A9EDD-1200-451C-A449-DAA565688BE4@ella.com> <082401cddbf2$15539460$3ffabd20$@gmail.com> <7EF81E28-09B0-4C33-A517-8A7516214AD9@acm.org> Message-ID: <0ad301cdde48$115f6b10$341e4130$@gmail.com> Thanks Avri, I guess what I'm trying to understand from your response is where you saw your role as a representative of "CS perspectives" ending and your role as "representing US national interests" (Amb Kramer) as beginning or perhaps you don't/didn't see any difference or tension between the two positions? M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:29 PM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post Hi, Not sure what you are asking. But that won't stop me from trying to answer. Though, I long ago gave up thinking about the Ism associated with the participatory democratic form of governance we currently are working to further and calling the multistakeholder model. Of course no part of WTSA/WCT/[anything to do with ITU] was[is] adequately multistakeholder. It barely had a slight bit of multistakeholder about it. Yes, on the US delegation we were participating as advisors. And as expert advisors I beleive we did our best to make sure that as much of the CS perspectives as possible got fed into discussions. I know that in the internal discussions we got to speak freely and openly and I believe were heard. Decisions were made by others at the end of the discussions. On other delegations the CS people participated as delegates. They would have to tell us about the degree to which their delegation was multistakeholder in its processes. In some I know they participated freely, in others I know they remained closeted. I think a step forward in the multistakeholder process was the creation of the CS meta-delgation composed of the CS people who happened to be there either as members of delegations of as the public to whom the meetings were partially opened. This group also included many people who were participating remotely. This group put out statements, met with Toure - and argued for making the ITU process more multistakeholder, and worked on sharing messages among delegations. CS was at the meeting. Barely, and without proper consideration of its role as stakeholders. But yet it was heard. A step in the right direction. Don't know if this answers your question, but it is the best I can do. avri On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:01, michael gurstein wrote: > Avri and all, > > I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb Kramer's press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in these multi-stakeholder processes. > > M > > Amb Kramer: Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a good question, but I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have a delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. They - as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're representing national interests. > > So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward, why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the industry provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed our positions more broadly on a national basis. > > A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our delegation. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > > On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: > > > I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not > > do it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure > > that they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had > > nothing to answer to them. > > > i think that most of the non government types on the delegations found their funding elsewhere. > > i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but perhaps I am uninformed. anyone else know of any? > > they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere. > > and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option. > > avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 avri at acm.org Wed Dec 19 22:08:27 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2012 22:08:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <0ad301cdde48$115f6b10$341e4130$@gmail.com> References: <1800981407.636333.1355612778287.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> <2144459632.646773.1355649055708.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> <4C4A9EDD-1200-451C-A449-DAA565688BE4@ella.com> <082401cddbf2$15539460$3ffabd20$@gmail.com> <7EF81E28-09B0-4C33-A517-8A7516214AD9@acm.org> <0ad301cdde48$115f6b10$341e4130$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, In this situation, i think there was the happy coincidence that, in my view, there was no dissonance between the perspectives. avri On 19 Dec 2012, at 19:22, michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks Avri, > > I guess what I'm trying to understand from your response is where you saw > your role as a representative of "CS perspectives" ending and your role as > "representing US national interests" (Amb Kramer) as beginning or perhaps > you don't/didn't see any difference or tension between the two positions? > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 2:29 PM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post > > Hi, > > Not sure what you are asking. But that won't stop me from trying to answer. > > Though, I long ago gave up thinking about the Ism associated with the > participatory democratic form of governance we currently are working to > further and calling the multistakeholder model. > > Of course no part of WTSA/WCT/[anything to do with ITU] was[is] adequately > multistakeholder. It barely had a slight bit of multistakeholder about it. > > Yes, on the US delegation we were participating as advisors. And as expert > advisors I beleive we did our best to make sure that as much of the CS > perspectives as possible got fed into discussions. I know that in the > internal discussions we got to speak freely and openly and I believe were > heard. Decisions were made by others at the end of the discussions. > > On other delegations the CS people participated as delegates. They would > have to tell us about the degree to which their delegation was > multistakeholder in its processes. In some I know they participated freely, > in others I know they remained closeted. > > I think a step forward in the multistakeholder process was the creation of > the CS meta-delgation composed of the CS people who happened to be there > either as members of delegations of as the public to whom the meetings were > partially opened. This group also included many people who were > participating remotely. This group put out statements, met with Toure - and > argued for making the ITU process more multistakeholder, and worked on > sharing messages among delegations. CS was at the meeting. Barely, and > without proper consideration of its role as stakeholders. But yet it was > heard. A step in the right direction. > > Don't know if this answers your question, but it is the best I can do. > > avri > > > On 16 Dec 2012, at 20:01, michael gurstein wrote: > >> Avri and all, >> >> I have no doubt that the below (taken from the transcript of Amb Kramer's > press conference following the WCIT) was a valuable and interesting > experience for all involved but I'm assuming that you will agree with me > that it raises some significant questions as to what exactly is meant by > multi-stakeholderism and more specifically the role of Civil Society in > these multi-stakeholder processes. >> >> M >> >> Amb Kramer: Now your second question - you said "lobbying." It's a good > question, but I'll rephrase it. It's not lobbying per se. We had - have a > delegation here of 100 representatives, roughly 50 from U.S. Government that > are people from State Department, FCC, Commerce Department, Department of > Defense, et cetera. We had about 40 people from industry, industry being > either internet players or telecom players, and then another 10 people or so > that were members of civil society. Their job as delegates is not to lobby. > They - as a matter of fact they have to sign an agreement that says they're > representing national interests. >> >> So what we did is put them to work in a couple of areas. Number one is to > be subject matter experts about what does the internet look like in these > different places, what are the challenges and security issues going forward, > why is spam being discussed here, et cetera. And they - the industry > provided very, very helpful insights, positions, et cetera, that informed > our positions more broadly on a national basis. >> >> A lot of that thought process, thought leadership was then used in our > bilaterals to work with other countries. And when I said that's the real > benefit of this conference, we had some great discussions. The second piece > of their work as members of industry, civil society, et cetera, was to do > outreach. And the beauty of outreach when you get in this setting is you're > able to talk to a lot of different countries, a lot of different players, > and share the points of view. And that's been a huge benefit of our > delegation. >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 4:58 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post >> >> >> On 16 Dec 2012, at 13:40, Oksana Prykhodko wrote: >> >>> I asked to include me in the official delegation, and they did not >>> do it, because they did not have money for my trip. I am not sure >>> that they really did it if I had money, but at that moment I had >>> nothing to answer to them. >> >> >> i think that most of the non government types on the delegations found > their funding elsewhere. >> >> i don't know of any delegations that funded CS to join them but perhaps I > am uninformed. anyone else know of any? >> >> they let us join, but we had to find funding elsewhere. >> >> and since so many are intimating that the CS types on Member State > delegations were co-opted, at least it seems we paid for our own co-option. >> >> avri >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Thu Dec 20 03:39:56 2012 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:39:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Reply to Milton's blog post In-Reply-To: <1183673375.811932.1355899145165.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> References: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> <50CF4036.4080407@itforchange.net> <1183673375.811932.1355899145165.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18.schlund.de> Message-ID: <266217262.887503.1355992797979.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxbagw18> +1 Well put, Joy. Thank you for this thoughtful explanation. All the best! Peter Peter H. Hellmonds +49 (160) 360-2852 On 19.12.2012, at 04:43, "joy" wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, Without in any way wanting to detract from the wider conversation, I'd like to point out that in the international human rights system it is quite clear that "human rights and fundamental freedoms" (both collective and individual) belong to people or peoples (e.g. indigenous peoples). States or governments do not have "human rights" - - rather they have duties to respect, protect and promote the rights and freedoms of their citizens. "Collective rights" are a recognised category of rights, as Parminder correctly points out. But to my knowledge, no human rights or global civil society groups have argued that governments or States as "collective entities" have rights on an equal footing with the people or peoples they govern. Nor would they: but they would argue strongly that States should be accountable for how they represent the views of their citizens (I see that point is on a different part of this discussion thread). States might have done better to argue they had obligations to provide access to the internet and necessary infrastructure, which is the point that Frank la Rue made in his annual report in 2011, when he highlighted States obligations under existing international law. See Paras 85-88 here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/a.hrc.17.27_en.pdf Regards Joy Liddicoat www.apc.org On 18/12/2012 4:54 a.m., parminder wrote: > > On Sunday 16 December 2012 03:24 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I've been asked by several people to post my reply to Milton's >> blog post here, to widen the discussion. Please find below. >> >> --- snip --- snip --- snip --- >> >> But for some governments this was not enough! They insisted on >> the right of States to telecommunication services and put it on a >> par basis with Human Rights. They argued the Rights of States was >> the same as the Rights of individuals. One of the most balanced >> Countries, Switzerland, expressed its outrage. Tension was rising >> fast. We got lectured by some countries that oppress their people >> about Human Rights. And then Iran called for an abrupt end to the >> discussion, after having intervened more than any country in the >> past 2 weeks, and called for a vote — when I remind you that on >> many many occasions Dr. Touré and the Chair has assured us there >> would be no vote. This derailment was self-inflicted and this was >> the drop that got the vase to overflow. > Dear Olivier, > > thanks for your detailed comments. There are a few aspects of what > happened at Dubai that I will like to comment upon. However, since > you stress the point of vote on the clause that 'all countries have > right to access international telecom networks' as one of the most > important ones let me respond to you on this. > > Collective rights are a recognised category under UN human rights > system. Why do you think that the collective entity of a country > should *not* have a right to international telecom networks.... > Isnt it something basic that must underpin any global treaty on > international telecom? What does an international telecom treaty > mean without stating such a right. It is most surprising, even > shocking, for me that people from civil society should be speaking > against such a right. I can understand why US doesnt want it, but > global civil society ??? > > Before you say anything about collective entities like a country, I > will remind you that below you do proudly refer to your > participation in such an entity. You say that you are proud that > 'your' country did not sign. Why would other people not > legitimately resist and be unhappy/ angry if their country is > denied access to international telecom. And what would your > response as someone from global civil society be to the plight of > such people - in existing sanctioned countries and potential ones. > > And you also seem to be proud that you were representing 'your > country' and were able to influence its decision.... Can other > people not legitimately have such collective feeling, and > collective rights.... > > parminder > >> Where the heck was the consensus? What kind of shotgun tactics >> are those? It was obvious by the numbers that the countries >> opposing the aggressive manner in which this was conducted, would >> lose a vote. For me, sitting in this room, this was Game, Set and >> Match. My country, the UK, did not sign and I am ever so glad >> they did not. Yes, I had a say in the matter since I was a full >> UK delegate, one of the many countries which brought multiple >> stakeholders at the table and guess what, most of these countries >> have not signed. Does this not tell you something? >> >> So that is my personal assessment of what happened and I was at >> the heart of it. I saw some very ugly stuff going on there, stuff >> which I would really like the Internet to be preserved from. >> >> But I am sad too. I am sad because I also heard some very valid >> concerns from developing countries that they were not able to >> participate in the multi-stakeholder model because of lack of >> funding, lack of understanding and a lack of proactive work from >> our “own” side. I am planning to report fully to ICANN on the >> matter – we should do more to bridge the gap. At the moment, >> these countries only have two fora in which they can participate >> and that’s the IGF where nobody listens to them and the ITU where >> they have a voice. During the hour that followed the dramatic >> vote, I went to see my “opponents”. Many of us did – and whilst >> not apologizing for not signing, we exchanged business cards and >> I intend on following up. In fact, many European countries are >> intent on following up with countries that do not appear to have >> hidden intentions are are genuine about the level of despair they >> displayed at this conference. Because sadly, there was despair >> too. This is the start of a better dialogue, one which we must >> make efforts in promoting, reaching out, building capacity. >> >> In closing, I’d say that this was not only a failure of the ITRs >> and the ITU, it was a failure of Internet Governance too. Civil >> Society has the ability to bridge the gap – and I know of several >> governments that have understood this. Let’s work together to >> ensure we will never live again a similar WCIT full of mistrust >> and despair. >> >> Olivier (speaking entirely on my own behalf) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ0TfVAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bq6OwH/3jREjRRVMRX4yZS7rjteqS5 7YLeCX9fHQ305K0agxtD/YzzMVsc7eIzkwvlYVQSHh/xCiDwFVc63+Wsp7zaLPtq 8gzJg8oI5JS6bxkOazB5jrBcnR2ec/eBe0ZngVTryoVh1WPI5tc7twU8Dr2rpmXX pj39REkMZAzDxr6Y4+LXgkryjevZKNqTznHcksSsQC6DDkzJ3kfADwGFXof+gFBt FApJysq0zGtTfL8zXvg0joF+Uqxfl0qVUDK8yUmT4LGcPuG5XnpmRTay9OnMeUOh WM4u1NJWaPY+3bXcve/btZrR2D3lWKvLd5DlJAC1WeJF0975Vtss01pID4AuwZ0= =yGLG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 gideonrop at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 04:06:39 2012 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:06:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Two ICANN directors update their conflicts profile after .africa complaint Message-ID: Update on Ombudsman's activities on the .africa conflict of interest. Two ICANN directors update their conflicts profile after .africa complaint http://domainincite.com/11378-two-icann-directors-update-their-conflicts-profile-after-africa-complaint Gideon Rop, DotConnectAfrica -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 20 04:21:14 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:51:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Two ICANN directors update their conflicts profile after .africa complaint Message-ID: And what does that change or even go anywhere at all to prove the allegation made against them? --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Gideon" To: Subject: [governance] Two ICANN directors update their conflicts profile after .africa complaint Date: Thu, Dec 20, 2012 2:36 PM Update on Ombudsman's activities on the .africa conflict of interest. Two ICANN directors update their conflicts profile after .africa complaint http://domainincite.com/11378-two-icann-directors-update-their-conflicts-profile-after-africa-complaint Gideon Rop, DotConnectAfrica -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Dec 20 04:40:26 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:40:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] rights of states (was Re: Reply to Milton's blog post) In-Reply-To: <50D2549A.5040906@apc.org> References: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> <50CF4036.4080407@itforchange.net> <50D137D5.4050103@apc.org> <50D15F4B.8070408@itforchange.net> <50D2549A.5040906@apc.org> Message-ID: <20121220104026.533d7ffc@quill.bollow.ch> Joy Liddicoat wrote: > >>>> Collective rights are a recognised category under UN human > >>>> rights system. Why do you think that the collective entity of > >>>> a country should *not* have a right to international telecom > >>>> networks.... > > Simply, under the UN human rights framework "the collective entity of > a country" is not recognised as a holder of human rights. Assertion of > other "rights" by a State (such as the sovereign "rights" of States to > defend it's own borders or private trade or treaty rights negotiated > between States) are quite different matters as they are not "human > rights". Since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN > Charter, these are in any event subject to human rights. I'm just > concerned to be sure that these different categories are not lumped > together as if they are all the same. Ok, let's be careful to not use words that could be interpreted as giving undue weight to whatever rights states have or claim to have. But IMO the fact remains that if country A takes some action that causes human rights of the residents of country B to be violated, that action of country A is a human rights violation. And I would not hesitate to assert that it is also a violation of an implied obligation that country A has towards country B under international human rights law. Even if, as I will gladly agree, states do not qualify as being entitled to human rights, I would assert that international human rights law implies the right of states to not be obstructed from fulfilling any of their various obligations which are recognized in international human rights law. From this perspective, I view it as not problematic at all that the revised ITRs "recognize the right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services", since when/if an entire country is cut off from access to "international telecommunication services", clearly that has a corresponding human rights impact on the people who live in that country. Quite on the contrary, if any country is not prepared to recognize that right of all other countries of access to what is called "international telecommunication services" in the ITRs, I would suggest that there should be international outrage and an international campaign of civil society to get the government of that country to change its position. Greetings, Norbert implying that any right giving the logical consequences of human rights on a country level in any way -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Thu Dec 20 05:00:27 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:00:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: democracy (was Re: NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai) In-Reply-To: References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> <20121218195510.54d04f18@quill.bollow.ch> <04d601cddd55$7fd02b00$7f708100$@gmail.com> <20121218210958.7b095581@quill.bollow.ch> <20121218231809.79e70082@quill.bollow.ch> <20121219085521.2988bbec@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20121220110027.1e315c90@quill.bollow.ch> Paul Lehto wrote: > Because democracy is highly believed in around the world, and because > the powers that be wish to maintain their freedom of action to pursue > their self interest, the powers that be will support a Democracy > Index approach that avoids definitional tests. > > In this way, and even in the worst case scenario, actions taken by the > powers that be can only degrade the Democracy Index incrementally but > can not destroy democracy, leaving the powers that be almost totally > free to do whatever they like in terms of tinkering with systems and > rights. I agree that the "Democracy Index" is totally unsuitable for purposes of protecting democracy, or for correcting the non-democratic aspects of the governance systems that we have today. That however does not make it worthless for the purpose for which it was quoted in the recent discussion (to look for correlations with how democratic countries are) or for the purpose for which it is being marketed (to help international businesses with assessing business risks that are related to lack of democracy). Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gideonrop at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 05:26:31 2012 From: gideonrop at gmail.com (Gideon) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:26:31 +0300 Subject: [governance] Two ICANN directors update their conflicts profile after .africa complaint In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Patience is a virtue. Good day Gideon Rop, DotConnectAfrica On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > And what does that change or even go anywhere at all to prove the > allegation made against them? > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > ----- Reply message ----- > From: "Gideon" > To: > Subject: [governance] Two ICANN directors update their conflicts profile > after .africa complaint > Date: Thu, Dec 20, 2012 2:36 PM > > > Update on Ombudsman's activities on the .africa conflict of interest. > Two ICANN directors update their conflicts profile after .africa > complaint< > http://domainincite.com/11378-two-icann-directors-update-their-conflicts-profile-after-africa-complaint > > > > > http://domainincite.com/11378-two-icann-directors-update-their-conflicts-profile-after-africa-complaint > Gideon Rop, > DotConnectAfrica > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 12:10:15 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:10:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] rights of states (was Re: Reply to Milton's blog post) In-Reply-To: <20121220104026.533d7ffc@quill.bollow.ch> References: <50CCF198.80300@gih.com> <50CF4036.4080407@itforchange.net> <50D137D5.4050103@apc.org> <50D15F4B.8070408@itforchange.net> <50D2549A.5040906@apc.org> <20121220104026.533d7ffc@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Some caution is due here, because there is a human right to the democratic governance form in Article 21(3): >(3) *The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government;* this will shall be expressed in periodic >and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by >equivalent free voting procedures. However, because democratically-based "will of the people" governance is an apparently "collective" right that is larger than just the individual right to vote, there can be problems finding a person or entity with appropriate standing to enforce this right. (Say, everyone was allowed to vote, but the vote counts were corrupted using a few keystrokes on the results-tabulation computer) This often leaves only states or governments acting through things like Attorneys General with the power to do this. (Of course, one must pray this AG is not corrupted) One can readily see a rather large hole in this "protection" for democracy when the state itself is denying democracy - it is a violation of Article 28 of the UNDHR which states: - Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized. So long as the state is not corrupt, the state as a pledged representative of the entire people is often superior to an individual as the agent to vindicate collective democratic rights, since an individual may have interests that are too narrow, fail to fully consider the rights of others, or even be somewhat hostile to the democratic rights of the whole. For example: an individual litigant might not think that Minority X should really have voting rights, or might settle a court case about a collective right for a sum of money that, while satisfactory to this plaintiff, fails to vindicate the collective right sued upon in any appropriate way. Thus, while I easily see problems with states asserting collective rights, I also see problems when states do not do so, because it will then often be the case that NO ONE is available to defend or assert a human right that might be seen as "collective" in nature. Paul Lehto, J.D. On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Joy Liddicoat wrote: > > > >>>> Collective rights are a recognised category under UN human > > >>>> rights system. Why do you think that the collective entity of > > >>>> a country should *not* have a right to international telecom > > >>>> networks.... > > > > Simply, under the UN human rights framework "the collective entity of > > a country" is not recognised as a holder of human rights. Assertion of > > other "rights" by a State (such as the sovereign "rights" of States to > > defend it's own borders or private trade or treaty rights negotiated > > between States) are quite different matters as they are not "human > > rights". Since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN > > Charter, these are in any event subject to human rights. I'm just > > concerned to be sure that these different categories are not lumped > > together as if they are all the same. > > Ok, let's be careful to not use words that could be interpreted as > giving undue weight to whatever rights states have or claim to > have. > > But IMO the fact remains that if country A takes some action that > causes human rights of the residents of country B to be violated, that > action of country A is a human rights violation. > > And I would not hesitate to assert that it is also a violation of an > implied obligation that country A has towards country B under > international human rights law. > > Even if, as I will gladly agree, states do not qualify as being > entitled to human rights, I would assert that international human > rights law implies the right of states to not be obstructed from > fulfilling any of their various obligations which are recognized in > international human rights law. > > From this perspective, I view it as not problematic at all that the > revised ITRs "recognize the right of access of Member States to > international telecommunication services", since when/if an > entire country is cut off from access to "international > telecommunication services", clearly that has a corresponding human > rights impact on the people who live in that country. > > Quite on the contrary, if any country is not prepared to recognize that > right of all other countries of access to what is called "international > telecommunication services" in the ITRs, I would suggest that there > should be international outrage and an international campaign of civil > society to get the government of that country to change its position. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > implying that any right giving the logical consequences of human > rights on a country level in any way > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4965 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 12:46:34 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 09:46:34 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: In-Reply-To: <0e2801cdded5$2b229760$8167c620$@gmail.com> References: <0e2801cdded5$2b229760$8167c620$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0e4e01cdded9$f474d7a0$dd5e86e0$@gmail.com> http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/towards-the-internet-as-a-global-public-good/ With my very best for the season and looking forward to a just and inclusive new year. 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 16:28:40 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:28:40 +1300 Subject: [governance] Framework of the Analysis [WCIT Outcomes] Invitation for IGC to comment and contribute Message-ID: Dear All, We would like to invite people to comment on the following Framework. We are all in the process of re-reading the 1988 texts and 2012 changes etc before we begin our Analysis. In the spirit of inclusivity, we would like to invite you to give your thoughts and comments on things that you would like to be added in the Framework which we will use for our Analysis. We we will accept no further comments on this matter on the 23rd December 2012 by 10pm UTV +12 Framework for Analysis 1. What provisions were already in place and how have these changed? 2. What are the implications of the new Resolutions in terms of how it affects its member states? 3. What are the possible impacts of these developments on areas such as:- - Access - Accounting Rates - Convergence - Cyber Security - Diversity of services - Environment and Climate Change - Human Rights - International Mobile Roaming - Interconnection - Interoperability - Quality of Service and Network neutrality; - Openness; - Protection of Critical National Infrastructure 4. What are the implications on global public interest? Kind Regards, -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 21:07:42 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:07:42 -0800 Subject: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai In-Reply-To: <20121218231809.79e70082@quill.bollow.ch> References: <50CDCB3C.8080405@itforchange.net> <50CEA27A.9050004@itforchange.net> <50CFD635.80707@itforchange.net> <20121218195510.54d04f18@quill.bollow.ch> <04d601cddd55$7fd02b00$7f708100$@gmail.com> <20121218210958.7b095581@quill.bollow.ch> <20121218231809.79e70082@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <10cf01cddf20$36f9f1f0$a4edd5d0$@gmail.com> No, the issue isn't "methodology"--the issue is how one defines "democacy" i.e. what one chooses to identify as the attributes of democracy against which one decides to attribute a value. Looking at the list (from the Wikipedia site) I have no doubt that I would overall have a preference for the attributes that the EIU chose, but chose they did; and, at least based on the article they made those choices based on their (unattributed) values/prejudices etc. It wasn't that long ago that the German Democratic Republic was around and presumably presenting a quite different set of definitional attributes for their notion of "democracy" -- and given resources and interest one would expect that they could/would have developed their own index based on those attributes with the result being I would guess, rather different than that determined by the EIU. Less in keeping with our understanding and desires re: democracy but presumably consistent with theirs. In a peer reviewed index of "good governance" that I developed with colleagues we used as our normative anchor i.e. the basis for our identification of the attributes we used to construct our index a definition of "good governance" developed by the UN Development Program which at least had the advantage of being developed by a (presumably neutral, independent and global) third party. http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/448/410 http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=24963 M -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Bollow [mailto:nb at bollow.ch] Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:18 PM To: McTim Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] NY article expresses surprise at US walkout in Dubai McTim wrote: > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Michael, > > > > maybe you are right that a careful investigation would find that the > > correlation comes from the "democracy index" having been measured by > > means of checking for the presence of values and institutions which > > are e.g. more directly related to willingness to follow US > > leadership than to democracy itself. That in itself would be a > > significant insight, as it would point to a need for developing a > > better set of indicators for the quality of democratic structures. > > read all about it here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index Thanks a lot for this link! I've also read what they write about their methodology in the actual report for 2011; it looks reasonable enough to me. So unless someone points out flaws that I have missed, I'll dismiss the possibility of the correlation with democracy not being real but an artifact caused by invalid methodology in the determination of "democracy". The big question is of course what the causalities are... Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 22:03:50 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:03:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please find below a message fwded from another list. I think this is a useful statement for IGC to sign: ------------------------- Dear all, As a follow up to the civil society letter to WCIT (https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM) that a number of organizations on this list have signed on to, civil society representatives in Dubai drafted a statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement. The text of the statement is pasted below. This statement assesses the opportunities and challenges faced by civil society at WCIT and sets out shortcomings we would like to see addressed to achieve meaningful civil society participation at the ITU moving forward. It is meant to be complementary to other post-WCIT civil society statements that focus on the substance of the ITRs. We would very much like to secure sign on from your organization. We feel that there is a strategic importance of having this communication with the ITU Secretariat on record as we look to future conversations/events. Though the timing is not ideal, we plan to publish this statement with the list of signatories and send a copy to the ITU on Monday. Therefore, we request that you reply to this email by 0900 EST/1400 UTC on Monday, January 24 if you would like to sign on. Like with the earlier letter, we will leave the statement open for sign on and update the list of signatories regularly. I will send out a publicly accessible link with the statement and list of signatories on Monday for people to post and circulate, but it would also be great to discuss ways to draw attention to this statement in the New Year. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for your attention to this. Warm wishes over the holidays. Best regards, Deborah Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement December 21, 2012 Civil society is disappointed that the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in revising the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). We understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new regulations. As civil society stated in its Best Bits statement, a key criterion for ITRs should be that “any proposed revisions are confined to the traditional scope of the ITRs” and “where international regulation is required around technical issues [it] is limited to telecommunications networks and interoperability standards.” We regret that an Internet governance-related resolution has been included in the Final Acts of WCIT, despite assertions by many that WCIT was not about Internet governance. We are also concerned by the lack of clarity around the applicability of the treaty, which as defined could have unforeseen consequences for an open internet, and the lack of specificity in key terms, such as security, which may negatively impact the public’s rights to privacy and freedom of expression. This said, civil society would like to acknowledge and thank those governments that opened their delegations to members of civil society and other stakeholder groups. This was a very important initial step in establishing a civil society voice in the proceedings and we trust that it signals a wider commitment to multi-stakeholder approaches in public policy development and decision-making on telecommunications and Internet-related matters. We trust that this openness and inclusive approach will continue and extend to upcoming ITU-related work and beyond, and we urge other governments to welcome and engage with civil society going forward. As we communicated to ITU Secretary General Touré, we also commend the ITU on first steps towards greater transparency and openness with regard to access to and webcasting of plenary sessions and Committee 5 sessions, as well as soliciting public submissions. These initial steps enabled civil society to play a constructive, albeit limited, role at the WCIT. However there remain serious limitations to engaging with the ITU. The substantive policy deliberations in working groups were neither webcast nor open to unaffiliated civil society. Further, while it is positive that the ITU opened the process to public comment, these comments were never part of the official record. We raised both of these challenges with the Secretary General, in writing and in person, and he committed to addressing these concerns and appealing to member states, as appropriate. Although the WCIT has concluded, we renew our request to have the public comments submitted as official ITU documents to capture these positions for the historical record. We also raised the issue of the lack of any institutional mechanism for civil society participation at the ITU. While the participation of civil society representatives in government delegations benefits both the delegations and the WCIT’s deliberations as a whole, it cannot substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We will be following up on these important matters with the Secretary General and welcome his commitment to considering institutional remedies to this challenge. Looking forward, civil society seeks to work with governments and other stakeholders around the globe towards an ever more inclusive and substantive multi-stakeholder engagement on telecommunications, Internet, and related matters. Much more needs to be done with regard to opening the ITU to greater genuine multi-stakeholder participation and in particular independent civil society participation - institutional change will need to occur and we will work with the ITU and other stakeholders to bring this about. These changes are vitally important and need to be addressed as soon as possible given the upcoming 2013 World Telecommunication Policy Forum, World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+10) and 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. ----------------------- -- 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 Thu Dec 20 22:46:36 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:46:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] Framework of the Analysis [WCIT Outcomes] Invitation for IGC to comment and contribute In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Isn't this a bit ambitious? When there are other tasks the caucus might be doing Question 1, please see and file attached. Adam On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > Dear All, > > We would like to invite people to comment on the following Framework. We are > all in the process of re-reading the 1988 texts and 2012 changes etc before > we begin our Analysis. In the spirit of inclusivity, we would like to invite > you to give your thoughts and comments on things that you would like to be > added in the Framework which we will use for our Analysis. We we will accept > no further comments on this matter on the 23rd December 2012 by 10pm UTV +12 > > Framework for Analysis > > What provisions were already in place and how have these changed? > What are the implications of the new Resolutions in terms of how it affects > its member states? > What are the possible impacts of these developments on areas such as:- > > Access > Accounting Rates > Convergence > Cyber Security > Diversity of services > Environment and Climate Change > Human Rights > International Mobile Roaming > Interconnection > Interoperability > Quality of Service and Network neutrality; > Openness; > Protection of Critical National Infrastructure > > What are the implications on global public interest? > > > > Kind Regards, > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: itr-differences.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 201365 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 23:31:57 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:31:57 +1300 Subject: [governance] Framework of the Analysis [WCIT Outcomes] Invitation for IGC to comment and contribute In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Isn't this a bit ambitious? When there are other tasks the caucus > might be doing > > Question 1, please see > and file attached. > > Adam > We have a few volunteers who will be doing the Analysis. For this specific Task, there is a Framework that we will be using for the Analysis hence the invitation to comment on the Framework. As for other IGC tasks, those will be addressed in separate emails. Kind Regards, Sala > > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 6:28 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > > > We would like to invite people to comment on the following Framework. We > are > > all in the process of re-reading the 1988 texts and 2012 changes etc > before > > we begin our Analysis. In the spirit of inclusivity, we would like to > invite > > you to give your thoughts and comments on things that you would like to > be > > added in the Framework which we will use for our Analysis. We we will > accept > > no further comments on this matter on the 23rd December 2012 by 10pm UTV > +12 > > > > Framework for Analysis > > > > What provisions were already in place and how have these changed? > > What are the implications of the new Resolutions in terms of how it > affects > > its member states? > > What are the possible impacts of these developments on areas such as:- > > > > Access > > Accounting Rates > > Convergence > > Cyber Security > > Diversity of services > > Environment and Climate Change > > Human Rights > > International Mobile Roaming > > Interconnection > > Interoperability > > Quality of Service and Network neutrality; > > Openness; > > Protection of Critical National Infrastructure > > > > What are the implications on global public interest? > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Tel: +679 3544828 > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Dec 20 23:38:51 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:38:51 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: CHANGE in Schedule and Call for Nominees for Election [IGC Coordinator Position] and Election Schedule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Thank you for the well wishes that was pouring in with respect to the Cyclone. I was without electricity for more than 5 days hence being off - grid but the people of Fiji and the Pacific who were affected are resilient and restoration efforts are underway. This is a reminder for Nominations for the IGC coordinator position, that is those who are interested in standing for elections or in nominating persons to stand for the elections should submit their Nominations by *4th January, 2013 at 10pm UTC +12*. Additional details are listed in my previous email on the matter and is retained here for your records. Kind Regards, Sala On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > This is to advise that we have yet to receive Nominations for those > interested in standing for the Elections. As such, there is a change in > dates, and they are as follows, see Notice below. > > I may be offline for a few days depending as we have a Category 4 Cyclone > coming into Fiji which has already devastated Samoa. > > In the meantime, we encourage both men and women to apply from all parts > of the earth. For more information, see below: > > >> This is to advise that we would like to invite people to submit >> Nominations for Candidates to stand in the elections for the purposes of >> occupying the Co-Coordinator position which Izumi Aizu used to occupy. >> >> >> *Nominations* >> Those who are interested in standing for elections or in nominating >> persons to stand for the elections should submit their Nominations by *4th >> January, 2013 at 10pm UTC +12*. We would like to encourage people to >> either nominate themselves or nominate others whom you think would make >> great coordinators. Responsibilities of coordinators can be viewed in the >> IGC Charter. >> >> All Nominations are asked to submit their Nominations in the following >> format: >> >> >> >> *Nomination By:* >> >> [Self Nomination or > >> >> *Candidate:* >> >> [Full Name of Candidate] >> >> >> *Brief Bio:* >> >> [100 words and feel free to insert link to website] >> >> >> >> >> The full list of Nominees will be published on the IGC list on the 16th >> December, 2012 at 10pm UTC at 10pm UTC +12 and elections. >> >> >> *Online voting* >> * >> * >> We will begin on the *8th January, 2013.* >> >> I would like to encourage as many Nominations to be sent in to >> coordinators at igcaucus.org and by responding to this email thread. >> >> >> *Excerpts from the Charter* >> >> *Charter:* (http://igcaucus.org/charter) >> >> *Selection of Coordinators* >> >> The selection will be done by on-line voting using the voting process >> according to the following formula: >> * election of the coordinator will be held, whenever possible by >> midsummer (the summer solstice). If events prevent an election by >> midsummer, it will be held as soon after midsummer as possible. >> * the coordinator(s) who are not up for election or not standing for >> election will be responsible for running the election, subject to appeal by >> the appeal team. >> (Note: as a boot strap procedure for 2006, the interim coordinator will >> serve until the end of the first election period, during which two >> coordinators will be selected - one for one (1) year and one for two (2) >> years). >> >> *Recall of coordinators* >> >> In response to an appeal, as described in the appeals section, the >> appeals team can decide to hold a recall vote for a coordinator. In order >> to cause the recall vote, there needs to be full consensus among the appeal >> team members. >> The recall vote itself requires a 2/3 majority of voters to succeed. >> >> *Replacement of a coordinator.* >> >> If a coordinator leaves the role due to personal reasons or recall, the >> role will be refilled as quickly as possible. The role will be refilled for >> the balance of the term unless the refill occurs during the year in which >> the role was to be vacated. In this case the coordinator position will be >> for the balance of the replacement terms plus a two (2) year regular term. >> For example, if the 'even year' coordinator for 2006, leaves the role >> during an odd year, 2007, the rest of the term will be filled with a >> replacement, and a new selection will be made on schedule in 2008. If on >> the other hand the coordinator leaves the role early in 2008, then the >> replacement would complete the original term and serve the 2008-2010 term. >> >> >> *Membership* >> The members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity, >> who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All members are equal and >> have the same rights and duties. >> >> *Voting Process* >> Each person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months >> before the election will be given a voter account. >> As part of the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that >> they are a member of the IGC based on membership criteria described >> elsewhere in this charter and posted as part of the voting information >> (i.e. a voter must affirm membership on the voter form in order to >> vote). The decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a >> personal decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the >> self-defined member-voters will be published after the election with >> the results of the election. >> >> Elections will be run by the coordinators and will be subject to the >> appeals process. >> >> All voting will be open, though at the discretion of the coordinators, >> with or without a specific request from member(s), any vote can be >> made into a secret vote. The reasons for making it a secret vote will >> be stated, and are subject to appeal. >> >> >> *Membership (http://igcaucus.org/membership)* >> * >> *Members of the Internet Governance Caucus are individuals, acting in >> personal capacity, who subscribe to the charter of the caucus. All >> members are equal and have the same rights and duties. >> >> If you wish to participate in our activities, or just observe our >> activities, you are welcome to join our mailing list. The mailing list >> is our priority working space. You can subscribe by registering on >> this Web site. If you need to change your subscription options, you >> will need to visit the separate mailing list site and follow >> instructions from there. For information on unsubscribing and >> subscribing under multiple addresses, please read here. >> >> Not all list participants are members. To determine membership, each >> person who is subscribed to the list at least two (2) months before >> any election or voting event will be given a voter account. As part of >> the voting process the voter must personally ascertain that they are a >> member of the IGC based on membership criteria described in the IGC >> charter and posted as part of the voting information (i.e. a voter >> must affirm membership on the voter form in order to vote). The >> decision to self-identify as a member of the IGC is a personal >> decision based on the criteria defined. A list of the self-defined >> member-voters will be published after any election with the results of >> the election >> >> Warm Regards, >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> * IGC Co-Coordinator* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > > > -- 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 00:04:27 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:04:27 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: Scope of Work [Post WCIT and Analysis of Outcomes] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, Thank you for all those who have volunteered. This is the list of Volunteers who have committed to analysing the Treaty Texts and they are:- 1. Diego Rafael Canabarro 1. Oksana Prykhodko 1. Nnenna Nwakanma 1. Baudouin Schombe 1. José Félix Arias Ynche 1. Angela Daly 1. Bethel Terefe 1. Asif Kabani 1. Deborah Brown 10.Mwendwa Kivuva 11.Philipp Mirtl 12.Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro We will be conducting our work on the Etherpad and the link will be shared with you all. In the meantime, if there are other volunteers, we can add you to the list. There is a mailing list created where correspondence on the assignment will follow and once a Draft is ready, it will be published on the IGC general mailing list to allow for the community to comment. In the meantime, the Framework was published on the IGC list where the community was invited to comment on the same. Thank you. Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Kindly find attached our Scope of Work. It briefly describes the IGC's > mission and a brief overview of the WCIT. Our Task will be to analyse the > Treaty texts and resolutions. I have copied the 1988 version into this > document and this document does not have the new resolutions. > > To view the Treaty and Resolutions directly from source, please visit: > http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/itrs.aspx . Here you will see the > Treaty from 1988 and its Resolutions and will also see the 2012 WCIT > Outcomes. > > Samantha Dickinson had tracked the changes which you can find here: > http://www.linguasynaptica.com/itr-changes/ However, it is worthwhile > noting that we should also independently go over both texts and straight to > the primary sources. Samantha's work can be a guide but is one which we > should verify as well. > > There are some of you who were in Dubai, UAE during the WCIT and have been > following the WCIT closely and are familiar with the Text. For those of you > who were not, please take the next 24 hours to read and go through both > Texts. > > For now our immediate objective is to familiarise ourselves with the 1988 > Texts and 2012 variations/amendments before and go through our Scope of > Works. We will be proceeding shortly with the Analysis. > > Warm Regards, > Sala > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Thank you for your expression of interest to volunteer to analyse the >> WCIT Resolutions. We will be commencing our work shortly, in the not too >> distant future, we will be commencing our task. >> >> Warm Regards, >> Sala >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 00:34:34 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:34:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] Framework of the Analysis [WCIT Outcomes] Invitation for IGC to comment and contribute In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Isn't this a bit ambitious? 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kovenronald at aol.com Fri Dec 21 00:43:27 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:43:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CFAD553BE9C1E5-1878-3B283@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> Dear All -- This statement strikes me as ambivalent to the point of internal contradiction over whether we want to be engaged with the ITU on Internet issues, If we think ITU does and/or should have a role in Internet governance, then it makes sense to demand better representation in its processes. If, however, we mean what we say when we say we regret adoption of a resolution in effect involving ITU with the Internet, then it hardly seems to make sense for the Internet Governance Caucus and its friends and allies to seek broader participation in ITU. The IGC is not about the ITU's historic mandates in traditional telecommunications or world radio spectrum allocation. If we want it to stick to its last and stay away from Internet regulation, then why would we want to become more involved with it ? Bests, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: McTim To: governance Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 4:05 am Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT Please find below a message fwded from another list. I think this is a useful statement for IGC to sign: ------------------------- Dear all, As a follow up to the civil society letter to WCIT (https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM) that a number of organizations on this list have signed on to, civil society representatives in Dubai drafted a statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement. The text of the statement is pasted below. This statement assesses the opportunities and challenges faced by civil society at WCIT and sets out shortcomings we would like to see addressed to achieve meaningful civil society participation at the ITU moving forward. It is meant to be complementary to other post-WCIT civil society statements that focus on the substance of the ITRs. We would very much like to secure sign on from your organization. We feel that there is a strategic importance of having this communication with the ITU Secretariat on record as we look to future conversations/events. Though the timing is not ideal, we plan to publish this statement with the list of signatories and send a copy to the ITU on Monday. Therefore, we request that you reply to this email by 0900 EST/1400 UTC on Monday, January 24 if you would like to sign on. Like with the earlier letter, we will leave the statement open for sign on and update the list of signatories regularly. I will send out a publicly accessible link with the statement and list of signatories on Monday for people to post and circulate, but it would also be great to discuss ways to draw attention to this statement in the New Year. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for your attention to this. Warm wishes over the holidays. Best regards, Deborah Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement December 21, 2012 Civil society is disappointed that the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in revising the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). We understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new regulations. As civil society stated in its Best Bits statement, a key criterion for ITRs should be that “any proposed revisions are confined to the traditional scope of the ITRs” and “where international regulation is required around technical issues [it] is limited to telecommunications networks and interoperability standards.” We regret that an Internet governance-related resolution has been included in the Final Acts of WCIT, despite assertions by many that WCIT was not about Internet governance. We are also concerned by the lack of clarity around the applicability of the treaty, which as defined could have unforeseen consequences for an open internet, and the lack of specificity in key terms, such as security, which may negatively impact the public’s rights to privacy and freedom of expression. This said, civil society would like to acknowledge and thank those governments that opened their delegations to members of civil society and other stakeholder groups. This was a very important initial step in establishing a civil society voice in the proceedings and we trust that it signals a wider commitment to multi-stakeholder approaches in public policy development and decision-making on telecommunications and Internet-related matters. We trust that this openness and inclusive approach will continue and extend to upcoming ITU-related work and beyond, and we urge other governments to welcome and engage with civil society going forward. As we communicated to ITU Secretary General Touré, we also commend the ITU on first steps towards greater transparency and openness with regard to access to and webcasting of plenary sessions and Committee 5 sessions, as well as soliciting public submissions. These initial steps enabled civil society to play a constructive, albeit limited, role at the WCIT. However there remain serious limitations to engaging with the ITU. The substantive policy deliberations in working groups were neither webcast nor open to unaffiliated civil society. Further, while it is positive that the ITU opened the process to public comment, these comments were never part of the official record. We raised both of these challenges with the Secretary General, in writing and in person, and he committed to addressing these concerns and appealing to member states, as appropriate. Although the WCIT has concluded, we renew our request to have the public comments submitted as official ITU documents to capture these positions for the historical record. We also raised the issue of the lack of any institutional mechanism for civil society participation at the ITU. While the participation of civil society representatives in government delegations benefits both the delegations and the WCIT’s deliberations as a whole, it cannot substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We will be following up on these important matters with the Secretary General and welcome his commitment to considering institutional remedies to this challenge. Looking forward, civil society seeks to work with governments and other stakeholders around the globe towards an ever more inclusive and substantive multi-stakeholder engagement on telecommunications, Internet, and related matters. Much more needs to be done with regard to opening the ITU to greater genuine multi-stakeholder participation and in particular independent civil society participation - institutional change will need to occur and we will work with the ITU and other stakeholders to bring this about. These changes are vitally important and need to be addressed as soon as possible given the upcoming 2013 World Telecommunication Policy Forum, World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+10) and 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. ----------------------- -- 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 sana.pryhod at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 02:15:55 2012 From: sana.pryhod at gmail.com (Oksana Prykhodko) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:15:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <8CFAD553BE9C1E5-1878-3B283@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CFAD553BE9C1E5-1878-3B283@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Please add the signature of iNGO European Media Platform Does any one have experience how to demand to withdraw the national signature on international document? 2012/12/21 Koven Ronald > Dear All -- > > This statement strikes me as ambivalent to the point of internal > contradiction over whether we want to be engaged with the ITU on Internet > issues, If we think ITU does and/or should have a role in Internet > governance, then it makes sense to demand better representation in its > processes. If, however, we mean what we say when we say we regret adoption > of a resolution in effect involving ITU with the Internet, then it hardly > seems to make sense for the Internet Governance Caucus and its friends and > allies to seek broader participation in ITU. > > The IGC is not about the ITU's historic mandates in traditional > telecommunications or world radio spectrum allocation. If we want it to > stick to its last and stay away from Internet regulation, then why would we > want to become more involved with it ? > > Bests, Rony Koven > > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim > To: governance > Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 4:05 am > Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement > post-WCIT > > Please find below a message fwded from another list. > > I think this is a useful statement for IGC to sign: > > > ------------------------- > > Dear all, > > As a follow up to the civil society letter to WCIT > (https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM) > that a number of organizations on this list have signed on to, civil > society representatives in Dubai drafted a statement on the new ITRs > and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement. The text of the > statement is pasted below. > > This statement assesses the opportunities and challenges faced by > civil society at WCIT and sets out shortcomings we would like to see > addressed to achieve meaningful civil society participation at the ITU > moving forward. It is meant to be complementary to other post-WCIT > civil society statements that focus on the substance of the ITRs. > > We would very much like to secure sign on from your organization. We > feel that there is a strategic importance of having this communication > with the ITU Secretariat on record as we look to future > conversations/events. Though the timing is not ideal, we plan to > publish this statement with the list of signatories and send a copy to > the ITU on Monday. Therefore, we request that you reply to this email > by 0900 EST/1400 UTC on Monday, January 24 if you would like to sign > on. Like with the earlier letter, we will leave the statement open for > sign on and update the list of signatories regularly. I will send out > a publicly accessible link with the statement and list of signatories > on Monday for people to post and circulate, but it would also be great > to discuss ways to draw attention to this statement in the New Year. > > Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for your > attention to this. Warm wishes over the holidays. > > Best regards, > > Deborah > > > Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of > multi-stakeholder engagement > > December 21, 2012 > > Civil society is disappointed that the World Conference on > International Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in > revising the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). We > understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments > have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new > regulations. > > As civil society stated in its Best Bits statement, a key criterion > for ITRs should be that “any proposed revisions are confined to the > traditional scope of the ITRs” and “where international regulation is > required around technical issues [it] is limited to telecommunications > networks and interoperability standards.” We regret that an Internet > governance-related resolution has been included in the Final Acts of > WCIT, despite assertions by many that WCIT was not about Internet > governance. We are also concerned by the lack of clarity around the > applicability of the treaty, which as defined could have unforeseen > consequences for an open internet, and the lack of specificity in key > terms, such as security, which may negatively impact the public’s > rights to privacy and freedom of expression. > > This said, civil society would like to acknowledge and thank those > governments that opened their delegations to members of civil society > and other stakeholder groups. This was a very important initial step > in establishing a civil society voice in the proceedings and we trust > that it signals a wider commitment to multi-stakeholder approaches in > public policy development and decision-making on telecommunications > and Internet-related matters. We trust that this openness and > inclusive approach will continue and extend to upcoming ITU-related > work and beyond, and we urge other governments to welcome and engage > with civil society going forward. > > As we communicated to ITU Secretary General Touré, we also commend the > ITU on first steps towards greater transparency and openness with > regard to access to and webcasting of plenary sessions and Committee 5 > sessions, as well as soliciting public submissions. These initial > steps enabled civil society to play a constructive, albeit limited, > role at the WCIT. > > However there remain serious limitations to engaging with the ITU. > The substantive policy deliberations in working groups were neither > webcast nor open to unaffiliated civil society. Further, while it is > positive that the ITU opened the process to public comment, these > comments were never part of the official record. We raised both of > these challenges with the Secretary General, in writing and in person, > and he committed to addressing these concerns and appealing to member > states, as appropriate. Although the WCIT has concluded, we renew our > request to have the public comments submitted as official ITU > documents to capture these positions for the historical record. > > We also raised the issue of the lack of any institutional mechanism > for civil society participation at the ITU. While the participation of > civil society representatives in government delegations benefits both > the delegations and the WCIT’s deliberations as a whole, it cannot > substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. > We will be following up on these important matters with the Secretary > General and welcome his commitment to considering institutional > remedies to this challenge. > > Looking forward, civil society seeks to work with governments and > other stakeholders around the globe towards an ever more inclusive and > substantive multi-stakeholder engagement on telecommunications, > Internet, and related matters. Much more needs to be done with regard > to opening the ITU to greater genuine multi-stakeholder participation > and in particular independent civil society participation - > institutional change will need to occur and we will work with the ITU > and other stakeholders to bring this about. These changes are vitally > important and need to be addressed as soon as possible given the > upcoming 2013 World Telecommunication Policy Forum, World Summit on > the Information Society (WSIS+10) and 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary > Conference. > > ----------------------- > > -- > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Fri Dec 21 04:47:31 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:17:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken Message-ID: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> Hi All My analysis of WCIT outcomes, as an op-ed for 'The Hindu'..... parminder http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-false-consensus-is-broken/article4222688.ece Return to frontpage Opinion » Lead December 21, 2012 A false consensus is broken Parminder Jeet Singh Share · Comment · print · T+ */The U.S. rejection of new global telecom regulations should not overshadow the need for an Internet-powered social agenda for the world/* The United States’s decision to walk out of the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. These countries refused to sign the new International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) that contain some basic principles governing the technical architecture of the global communication system. They said they could not agree to the ITRs, and the ITU’s remit, extending to the Internet. However, the new ITRs contain no reference to the Internet, all such language having been assiduously weeded out over the two weeks of intense negotiations. Also, the ITU has been undertaking Internet-related activities for more than a decade, with the U.S. participating in them. In a full-blown Internet age, the new ITRs make no reference to naming and addressing the system of the Internet or its routing structures, make no effort to make ITU ‘the’ Internet standards making body, and make a clear statement that ‘content is not included’ in their remit. This could, in fact, have been taken to be a significant acknowledgement of the existing naming and addressing regime (ICANN) and Internet standards making processes (IETF or Internet Engineering Task Force). However, the U.S. remained adamant. *Diplomatic blunder * Both the U.S. and the ITU will take a hit from this meltdown of what was in any case a make-believe consensus. The U.S. seems to have said, well, the kid gloves are off and we are done with making polite noises about ITU. The old order is dead and the new has taken over. What if it is U.S.-centric; most people the U.S. likes to talk to seem to be happy with it. The walkout by the U.S. and its allies can also considerably damage the ITU. It has practically been told by these countries that they see no role for the ITU in an age when all communication systems will soon be Internet-protocol based. This suddenly leaves developing countries without any existing global forum to turn to for an appropriate role in global governance of the Internet. It is expected that this will lead to a hardening of their position on the existing U.S.-centric global Internet governance regime, something most of them have been lazily going along with. With the walkout on the ITRs, the U.S.’s diplomatic ability to defend the substantial control it has over the existing privatised Internet governance regime will go down considerably. It is unclear whether the U.S. had come expecting a deadlock but hoping it would happen in such a way that the blame could be pinned on authoritarian countries with an extreme agenda of statist control over the Internet. These countries did bring in highly problematic drafts which were all rejected or withdrawn. By the end of two weeks of negotiations, as noted by Eric Pfanner in the /New York Times/, “the United States got most of what it wanted, but then it refused to sign the document and left in a huff.” It may turn out to be a diplomatic blunder. Despite valiant statements from the U.S. about having defiantly stood for freedom of expression, the blame for the failure of the treaty process, and the consequent breakdown of the ‘false consensus’ on global Internet governance, will have to be borne by the U.S. *Sequence of events* The real reasons for this sudden shattering of the uneasy calm over ‘who governs the global Internet’ lie in the larger, long-standing structural issues, the kind which often come to a head when a definitive text has to be signed, as happened at the WCIT. With less than two days to go before the end of the conference, the more active developing country actors began to get restive. The draft had gone bare-bone with hardly anything new in it compared to the existing ITRs. They felt that they had made all the concessions; included text that ‘content is not covered,’ agreed to human rights language in the preamble, and had withdrawn all proposals with explicit mention of the Internet, and also the more radical ones that would have taken the ITU into ICANN and IETF territory. As a delegate said in exasperation, “It is unacceptable that one party to the conference gets everything they want and everybody else must make concessions, and after having made many concessions we are then asked to suppress the language which was agreed to.” Rather than seeking to give the ITU a new role with regard to the Internet, many countries legitimately feared that if the ITRs contained nothing at all about the Internet, this would be taken as the basis for pulling the ITU back from even its existing Internet-related activities. All along, the refrain from the U.S. side had been that it is fine for the ITU to keep doing what it already does with respect to the Internet, but it would not accept any mention of the Internet in a binding treaty like the ITRs. In this background, it was a rather legitimate compromise that the Internet be kept out of the ITRs but be mentioned in an appended resolution which does not have the force of a treaty. The resolution was merely a set of instructions to member states and the ITU’s Secretary General for a continuation of existing Internet-related activities and role by the ITU. This resolution mostly repeated agreed language from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). It was adopted by a show of hands past midnight of December 12, the second-last day of substantive negotiations. Its purpose seemed to be to make clear that the absence of the Internet from the ITRs should not be seen as taking away the kind of role that the ITU already plays in the Internet area, and/or as compromising the WSIS mandate in this regard. But the U.S. and its allies were very unhappy with the resolution, and the first indication of an impending breakdown emerged. *Right of access* The real flash point, however, came on December 13, on a proposal to include text in the preamble seeking the “right of access of Member States to international telecommunication services”. It is difficult to see what a global telecommunication treaty would mean without such a basic high-level principle. The U.S. took it to be aimed at the unilateral trade sanctions that it applies against some countries. Since this text had been hotly debated many times during the preceding days, and was in and out of the draft, Iran sought a vote on it. A gentleman’s agreement at the meeting had indeed been to not go for a vote and seek consensus. But an equally important point to note is that the U.S. was standing against a simple statement asserting a collective right of people. As the proposal to insert this text in the preamble was carried 77 votes to 33, the U.S. declared it would not sign the treaty. The U.S. was immediately followed by the U.K., and the process broke down. The U.S. does claim in its post-WCIT statements that, apart from the above two reasons, it was the inclusion of some language on security of networks and spam that made it walk out. However, this language does not seek anything that could be taken as getting into content regulation, which the U.S. says it is afraid of, especially if read along with the clear text in the preamble that excludes content regulation. The WSIS had associated security and spam issues with the ITU and the ITU already works in these areas. Even if somewhat contingent, the point of actual breakdown makes a telling statement. The U.S. will have to explain why it walked out on what was a simple assertion of the right of all countries to access global telecommunication services. If it cannot agree to even such a basic statement of principle, it has lost all legitimacy for overlordship of the global Internet, which it claims as its ‘historic role.’ Its legitimacy will now be more easily and openly questioned by other countries. The fallout from Dubai may also significantly compromise the ITU’s role in the foreseeable future. The appended ‘Internet resolution,’ which was one of the main reasons for the walkout, contains many areas that the ITU is working on substantially at present. A very important ITU meeting — the World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum — to be held in May 2013 is mostly about the Internet. It remains to be seen how the U.S. and its allies will interact with the ITU from now on, especially regarding the latter’s Internet related activities. *Positive agenda* The real problem with the WCIT was that there was no real positive agenda on the table, which is surprising given that we are on the cusp of an ICT triggered social revolution. It finally became just a battle between two sides, both with a largely negative agenda. One side wanted to prevent the U.S. from making a historical point that the Internet is to remain an entirely unregulated space — whereby its new global domination strategy leveraging its ‘control’ over the Internet remains unchecked. The other side was trying to prevent China, Russia /et al/ from changing the basic nature of the global Internet into a tightly state-controlled space. There was no constituency oriented to any positive agenda in the global public interest. The fact that the clash ended the way it did was perhaps expected. It can be taken as an opportunity for progressive actors — from among civil society and many countries from both the South and the North — to begin shaping a positive agenda for the global communications realm. /(Parminder Jeet Singh is Executive Director, IT for Change)/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 14000 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 avri at ella.com Fri Dec 21 06:41:00 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:41:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: > The United States’s decision to walk out of the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. No one walked out. 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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Dec 21 07:16:51 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:46:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> Message-ID: <827FEF0B-2C34-4B95-9966-678D024A921A@hserus.net> I agree - that article isn't strictly accurate as far as facts go. And as other posts here have shown there is quite enough loaded language in the ITRs though the statements, on their face value, appear innocuous. --srs (iPad) On 21-Dec-2012, at 17:11, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: > >> The United States’s decision to walk out of the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. > > > No one walked out. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 21 07:30:50 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 18:00:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> Message-ID: <50D4567A.1050404@itforchange.net> On Friday 21 December 2012 05:11 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: > >> The United States’s decision to walk out of the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. > No one walked out. > > avri You are talking like a diplomat, Avri :) . What happened is called a walkout although maybe a diplomat wont ever utter that word. See http://www.eweek.com/cloud/wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-us-allies/ among many instance of press coverage that uses this term 'walkout' for what happened. BTW, do you have any other substantive comment on the article? 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Fri Dec 21 07:53:12 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:53:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Framework of the Analysis [WCIT Outcomes] Invitation for IGC to comment and contribute In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Agree. Don't we have at least the following IGF activities to track and engage in the the following 6 months: - MAG renewal : If i'm not mistaken a 1/3 of the MAG needs to be rotated off. - IGF 12 : Report back & comments - Feb MAG & open consultation : meeting - May MAG & Open consultation meeting regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2012-12-21, at 12:34 AM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Isn't this a bit ambitious? > > Agreed. > > -- > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2222 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 ocl at gih.com Fri Dec 21 07:54:27 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:54:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <50D4567A.1050404@itforchange.net> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <50D4567A.1050404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50D45C03.7030804@gih.com> On 21/12/2012 13:30, parminder wrote: > You are talking like a diplomat, Avri :) . What happened is called a > walkout although maybe a diplomat wont ever utter that word. > > See > http://www.eweek.com/cloud/wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-us-allies/ > among many instance of press coverage that uses this term 'walkout' > for what happened. > > BTW, do you have any other substantive comment on the article? That's right, I always believe the Press. In fact, if it's in the news, it must be true, irrespective of whether it has happened or not. Here's another famous, iconic fact from the Press: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Freddiehamster.jpg 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 07:56:41 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 01:56:41 +1300 Subject: [governance] Framework of the Analysis [WCIT Outcomes] Invitation for IGC to comment and contribute In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Agree. > > Don't we have at least the following IGF activities to track and engage > in the the following 6 months: > > - MAG renewal : If i'm not mistaken a 1/3 of the MAG needs to be rotated > off. > - IGF 12 : Report back & comments > - Feb MAG & open consultation : meeting > - May MAG & Open consultation meeting > Consultations were open for the MAG and open consultation and that is a separate thread. Schombe and I are consolidating the MAG and open consultations and there has been input from the list and it is still open for comments. We are on track. > regards > > Robert > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-12-21, at 12:34 AM, McTim wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Isn't this a bit ambitious? > > > > Agreed. > > > > -- > > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 08:02:21 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:02:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <8CFAD553BE9C1E5-1878-3B283@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CFAD553BE9C1E5-1878-3B283@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Ronny, Despite our name, we have almost exclusively focused on UN (WSIS and IGF) processes in the 7 years I have been on this list. The entire WSIS process was ITU driven, and the ITU seeks a greater role for itself (or at least many member States do) in IG. ITU already does reverse delegation of your national numbering plan (ENUM), but I think most on this list don't want an expanded role for the ITU in IG matters. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:43 AM, Koven Ronald wrote: > Dear All -- > > This statement strikes me as ambivalent to the point of internal > contradiction over whether we want to be engaged with the ITU on Internet > issues, If we think ITU does and/or should have a role in Internet > governance, then it makes sense to demand better representation in its > processes. If, however, we mean what we say when we say we regret adoption > of a resolution in effect involving ITU with the Internet, then it hardly > seems to make sense for the Internet Governance Caucus and its friends and > allies to seek broader participation in ITU. > > The IGC is not about the ITU's historic mandates in traditional > telecommunications or world radio spectrum allocation. If we want it to > stick to its last and stay away from Internet regulation, then why would we > want to become more involved with it ? > > Bests, Rony Koven > > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim > To: governance > Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 4:05 am > Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement > post-WCIT > > Please find below a message fwded from another list. > > I think this is a useful statement for IGC to sign: > > > ------------------------- > > Dear all, > > As a follow up to the civil society letter to WCIT > (https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM) > that a number of organizations on this list have signed on to, civil > society representatives in Dubai drafted a statement on the new ITRs > and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement. The text of the > statement is pasted below. > > This statement assesses the opportunities and challenges faced by > civil society at WCIT and sets out shortcomings we would like to see > addressed to achieve meaningful civil society participation at the ITU > moving forward. It is meant to be complementary to other post-WCIT > civil society statements that focus on the substance of the ITRs. > > We would very much like to secure sign on from your organization. We > feel that there is a strategic importance of having this communication > with the ITU Secretariat on record as we look to future > conversations/events. Though the timing is not ideal, we plan to > publish this statement with the list of signatories and send a copy to > the ITU on Monday. Therefore, we request that you reply to this email > by 0900 EST/1400 UTC on Monday, January 24 if you would like to sign > on. Like with the earlier letter, we will leave the statement open for > sign on and update the list of signatories regularly. I will send out > a publicly accessible link with the statement and list of signatories > on Monday for people to post and circulate, but it would also be great > to discuss ways to draw attention to this statement in the New Year. > > Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for your > attention to this. Warm wishes over the holidays. > > Best regards, > > Deborah > > > Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of > multi-stakeholder engagement > > December 21, 2012 > > Civil society is disappointed that the World Conference on > International Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in > revising the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). We > understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments > have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new > regulations. > > As civil society stated in its Best Bits statement, a key criterion > for ITRs should be that “any proposed revisions are confined to the > traditional scope of the ITRs” and “where international regulation is > required around technical issues [it] is limited to telecommunications > networks and interoperability standards.” We regret that an Internet > governance-related resolution has been included in the Final Acts of > WCIT, despite assertions by many that WCIT was not about Internet > governance. We are also concerned by the lack of clarity around the > applicability of the treaty, which as defined could have unforeseen > consequences for an open internet, and the lack of specificity in key > terms, such as security, which may negatively impact the public’s > rights to privacy and freedom of expression. > > This said, civil society would like to acknowledge and thank those > governments that opened their delegations to members of civil society > and other stakeholder groups. This was a very important initial step > in establishing a civil society voice in the proceedings and we trust > that it signals a wider commitment to multi-stakeholder approaches in > public policy development and decision-making on telecommunications > and Internet-related matters. We trust that this openness and > inclusive approach will continue and extend to upcoming ITU-related > work and beyond, and we urge other governments to welcome and engage > with civil society going forward. > > As we communicated to ITU Secretary General Touré, we also commend the > ITU on first steps towards greater transparency and openness with > regard to access to and webcasting of plenary sessions and Committee 5 > sessions, as well as soliciting public submissions. These initial > steps enabled civil society to play a constructive, albeit limited, > role at the WCIT. > > However there remain serious limitations to engaging with the ITU. > The substantive policy deliberations in working groups were neither > webcast nor open to unaffiliated civil society. Further, while it is > positive that the ITU opened the process to public comment, these > comments were never part of the official record. We raised both of > these challenges with the Secretary General, in writing and in person, > and he committed to addressing these concerns and appealing to member > states, as appropriate. Although the WCIT has concluded, we renew our > request to have the public comments submitted as official ITU > documents to capture these positions for the historical record. > > We also raised the issue of the lack of any institutional mechanism > for civil society participation at the ITU. While the participation of > civil society representatives in government delegations benefits both > the delegations and the WCIT’s deliberations as a whole, it cannot > substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. > We will be following up on these important matters with the Secretary > General and welcome his commitment to considering institutional > remedies to this challenge. > > Looking forward, civil society seeks to work with governments and > other stakeholders around the globe towards an ever more inclusive and > substantive multi-stakeholder engagement on telecommunications, > Internet, and related matters. Much more needs to be done with regard > to opening the ITU to greater genuine multi-stakeholder participation > and in particular independent civil society participation - > institutional change will need to occur and we will work with the ITU > and other stakeholders to bring this about. These changes are vitally > important and need to be addressed as soon as possible given the > upcoming 2013 World Telecommunication Policy Forum, World Summit on > the Information Society (WSIS+10) and 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary > Conference. > > ----------------------- > > -- > 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 kovenronald at aol.com Fri Dec 21 08:03:36 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:03:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <50D4567A.1050404@itforchange.net> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <50D4567A.1050404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <8CFAD92B8D38275-1878-3C53D@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> And so now Parminder tells us not only how to organize Internet governance but also how to recast the English language. Where's George Orwell now that we need him ? Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: parminder To: governance ; Avri Doria Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 1:31 pm Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken On Friday 21 December 2012 05:11 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: > >> The United States’s decision to walk out of the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. > No one walked out. > > avri You are talking like a diplomat, Avri :) . What happened is called a walkout although maybe a diplomat wont ever utter that word. See http://www.eweek.com/cloud/wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-us-allies/ among many instance of press coverage that uses this term 'walkout' for what happened. BTW, do you have any other substantive comment on the article? parminder > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Dec 21 08:24:22 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:24:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <50D4567A.1050404@itforchange.net> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <50D4567A.1050404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 9:30 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 21 December 2012 05:11 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: >> >>> The United States’s decision to walk out of the International >>> Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International >>> Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week >>> could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. >> >> No one walked out. >> >> avri > > > You are talking like a diplomat, Avri :) . What happened is called a walkout > although maybe a diplomat wont ever utter that word. > Parminder, no one walked out. Nothing to do with diplomacy, you either do not understand what you are writing or are lying. Which is it? You've written a highly misleading piece and the editor of an important newspaper has been duped into publishing it. In one paragraph you say the ITRs are about basic principles governing technical matters,how the ITU is a poor innocent, and then how developing countries are left without any global forum to turn to for a role in governance of the Internet. How much more confused could you be about the ITRs, WCIT and ITU? When Saudi Arabia (yes, that bastion of democracy and fairness) said is was unacceptable one party got everything it wants, they were not talking about the worrisome extension of state rights you for some misguided reason seem to support, but the proposal by Russia, UAE, China, Saudi, Arabia, Algeria, Sudan, and Egypt to very much take over the Internet. Saudi and UAE were threatening to bring that rubbish back to the plenary. I am sure the ITU is very pleased with you for taking such and active role in their media campaign to spin the outcome of the ITRs. I hope members of India's civil society who are better informed and less in the ITU's pocket than you will speak up when the Indian positiio Your on human rights > See > http://www.eweek.com/cloud/wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-us-allies/ > among many instance of press coverage that uses this term 'walkout' for what > happened. > > BTW, do you have any other substantive comment on the article? > > parminder > > > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Fri Dec 21 08:31:31 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:31:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Framework of the Analysis [WCIT Outcomes] Invitation for IGC to comment and contribute In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: add the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation. WSIS+10 in Paris , February. WTFP , May. Best, Adam On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Agree. > > Don't we have at least the following IGF activities to track and engage in the the following 6 months: > > - MAG renewal : If i'm not mistaken a 1/3 of the MAG needs to be rotated off. > - IGF 12 : Report back & comments > - Feb MAG & open consultation : meeting > - May MAG & Open consultation meeting > > regards > > Robert > > -- > R. Guerra > Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 > Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom > Email: rguerra at privaterra.org > > On 2012-12-21, at 12:34 AM, McTim wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> Isn't this a bit ambitious? >> >> Agreed. >> >> -- >> 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 rguerra at privaterra.org Fri Dec 21 08:38:01 2012 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:38:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Framework of the Analysis [WCIT Outcomes] Invitation for IGC to comment and contribute In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hate to be blunt, but need to say this.. As the thread started - There's a lot going on in the first 1/2 of 2013. We really need to focus and prioritize otherwise we'll spread ourselves to thin and really have an insignificant impact on the processes taking place. While I see WCIT as important, entering into a full scale analysis without experts who know the history, geopolitical context and expert ability to decipher and compare ITR's - is , in my opinion, best left to others. We should coordinate and share resources with those doing the analysis, but - it is really far too complex a task that needs to be done by issue experts to have any real impact. regards Robert On 2012-12-21, at 8:31 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > add the CSTD working group on enhanced cooperation. WSIS+10 in Paris > , > February. WTFP , May. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 9:53 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: >> Agree. >> >> Don't we have at least the following IGF activities to track and engage in the the following 6 months: >> >> - MAG renewal : If i'm not mistaken a 1/3 of the MAG needs to be rotated off. >> - IGF 12 : Report back & comments >> - Feb MAG & open consultation : meeting >> - May MAG & Open consultation meeting >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> >> -- >> R. Guerra >> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom >> Email: rguerra at privaterra.org >> >> On 2012-12-21, at 12:34 AM, McTim wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> Isn't this a bit ambitious? >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2222 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Dec 21 08:40:09 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:40:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <50D4567A.1050404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: a few words went missing below: >On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 9:30 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Friday 21 December 2012 05:11 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: >>> >>>> The United States¹s decision to walk out of the International >>>> Telecommunication Union¹s World Conference on International >>>> Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week >>>> could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. >>> >>> No one walked out. >>> >>> avri >> >> >> You are talking like a diplomat, Avri :) . What happened is called a walkout >> although maybe a diplomat wont ever utter that word. >> > >Parminder, no one walked out. Nothing to do with diplomacy, you either >do not understand what you are writing or are lying. Which is it? > >You've written a highly misleading piece and the editor of an >important newspaper has been duped into publishing it. > >In one paragraph you say the ITRs are about basic principles governing >technical matters,how the ITU is a poor innocent, and then how >developing countries are left without any global forum to turn to for >a role in governance of the Internet. How much more confused could >you be about the ITRs, WCIT and ITU? > >When Saudi Arabia (yes, that bastion of democracy and fairness) said >is was unacceptable one party got everything it wants, they were not >talking about the worrisome extension of state rights you for some >misguided reason seem to support, but the proposal by Russia, UAE, >China, Saudi, Arabia, Algeria, Sudan, and Egypt to very much take over >the Internet. Saudi and UAE were threatening to bring that rubbish >back to the plenary. > >I am sure the ITU is very pleased with you for taking such and active >role in their media campaign to spin the outcome of the ITRs. I hope >members of India's civil society who are better informed and less in >the ITU's pocket than you will speak up when the Indian positiio > last sentence, should read: I hope members of India's civil society who are better informed and less in the ITU's pocket than you will speak up when the Indian position on the ITRs is reviewed and a decision taken on whether to sign or not, to take reservations or not. Adam > > >Your on human rights > >> See >> >>http://www.eweek.com/cloud/wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-us-allies/ >> among many instance of press coverage that uses this term 'walkout' for what >> happened. >> >> BTW, do you have any other substantive comment on the article? >> >> parminder >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 suresh at hserus.net Fri Dec 21 08:38:30 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:08:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken Message-ID: I surely will. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Adam Peake" To: , "parminder" Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken Date: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 6:54 PM On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 9:30 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 21 December 2012 05:11 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: >> >>> The United States’s decision to walk out of the International >>> Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International >>> Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week >>> could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. >> >> No one walked out. >> >> avri > > > You are talking like a diplomat, Avri :) . What happened is called a walkout > although maybe a diplomat wont ever utter that word. > Parminder, no one walked out. Nothing to do with diplomacy, you either do not understand what you are writing or are lying. Which is it? You've written a highly misleading piece and the editor of an important newspaper has been duped into publishing it. In one paragraph you say the ITRs are about basic principles governing technical matters,how the ITU is a poor innocent, and then how developing countries are left without any global forum to turn to for a role in governance of the Internet. How much more confused could you be about the ITRs, WCIT and ITU? When Saudi Arabia (yes, that bastion of democracy and fairness) said is was unacceptable one party got everything it wants, they were not talking about the worrisome extension of state rights you for some misguided reason seem to support, but the proposal by Russia, UAE, China, Saudi, Arabia, Algeria, Sudan, and Egypt to very much take over the Internet. Saudi and UAE were threatening to bring that rubbish back to the plenary. I am sure the ITU is very pleased with you for taking such and active role in their media campaign to spin the outcome of the ITRs. I hope members of India's civil society who are better informed and less in the ITU's pocket than you will speak up when the Indian positiio Your on human rights > See > http://www.eweek.com/cloud/wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-us-allies/ > among many instance of press coverage that uses this term 'walkout' for what > happened. > > BTW, do you have any other substantive comment on the article? > > parminder > > > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Dec 21 08:45:03 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:45:03 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] A false consensus is broken References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <50D4567A.1050404@itforchange.net> <8CFAD92B8D38275-1878-3C53D@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD7E2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Parminder, I know that you love to play with words. However do not mix up legal language with what a journalist has said who was not in the room but has heard that somebody has said something. I was the whole time until 3.00 after midnight in the room, night by night. Nobody walked out. However the article says correctly the the US and a many other governments, including Germany, "left the meeting without signing the treaty ". This is something different. I personally support this approach of the German government. ITR are legally binding obligations. The key criteria for any law (and legally binding treaties) is clarity in language, clear common understanding on categories, full consensus on definitions. Ambuigity and diplomatic language which reflects the "agree to disagree" is acceptable in non-binding political instruments (as WSIS or the COE Declaration) but it is unaccetable in a legal binding document. The quoted article is partly wrong and Kramer gives just a summary. 3.8 was already out (naming and numbering) , 1.1.bis (content ) was seen as a cleaner for 5A and 5B but tghis was not widely accepted. Who really would win in a court if one party treats spam as a content related issue and the other party says this is illegal because we have 1.1bis. In a previous version there ass a footnote as the proposed dealbraker saying that "spam is not content". Wow. One delegate said this is as when we would say "water is no liquid". I understand that governments fully disagree if it comes to spam, security, naming and numbering etc. This is documented in numerous political documents (take enhanced cooperation with its hundreds of different interpretations). This disagreement should continue to be disucsseed and fixed from time to time in non-binding political documents on a high level. This is okay. But if you write such unclear concepts into a legally binding treaty than you have to do the next 20 years with all kinds of national and international court proceedings. Nobody wants to pay the bills for the lawyers. This is also true for the discussion on human rights on this list. Jus cogens is the UN Charter and the seven principles, defined in the 1970 delcaration. Full stop. The "peoples right of self-determination" - one of the seven jus cogens principles - is enshrined in the Charter and can be seen as a collective right of "peoples". The main right which emerges from the right to self-determination is the right of the people to select a social order and the form a state. And than the state enjoys "national sovereignty" (based on the peoples right to self-determination). But the "right" does no go from the people to the state. It remains with the people. There are no "collective rights" for states. Human rights are since John Milton individual rights. And states/governments - as long as they have signed the UN treaties - have the legal obligation under the present internationa law to guarantee those rights to their citizens. If governments deny those rights to their citizens, indivduals can go to the Hunman Rights Council or - in the CoE case - to the European Court on Human Rights. And governments can sanction other governments which systenmatically deny human rights because massive violation of human rights are seen under the present international law as a threat to security which opens the door to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. Alls this was discusses in detail in the 70s and 80s in the debate about the new international economic order and the CSCE process. International law has not changed. Insofar it was just stupid to introduce into ITRs a new understanding of human rights. This was done by (polically motivated) telco-lawyers who had no knolewdge about the body of international human rights law. You can not stop those governments to do this and you can also not give a human rights lecture at 2.00 o´clock in the morning. Hiowever it was not such a big damage because the final language in the preamble does not really constitute a legal obligation or new law. So I would recommend if we continue to discuss WCIT outcome to make this clear distinction between a legally binding treaty and politcal declarations and compromise language a la WSIS. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Koven Ronald Gesendet: Fr 21.12.2012 14:03 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder at itforchange.net; avri at ella.com Betreff: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken And so now Parminder tells us not only how to organize Internet governance but also how to recast the English language. Where's George Orwell now that we need him ? Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: parminder To: governance ; Avri Doria Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 1:31 pm Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken On Friday 21 December 2012 05:11 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: > >> The United States's decision to walk out of the International Telecommunication Union's World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. > No one walked out. > > avri You are talking like a diplomat, Avri :) . What happened is called a walkout although maybe a diplomat wont ever utter that word. See http://www.eweek.com/cloud/wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-us-allies/ among many instance of press coverage that uses this term 'walkout' for what happened. BTW, do you have any other substantive comment on the article? parminder > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 Fri Dec 21 08:56:11 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 05:56:11 -0800 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> Message-ID: <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> Hmmmm (for those of us who weren't in Dubai Search Results Google: US Walkout WCIT About 25,300 results (0.48 seconds) WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies www.eweek.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-wi... Wayne Rash by Wayne Rash - in 447 Google+ circles 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... Page 2 - WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies www.eweek.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walko... by Wayne Rash - in 447 Google+ circles 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of ... - ThunderFeeds thunderfeeds.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walk... 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... eCnet Solutions – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of ... ecnetsolutions.com/wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walko... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies. December 15, 2012 | 0 comment | in Latest News | by ... US threatens to walk out of WCIT www.commsday.com/commsday-australasia/4002 10 Dec 2012 – Head of the American delegation to the World Conference on International Telecommunications, Ambassador Terry Kramer, has promised to ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue - 2012 ... www.broadcastingcable.com/.../490775-Ambassador_Kramer... 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the ITU WCIT-12 ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ... www.fundamentaltp.com/index/?p=4135 5 days ago – NEWS ANALYSIS: The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of US, Allies - eWeek eweek.floost.com/.../post-wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-... The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International Telecommu. Preditable WCIT Outcome Sees US Lead Objections To ITU's ... www.domainpulse.com/.../preditable-wcit-outcome-sees-us-lea... 14 Dec 2012 – But the US led a walkout of delegates from mostly western countries at ... day World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in ... favicon WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of US, Allies technewstube.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walk... 5 days ago – eWeek writes, The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies - newsR newsr.in › Computer Industry 5 days ago – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ♢ The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet ... The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : A false consensus is broken www.thehindu.com › Opinion › Lead 17 hours ago – The United States's decision to walk out of the International ... on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its ... News: WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies en.zicos.com/.../i28368653-WCIT-Treaty-Talks-End-iin-Duba... 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... benton.org/node/141277 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the World ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... Corrected: India Doesn't Sign The New ITR At WCIT; 80 Countries ... www.medianama.com/.../223-india-signs-the-new-itr-at-... - India 14 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer who is heading the American delegation to the WCIT had already threatened to walk out of the conference, if the ... WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked - Total Telecom www.totaltele.com › mobility 7 Dec 2012 – U.S. delegation threatens to walk out of Dubai conference; accuses some nations of trying to ... WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked ... WCIT collapses: US, UK, allies refuse to sign treaty after Africa wins ... www.commsday.com/.../wcit-collapses-us-uk-allies-refuse-to-s... 14 Dec 2012 – WCIT collapses: US, UK, allies refuse to sign treaty after Africa wins floor vote. Posted on: Friday .... this banner. US threatens to walk out of WCIT. WCIT bombshell: Russia withdraws Internet regulation push ... www.aficta.org/.../150-wcit-bombshell-russia-withdraws-intern... WCIT bombshell: Russia withdraws Internet regulation push, apparently under ... The alternative was a walkout by the US delegation and potentially some of its ... WCIT: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World - Governance www.goldsteinreport.com/article.php?article=19458 6 days ago – WCIT: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World ... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-walkout.html. Also see: ... WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ... ecbasis.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-... 5 days ago – NEWS ANALYSIS: The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference ... WCIT WATCH: Analysis of the new ITRs Part II - Blog | Access https://www.accessnow.org/.../wcit-watch-analysis-of-the-new-... 6 days ago – WCIT WATCH: Analysis of the new ITRs Part II .... painting the push to reject the ITRs as a US-led, developed countries walkout, it's worth noting ... Report: U.S. Threatens To Walk Out Of U.N. Internet Conference ... livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../report-us-threate... Carl Franzen by Carl Franzen - in 131 Google+ circles 10 Dec 2012 – Updated 12:22 p.m. EST, Monday, December 10 The U.S. ... that the reports the U.S. was threatening to walk-out or withdraw from the WCIT-12 ... US to Walk out of ITU Meeting? - Wired State 3dblogger.typepad.com/.../us-to-walk-out-of-itu-meeting.html 10 Dec 2012 – So the US is threatening to walk out of the WCIT, the meeting of the ITU (International Telecommunications Union, which aspires to run the ... How the WCIT Should Have Been Worked So That the US Could ... 3dblogger.typepad.com/.../how-the-wcit-should-have-been-w... 5 hours ago – After threatening the walk out and simply not participate in a highly flawed ... How the WCIT Should Have Been Worked So That the US Could ... WCIT Conference in Dubai Threatens Internet Freedom macjordangh.com/wcit-conference-in-dubai-threatens-internet... 14 Dec 2012 – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies (eweek.com); The highlights and low points of WCIT (news.dot-nxt.com) ... The Internet doesn't need the ITU's help, says Vint Cerf - Techworld ... news.techworld.com › News 6 days ago – The U.S. representative for WCIT had threatened to walk out of the meeting as a result. The Russian proposal was shelved, though other ... Vint Cerf: The Internet doesn't need the ITU's help | Networking ... www.infoworld.com › Networking › News 13 Dec 2012 – The U.S. representative for WCIT had threatened to walk out of the meeting as a result. The Russian proposal was shelved, though other ... WCIT-12 revises international telecommunications treaty without US ... thunderfeeds.com/.../wcit12-revises-international-telecommuni... 3 days ago – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies · eWEEK (2 days ago) - The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms ... Twitter / Search - #wcit https://twitter.com/search?q=%23wcit Message, if murky, from U.S. to the world https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-walkout.html … - NYT analysis of the #WCIT ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... internetsecuritynews.com/.../ambassador-kramer-reports-of-wc... 10 Dec 2012 – IEEE SpectrumAmbassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout ... on the issues that the U.S. has suggested were nonnegotiable from its side, ... WCIT Developments — Russian Proposals Withdrawn | Prepper ... www.prepperpodcast.com/wcit-developments-russian-proposal... 13 Dec 2012 – WCIT 2012 (Photo credit: itupictures) ... advanced by the Russian delegation, have been withdrawn, possibly under threat of a US walkout. US prepared to walk out of ITU talks over internet regulation - 10 ... www.computing.co.uk › News › Communications › Telecoms 10 Dec 2012 – The US is prepared to "press the nuclear button" and walk out of talks in ... Technology (WCIT), the head of the American delegation, Terry ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue - I4U ... www.i4u.com/.../reports-wcit-walkout-ambassado... - United States Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the ITU WCIT-12 telecom treaty ... Report: U.S. Threatens To Walk Out Of U.N. Internet Conference ... The UN Fought The Internet — And The Internet Won; WCIT Summit ... www.internationalorganizationsdesk.com/fought-internet-inter... 11 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue. Dec 11, 2012 | benton.org. Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. ... The Internet Battle Initiated: The UN ITC Dubai WCIT Conference ... www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread904894/pg2 8 Dec 2012 – WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked ... Mr. Kramer said the U.S. is prepared to walk out of the event and refuse to sign the treaty if ... Russia, China withdraw controversial proposal at treaty conference ... computerworld.co.nz/.../russia-china-withdraw-controversial-p... 12 Dec 2012 – Earlier on Monday, Terry Kramer, head of the US delegation to the WCIT denied news reports that his country had threatened to walk out out of ... WCIT is Over. Who Won? Nobody Knows. | Benton Foundation benton.org/node/141776 6 days ago – “The 'good guys' (the US, and its allies including Canada and the UK) ... to Do · Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... Twitter / InfernoJourno: Great article about #WCIT : ... twitter.com/InfernoJourno/statuses/279418697079205888 13 Dec 2012 – ... ‏@InfernoJourno 13 Dec. Great article about #WCIT : UN Telecom Treaty Approved Against US Web-Censorship Concerns - US walk out on ... US denies threatening to walk out of Internet governance talks ... www.itproportal.com › 2012 › December › 10 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer, lead representative for the US at the World Conference on International ... Tags: itu wcit terry kramer walkout us ... WCIT: Internet Governance deadlock..Delegasi AS walkout ... - Yahoo! tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/APWKomitel/message/54848Share 8 Dec 2012 – WCIT: Internet Governance deadlock. ... U.S. delegation threatens to walk out of Dubai conference; accuses some nations of trying to bring in ... WCIT ends but the Internet fight-club will continue - TelecomTV.com www.telecomtv.com/go/?ct=1&cid=49781&id... 6 days ago – The ITU's WCIT has ended as expected with a crucial minority of ... That news is expected later today, but U.S., U.K., Canada, Poland, ... threats to walk out, compromise texts and so on, flying about right up to the last moment. Russia, China withdraw controversial proposal to have ITU control ... www.cio.co.ke › News › Main stories 11 Dec 2012 – Earlier on Monday, Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the WCIT denied news reports that his country had threatened to walk out out ... But I guess you had to have been there... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 3:41 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: > The United States’s decision to walk out of the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. No one walked out. avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 21 09:08:56 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:38:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken Message-ID: There is a world of difference between journalists and people with a background in igov public policy I would expect at least some less wordplay and a bit more accuracy in the second case --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: , "'Avri Doria'" Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken Date: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 7:26 PM Hmmmm (for those of us who weren't in Dubai Search Results Google: US Walkout WCIT About 25,300 results (0.48 seconds) WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies www.eweek.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-wi... Wayne Rash by Wayne Rash - in 447 Google+ circles 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... Page 2 - WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies www.eweek.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walko... by Wayne Rash - in 447 Google+ circles 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of ... - ThunderFeeds thunderfeeds.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walk... 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... eCnet Solutions – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of ... ecnetsolutions.com/wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walko... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies. December 15, 2012 | 0 comment | in Latest News | by ... US threatens to walk out of WCIT www.commsday.com/commsday-australasia/4002 10 Dec 2012 – Head of the American delegation to the World Conference on International Telecommunications, Ambassador Terry Kramer, has promised to ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue - 2012 ... www.broadcastingcable.com/.../490775-Ambassador_Kramer... 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the ITU WCIT-12 ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ... www.fundamentaltp.com/index/?p=4135 5 days ago – NEWS ANALYSIS: The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of US, Allies - eWeek eweek.floost.com/.../post-wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-... The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International Telecommu. Preditable WCIT Outcome Sees US Lead Objections To ITU's ... www.domainpulse.com/.../preditable-wcit-outcome-sees-us-lea... 14 Dec 2012 – But the US led a walkout of delegates from mostly western countries at ... day World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in ... favicon WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of US, Allies technewstube.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walk... 5 days ago – eWeek writes, The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies - newsR newsr.in › Computer Industry 5 days ago – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ♢ The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet ... The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : A false consensus is broken www.thehindu.com › Opinion › Lead 17 hours ago – The United States's decision to walk out of the International ... on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its ... News: WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies en.zicos.com/.../i28368653-WCIT-Treaty-Talks-End-iin-Duba... 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... benton.org/node/141277 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the World ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... Corrected: India Doesn't Sign The New ITR At WCIT; 80 Countries ... www.medianama.com/.../223-india-signs-the-new-itr-at-... - India 14 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer who is heading the American delegation to the WCIT had already threatened to walk out of the conference, if the ... WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked - Total Telecom www.totaltele.com › mobility 7 Dec 2012 – U.S. delegation threatens to walk out of Dubai conference; accuses some nations of trying to ... WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked ... WCIT collapses: US, UK, allies refuse to sign treaty after Africa wins ... www.commsday.com/.../wcit-collapses-us-uk-allies-refuse-to-s... 14 Dec 2012 – WCIT collapses: US, UK, allies refuse to sign treaty after Africa wins floor vote. Posted on: Friday .... this banner. US threatens to walk out of WCIT. WCIT bombshell: Russia withdraws Internet regulation push ... www.aficta.org/.../150-wcit-bombshell-russia-withdraws-intern... WCIT bombshell: Russia withdraws Internet regulation push, apparently under ... The alternative was a walkout by the US delegation and potentially some of its ... WCIT: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World - Governance www.goldsteinreport.com/article.php?article=19458 6 days ago – WCIT: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World ... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-walkout.html. Also see: ... WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ... ecbasis.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-... 5 days ago – NEWS ANALYSIS: The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference ... WCIT WATCH: Analysis of the new ITRs Part II - Blog | Access https://www.accessnow.org/.../wcit-watch-analysis-of-the-new-... 6 days ago – WCIT WATCH: Analysis of the new ITRs Part II .... painting the push to reject the ITRs as a US-led, developed countries walkout, it's worth noting ... Report: U.S. Threatens To Walk Out Of U.N. Internet Conference ... livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../report-us-threate... Carl Franzen by Carl Franzen - in 131 Google+ circles 10 Dec 2012 – Updated 12:22 p.m. EST, Monday, December 10 The U.S. ... that the reports the U.S. was threatening to walk-out or withdraw from the WCIT-12 ... US to Walk out of ITU Meeting? - Wired State 3dblogger.typepad.com/.../us-to-walk-out-of-itu-meeting.html 10 Dec 2012 – So the US is threatening to walk out of the WCIT, the meeting of the ITU (International Telecommunications Union, which aspires to run the ... How the WCIT Should Have Been Worked So That the US Could ... 3dblogger.typepad.com/.../how-the-wcit-should-have-been-w... 5 hours ago – After threatening the walk out and simply not participate in a highly flawed ... How the WCIT Should Have Been Worked So That the US Could ... WCIT Conference in Dubai Threatens Internet Freedom macjordangh.com/wcit-conference-in-dubai-threatens-internet... 14 Dec 2012 – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies (eweek.com); The highlights and low points of WCIT (news.dot-nxt.com) ... The Internet doesn't need the ITU's help, says Vint Cerf - Techworld ... news.techworld.com › News 6 days ago – The U.S. representative for WCIT had threatened to walk out of the meeting as a result. The Russian proposal was shelved, though other ... Vint Cerf: The Internet doesn't need the ITU's help | Networking ... www.infoworld.com › Networking › News 13 Dec 2012 – The U.S. representative for WCIT had threatened to walk out of the meeting as a result. The Russian proposal was shelved, though other ... WCIT-12 revises international telecommunications treaty without US ... thunderfeeds.com/.../wcit12-revises-international-telecommuni... 3 days ago – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies · eWEEK (2 days ago) - The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms ... Twitter / Search - #wcit https://twitter.com/search?q=%23wcit Message, if murky, from U.S. to the world https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-walkout.html … - NYT analysis of the #WCIT ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... internetsecuritynews.com/.../ambassador-kramer-reports-of-wc... 10 Dec 2012 – IEEE SpectrumAmbassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout ... on the issues that the U.S. has suggested were nonnegotiable from its side, ... WCIT Developments — Russian Proposals Withdrawn | Prepper ... www.prepperpodcast.com/wcit-developments-russian-proposal... 13 Dec 2012 – WCIT 2012 (Photo credit: itupictures) ... advanced by the Russian delegation, have been withdrawn, possibly under threat of a US walkout. US prepared to walk out of ITU talks over internet regulation - 10 ... www.computing.co.uk › News › Communications › Telecoms 10 Dec 2012 – The US is prepared to "press the nuclear button" and walk out of talks in ... Technology (WCIT), the head of the American delegation, Terry ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue - I4U ... www.i4u.com/.../reports-wcit-walkout-ambassado... - United States Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the ITU WCIT-12 telecom treaty ... Report: U.S. Threatens To Walk Out Of U.N. Internet Conference ... The UN Fought The Internet — And The Internet Won; WCIT Summit ... www.internationalorganizationsdesk.com/fought-internet-inter... 11 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue. Dec 11, 2012 | benton.org. Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. ... The Internet Battle Initiated: The UN ITC Dubai WCIT Conference ... www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread904894/pg2 8 Dec 2012 – WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked ... Mr. Kramer said the U.S. is prepared to walk out of the event and refuse to sign the treaty if ... Russia, China withdraw controversial proposal at treaty conference ... computerworld.co.nz/.../russia-china-withdraw-controversial-p... 12 Dec 2012 – Earlier on Monday, Terry Kramer, head of the US delegation to the WCIT denied news reports that his country had threatened to walk out out of ... WCIT is Over. Who Won? Nobody Knows. | Benton Foundation benton.org/node/141776 6 days ago – “The 'good guys' (the US, and its allies including Canada and the UK) ... to Do · Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... Twitter / InfernoJourno: Great article about #WCIT : ... twitter.com/InfernoJourno/statuses/279418697079205888 13 Dec 2012 – ... ‏@InfernoJourno 13 Dec. Great article about #WCIT : UN Telecom Treaty Approved Against US Web-Censorship Concerns - US walk out on ... US denies threatening to walk out of Internet governance talks ... www.itproportal.com › 2012 › December › 10 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer, lead representative for the US at the World Conference on International ... Tags: itu wcit terry kramer walkout us ... WCIT: Internet Governance deadlock..Delegasi AS walkout ... - Yahoo! tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/APWKomitel/message/54848Share 8 Dec 2012 – WCIT: Internet Governance deadlock. ... U.S. delegation threatens to walk out of Dubai conference; accuses some nations of trying to bring in ... WCIT ends but the Internet fight-club will continue - TelecomTV.com www.telecomtv.com/go/?ct=1&cid=49781&id... 6 days ago – The ITU's WCIT has ended as expected with a crucial minority of ... That news is expected later today, but U.S., U.K., Canada, Poland, ... threats to walk out, compromise texts and so on, flying about right up to the last moment. Russia, China withdraw controversial proposal to have ITU control ... www.cio.co.ke › News › Main stories 11 Dec 2012 – Earlier on Monday, Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the WCIT denied news reports that his country had threatened to walk out out ... But I guess you had to have been there... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 3:41 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: > The United States’s decision to walk out of the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. No one walked out. avri -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Dec 21 09:12:35 2012 From: Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com (Michael Kende) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:12:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C7AD69@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Kende Moon Landing: 11,200 results (0.43 seconds) Sadly, I have not been. Michael From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 2:56 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Avri Doria' Subject: RE: [governance] A false consensus is broken Hmmmm (for those of us who weren't in Dubai Search Results Google: US Walkout WCIT About 25,300 results (0.48 seconds) WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies www.eweek.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-wi... Wayne Rash by Wayne Rash - in 447 Google+ circles 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... Page 2 - WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies www.eweek.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walko... by Wayne Rash - in 447 Google+ circles 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of ... - ThunderFeeds thunderfeeds.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walk... 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... eCnet Solutions – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of ... ecnetsolutions.com/wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walko... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies. December 15, 2012 | 0 comment | in Latest News | by ... US threatens to walk out of WCIT www.commsday.com/commsday-australasia/4002 10 Dec 2012 – Head of the American delegation to the World Conference on International Telecommunications, Ambassador Terry Kramer, has promised to ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue - 2012 ... www.broadcastingcable.com/.../490775-Ambassador_Kramer... 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the ITU WCIT-12 ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ... www.fundamentaltp.com/index/?p=4135 5 days ago – NEWS ANALYSIS: The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of US, Allies - eWeek eweek.floost.com/.../post-wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-... The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International Telecommu. Preditable WCIT Outcome Sees US Lead Objections To ITU's ... www.domainpulse.com/.../preditable-wcit-outcome-sees-us-lea... 14 Dec 2012 – But the US led a walkout of delegates from mostly western countries at ... day World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in ... favicon WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of US, Allies technewstube.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walk... 5 days ago – eWeek writes, The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies - newsR newsr.in › Computer Industry 5 days ago – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ♢ The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet ... The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : A false consensus is broken www.thehindu.com › Opinion › Lead 17 hours ago – The United States's decision to walk out of the International ... on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its ... News: WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies en.zicos.com/.../i28368653-WCIT-Treaty-Talks-End-iin-Duba... 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... benton.org/node/141277 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the World ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... Corrected: India Doesn't Sign The New ITR At WCIT; 80 Countries ... www.medianama.com/.../223-india-signs-the-new-itr-at-... - India 14 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer who is heading the American delegation to the WCIT had already threatened to walk out of the conference, if the ... WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked - Total Telecom www.totaltele.com › mobility 7 Dec 2012 – U.S. delegation threatens to walk out of Dubai conference; accuses some nations of trying to ... WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked ... WCIT collapses: US, UK, allies refuse to sign treaty after Africa wins ... www.commsday.com/.../wcit-collapses-us-uk-allies-refuse-to-s... 14 Dec 2012 – WCIT collapses: US, UK, allies refuse to sign treaty after Africa wins floor vote. Posted on: Friday .... this banner. US threatens to walk out of WCIT. WCIT bombshell: Russia withdraws Internet regulation push ... www.aficta.org/.../150-wcit-bombshell-russia-withdraws-intern... WCIT bombshell: Russia withdraws Internet regulation push, apparently under ... The alternative was a walkout by the US delegation and potentially some of its ... WCIT: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World - Governance www.goldsteinreport.com/article.php?article=19458 6 days ago – WCIT: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World ... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-walkout.html. Also see: ... WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ... ecbasis.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-... 5 days ago – NEWS ANALYSIS: The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference ... WCIT WATCH: Analysis of the new ITRs Part II - Blog | Access https://www.accessnow.org/.../wcit-watch-analysis-of-the-new-... 6 days ago – WCIT WATCH: Analysis of the new ITRs Part II .... painting the push to reject the ITRs as a US-led, developed countries walkout, it's worth noting ... Report: U.S. Threatens To Walk Out Of U.N. Internet Conference ... livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../report-us-threate... Carl Franzen by Carl Franzen - in 131 Google+ circles 10 Dec 2012 – Updated 12:22 p.m. EST, Monday, December 10 The U.S. ... that the reports the U.S. was threatening to walk-out or withdraw from the WCIT-12 ... US to Walk out of ITU Meeting? - Wired State 3dblogger.typepad.com/.../us-to-walk-out-of-itu-meeting.html 10 Dec 2012 – So the US is threatening to walk out of the WCIT, the meeting of the ITU (International Telecommunications Union, which aspires to run the ... How the WCIT Should Have Been Worked So That the US Could ... 3dblogger.typepad.com/.../how-the-wcit-should-have-been-w... 5 hours ago – After threatening the walk out and simply not participate in a highly flawed ... How the WCIT Should Have Been Worked So That the US Could ... WCIT Conference in Dubai Threatens Internet Freedom macjordangh.com/wcit-conference-in-dubai-threatens-internet... 14 Dec 2012 – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies (eweek.com); The highlights and low points of WCIT (news.dot-nxt.com) ... The Internet doesn't need the ITU's help, says Vint Cerf - Techworld ... news.techworld.com › News 6 days ago – The U.S. representative for WCIT had threatened to walk out of the meeting as a result. The Russian proposal was shelved, though other ... Vint Cerf: The Internet doesn't need the ITU's help | Networking ... www.infoworld.com › Networking › News 13 Dec 2012 – The U.S. representative for WCIT had threatened to walk out of the meeting as a result. The Russian proposal was shelved, though other ... WCIT-12 revises international telecommunications treaty without US ... thunderfeeds.com/.../wcit12-revises-international-telecommuni... 3 days ago – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies · eWEEK (2 days ago) - The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms ... Twitter / Search - #wcit https://twitter.com/search?q=%23wcit Message, if murky, from U.S. to the world https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-walkout.html … - NYT analysis of the #WCIT ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... internetsecuritynews.com/.../ambassador-kramer-reports-of-wc... 10 Dec 2012 – IEEE SpectrumAmbassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout ... on the issues that the U.S. has suggested were nonnegotiable from its side, ... WCIT Developments — Russian Proposals Withdrawn | Prepper ... www.prepperpodcast.com/wcit-developments-russian-proposal... 13 Dec 2012 – WCIT 2012 (Photo credit: itupictures) ... advanced by the Russian delegation, have been withdrawn, possibly under threat of a US walkout. US prepared to walk out of ITU talks over internet regulation - 10 ... www.computing.co.uk › News › Communications › Telecoms 10 Dec 2012 – The US is prepared to "press the nuclear button" and walk out of talks in ... Technology (WCIT), the head of the American delegation, Terry ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue - I4U ... www.i4u.com/.../reports-wcit-walkout-ambassado... - United States Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the ITU WCIT-12 telecom treaty ... Report: U.S. Threatens To Walk Out Of U.N. Internet Conference ... The UN Fought The Internet — And The Internet Won; WCIT Summit ... www.internationalorganizationsdesk.com/fought-internet-inter... 11 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue. Dec 11, 2012 | benton.org. Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. ... The Internet Battle Initiated: The UN ITC Dubai WCIT Conference ... www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread904894/pg2 8 Dec 2012 – WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked ... Mr. Kramer said the U.S. is prepared to walk out of the event and refuse to sign the treaty if ... Russia, China withdraw controversial proposal at treaty conference ... computerworld.co.nz/.../russia-china-withdraw-controversial-p... 12 Dec 2012 – Earlier on Monday, Terry Kramer, head of the US delegation to the WCIT denied news reports that his country had threatened to walk out out of ... WCIT is Over. Who Won? Nobody Knows. | Benton Foundation benton.org/node/141776 6 days ago – “The 'good guys' (the US, and its allies including Canada and the UK) ... to Do · Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... Twitter / InfernoJourno: Great article about #WCIT : ... twitter.com/InfernoJourno/statuses/279418697079205888 13 Dec 2012 – ... ‏@InfernoJourno 13 Dec. Great article about #WCIT : UN Telecom Treaty Approved Against US Web-Censorship Concerns - US walk out on ... US denies threatening to walk out of Internet governance talks ... www.itproportal.com › 2012 › December › 10 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer, lead representative for the US at the World Conference on International ... Tags: itu wcit terry kramer walkout us ... WCIT: Internet Governance deadlock..Delegasi AS walkout ... - Yahoo! tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/APWKomitel/message/54848Share 8 Dec 2012 – WCIT: Internet Governance deadlock. ... U.S. delegation threatens to walk out of Dubai conference; accuses some nations of trying to bring in ... WCIT ends but the Internet fight-club will continue - TelecomTV.com www.telecomtv.com/go/?ct=1&cid=49781&id... 6 days ago – The ITU's WCIT has ended as expected with a crucial minority of ... That news is expected later today, but U.S., U.K., Canada, Poland, ... threats to walk out, compromise texts and so on, flying about right up to the last moment. Russia, China withdraw controversial proposal to have ITU control ... www.cio.co.ke › News › Main stories 11 Dec 2012 – Earlier on Monday, Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the WCIT denied news reports that his country had threatened to walk out out ... But I guess you had to have been there... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 3:41 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: > The United States’s decision to walk out of the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. No one walked out. avri ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 09:25:56 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:25:56 -0800 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C7AD69@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <3B0BA8A4C396324FA545DC0CCDCF271D03C7AD69@AMXPRD0510MB390.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <123601cddf87$17d6bb20$47843160$@gmail.com> I guess you (or a relative/namesake) came a lot closer than I did Google: Gurstein Moon landing About 59 results (0.53 seconds) Search Results Moon landing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing A moon landing is the arrival of a spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. This includes both manned and unmanned (robotic) missions. The first human-made ... The Moon Landing www.kidport.com/reflib/.../moonlanding/moonlanding.htm The moon landing was one of man's greatest accomplishments. Learn more about this historic event. Recent Observations of the Moon by Spacecraft adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SSRv....9..491JShare by LD Jaffe - 1969 - Cited by 2 - Related articles Lunar flyby, orbiting, and landing spacecraft in the last ten years have provided an ...... (10) attitude control jets; (11) retro propulsion unit (after Gurstein, 1967). digital - Delicious From: Michael Kende [mailto:Michael.Kende at analysysmason.com] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 6:13 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; 'Avri Doria' Subject: RE: [governance] A false consensus is broken Kende Moon Landing: 11,200 results (0.43 seconds) Sadly, I have not been. Michael From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 2:56 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Avri Doria' Subject: RE: [governance] A false consensus is broken Hmmmm (for those of us who weren't in Dubai Search Results Google: US Walkout WCIT About 25,300 results (0.48 seconds) WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies www.eweek.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-wi... Wayne Rash by Wayne Rash - in 447 Google+ circles 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... Page 2 - WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies www.eweek.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walko... by Wayne Rash - in 447 Google+ circles 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of ... - ThunderFeeds thunderfeeds.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walk... 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... eCnet Solutions – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of ... ecnetsolutions.com/wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walko... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies. December 15, 2012 | 0 comment | in Latest News | by ... US threatens to walk out of WCIT www.commsday.com/commsday-australasia/4002 10 Dec 2012 – Head of the American delegation to the World Conference on International Telecommunications, Ambassador Terry Kramer, has promised to ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue - 2012 ... www.broadcastingcable.com/.../490775-Ambassador_Kramer... 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the ITU WCIT-12 ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ... www.fundamentaltp.com/index/?p=4135 5 days ago – NEWS ANALYSIS: The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of US, Allies - eWeek eweek.floost.com/.../post-wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-... The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International Telecommu. Preditable WCIT Outcome Sees US Lead Objections To ITU's ... www.domainpulse.com/.../preditable-wcit-outcome-sees-us-lea... 14 Dec 2012 – But the US led a walkout of delegates from mostly western countries at ... day World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in ... favicon WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of US, Allies technewstube.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walk... 5 days ago – eWeek writes, The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on ... WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies - newsR newsr.in › Computer Industry 5 days ago – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ♢ The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet ... The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : A false consensus is broken www.thehindu.com › Opinion › Lead 17 hours ago – The United States's decision to walk out of the International ... on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its ... News: WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies en.zicos.com/.../i28368653-WCIT-Treaty-Talks-End-iin-Duba... 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... benton.org/node/141277 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the World ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... Corrected: India Doesn't Sign The New ITR At WCIT; 80 Countries ... www.medianama.com/.../223-india-signs-the-new-itr-at-... - India 14 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer who is heading the American delegation to the WCIT had already threatened to walk out of the conference, if the ... WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked - Total Telecom www.totaltele.com › mobility 7 Dec 2012 – U.S. delegation threatens to walk out of Dubai conference; accuses some nations of trying to ... WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked ... WCIT collapses: US, UK, allies refuse to sign treaty after Africa wins ... www.commsday.com/.../wcit-collapses-us-uk-allies-refuse-to-s... 14 Dec 2012 – WCIT collapses: US, UK, allies refuse to sign treaty after Africa wins floor vote. Posted on: Friday .... this banner. US threatens to walk out of WCIT. WCIT bombshell: Russia withdraws Internet regulation push ... www.aficta.org/.../150-wcit-bombshell-russia-withdraws-intern... WCIT bombshell: Russia withdraws Internet regulation push, apparently under ... The alternative was a walkout by the US delegation and potentially some of its ... WCIT: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World - Governance www.goldsteinreport.com/article.php?article=19458 6 days ago – WCIT: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World ... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-walkout.html. Also see: ... WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ... ecbasis.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-... 5 days ago – NEWS ANALYSIS: The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference ... WCIT WATCH: Analysis of the new ITRs Part II - Blog | Access https://www.accessnow.org/.../wcit-watch-analysis-of-the-new-... 6 days ago – WCIT WATCH: Analysis of the new ITRs Part II .... painting the push to reject the ITRs as a US-led, developed countries walkout, it's worth noting ... Report: U.S. Threatens To Walk Out Of U.N. Internet Conference ... livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../report-us-threate... Carl Franzen by Carl Franzen - in 131 Google+ circles 10 Dec 2012 – Updated 12:22 p.m. EST, Monday, December 10 The U.S. ... that the reports the U.S. was threatening to walk-out or withdraw from the WCIT-12 ... US to Walk out of ITU Meeting? - Wired State 3dblogger.typepad.com/.../us-to-walk-out-of-itu-meeting.html 10 Dec 2012 – So the US is threatening to walk out of the WCIT, the meeting of the ITU (International Telecommunications Union, which aspires to run the ... How the WCIT Should Have Been Worked So That the US Could ... 3dblogger.typepad.com/.../how-the-wcit-should-have-been-w... 5 hours ago – After threatening the walk out and simply not participate in a highly flawed ... How the WCIT Should Have Been Worked So That the US Could ... WCIT Conference in Dubai Threatens Internet Freedom macjordangh.com/wcit-conference-in-dubai-threatens-internet... 14 Dec 2012 – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies (eweek.com); The highlights and low points of WCIT (news.dot-nxt.com) ... The Internet doesn't need the ITU's help, says Vint Cerf - Techworld ... news.techworld.com › News 6 days ago – The U.S. representative for WCIT had threatened to walk out of the meeting as a result. The Russian proposal was shelved, though other ... Vint Cerf: The Internet doesn't need the ITU's help | Networking ... www.infoworld.com › Networking › News 13 Dec 2012 – The U.S. representative for WCIT had threatened to walk out of the meeting as a result. The Russian proposal was shelved, though other ... WCIT-12 revises international telecommunications treaty without US ... thunderfeeds.com/.../wcit12-revises-international-telecommuni... 3 days ago – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies · eWEEK (2 days ago) - The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms ... Twitter / Search - #wcit https://twitter.com/search?q=%23wcit Message, if murky, from U.S. to the world https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-walkout.html … - NYT analysis of the #WCIT ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... internetsecuritynews.com/.../ambassador-kramer-reports-of-wc... 10 Dec 2012 – IEEE SpectrumAmbassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout ... on the issues that the U.S. has suggested were nonnegotiable from its side, ... WCIT Developments — Russian Proposals Withdrawn | Prepper ... www.prepperpodcast.com/wcit-developments-russian-proposal... 13 Dec 2012 – WCIT 2012 (Photo credit: itupictures) ... advanced by the Russian delegation, have been withdrawn, possibly under threat of a US walkout. US prepared to walk out of ITU talks over internet regulation - 10 ... www.computing.co.uk › News › Communications › Telecoms 10 Dec 2012 – The US is prepared to "press the nuclear button" and walk out of talks in ... Technology (WCIT), the head of the American delegation, Terry ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue - I4U ... www.i4u.com/.../reports-wcit-walkout-ambassado... - United States Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the ITU WCIT-12 telecom treaty ... Report: U.S. Threatens To Walk Out Of U.N. Internet Conference ... The UN Fought The Internet — And The Internet Won; WCIT Summit ... www.internationalorganizationsdesk.com/fought-internet-inter... 11 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue. Dec 11, 2012 | benton.org. Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. ... The Internet Battle Initiated: The UN ITC Dubai WCIT Conference ... www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread904894/pg2 8 Dec 2012 – WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked ... Mr. Kramer said the U.S. is prepared to walk out of the event and refuse to sign the treaty if ... Russia, China withdraw controversial proposal at treaty conference ... computerworld.co.nz/.../russia-china-withdraw-controversial-p... 12 Dec 2012 – Earlier on Monday, Terry Kramer, head of the US delegation to the WCIT denied news reports that his country had threatened to walk out out of ... WCIT is Over. Who Won? Nobody Knows. | Benton Foundation benton.org/node/141776 6 days ago – “The 'good guys' (the US, and its allies including Canada and the UK) ... to Do · Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... Twitter / InfernoJourno: Great article about #WCIT : ... twitter.com/InfernoJourno/statuses/279418697079205888 13 Dec 2012 – ... ‏@InfernoJourno 13 Dec. Great article about #WCIT : UN Telecom Treaty Approved Against US Web-Censorship Concerns - US walk out on ... US denies threatening to walk out of Internet governance talks ... www.itproportal.com › 2012 › December › 10 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer, lead representative for the US at the World Conference on International ... Tags: itu wcit terry kramer walkout us ... WCIT: Internet Governance deadlock..Delegasi AS walkout ... - Yahoo! tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/APWKomitel/message/54848Share 8 Dec 2012 – WCIT: Internet Governance deadlock. ... U.S. delegation threatens to walk out of Dubai conference; accuses some nations of trying to bring in ... WCIT ends but the Internet fight-club will continue - TelecomTV.com www.telecomtv.com/go/?ct=1 &cid=49781&id... 6 days ago – The ITU's WCIT has ended as expected with a crucial minority of ... That news is expected later today, but U.S., U.K., Canada, Poland, ... threats to walk out, compromise texts and so on, flying about right up to the last moment. Russia, China withdraw controversial proposal to have ITU control ... www.cio.co.ke › News › Main stories 11 Dec 2012 – Earlier on Monday, Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the WCIT denied news reports that his country had threatened to walk out out ... But I guess you had to have been there... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 3:41 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: > The United States’s decision to walk out of the International Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. No one walked out. avri _____ This email is confidential and is protected by copyright. When addressed to our clients it is subject to our terms and conditions of business. Analysys Mason Limited is registered in England and Wales. Registered office: Bush House, North West Wing, London WC2B 4PJ, UK. Registered number 05177472. Tel +44 845 600 5244. Email enquiries at analysysmason.com or visit www.analysysmason.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 21 09:54:57 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:54:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Come on Michael, many of those are links to the same story! The facts are no country walked out, do you agree? So which is it: Parminder is not telling the truth? Parminder does not know what he's writing about? Adam On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Hmmmm (for those of us who weren't in Dubai > > > > Search Results Google: US Walkout WCIT > > > > About 25,300 results (0.48 seconds) > > > > WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies > > www.eweek.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-wi... > > > > Wayne Rash > > > > by Wayne Rash - in 447 Google+ circles > > 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms > relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on > International ... > > Page 2 - WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies > > www.eweek.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walko... > > by Wayne Rash - in 447 Google+ circles > > 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms > relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on > International ... > > WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of ... - ThunderFeeds > > thunderfeeds.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walk... > > 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms > relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on > International ... > > eCnet Solutions – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of ... > > ecnetsolutions.com/wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walko... > > WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies. December > 15, 2012 | 0 comment | in Latest News | by ... > > US threatens to walk out of WCIT > > www.commsday.com/commsday-australasia/4002 > > 10 Dec 2012 – Head of the American delegation to the World Conference on > International Telecommunications, Ambassador Terry Kramer, has promised to > ... > > Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue - 2012 ... > > www.broadcastingcable.com/.../490775-Ambassador_Kramer... > > 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue > ... Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the ITU WCIT-12 > ... > > WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ... > > www.fundamentaltp.com/index/?p=4135 > > 5 days ago – NEWS ANALYSIS: The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion > of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World > Conference ... > > WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of US, Allies - eWeek > > eweek.floost.com/.../post-wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-... > > The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating to > Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on International > Telecommu. > > Preditable WCIT Outcome Sees US Lead Objections To ITU's ... > > www.domainpulse.com/.../preditable-wcit-outcome-sees-us-lea... > > 14 Dec 2012 – But the US led a walkout of delegates from mostly western > countries at ... day World Conference on International Telecommunications > (WCIT) in ... > > favicon WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of US, Allies > > technewstube.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walk... > > 5 days ago – eWeek writes, The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion > of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World > Conference on ... > > WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies - newsR > > newsr.in › Computer Industry > > 5 days ago – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., > Allies ♢ The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating > to Internet ... > > The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : A false consensus is broken > > www.thehindu.com › Opinion › Lead > > 17 hours ago – The United States's decision to walk out of the > International ... on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along > with some of its ... > > News: WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies > > en.zicos.com/.../i28368653-WCIT-Treaty-Talks-End-iin-Duba... > > 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms > relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on > International ... > > Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... > > benton.org/node/141277 > > 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to > the World ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... > > Corrected: India Doesn't Sign The New ITR At WCIT; 80 Countries ... > > www.medianama.com/.../223-india-signs-the-new-itr-at-... - India > > 14 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer who is heading the American > delegation to the WCIT had already threatened to walk out of the conference, > if the ... > > WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked - Total Telecom > > www.totaltele.com › mobility > > 7 Dec 2012 – U.S. delegation threatens to walk out of Dubai conference; > accuses some nations of trying to ... WCIT talks on Internet governance > deadlocked ... > > WCIT collapses: US, UK, allies refuse to sign treaty after Africa wins > ... > > www.commsday.com/.../wcit-collapses-us-uk-allies-refuse-to-s... > > 14 Dec 2012 – WCIT collapses: US, UK, allies refuse to sign treaty after > Africa wins floor vote. Posted on: Friday .... this banner. US threatens to > walk out of WCIT. > > WCIT bombshell: Russia withdraws Internet regulation push ... > > www.aficta.org/.../150-wcit-bombshell-russia-withdraws-intern... > > WCIT bombshell: Russia withdraws Internet regulation push, apparently > under ... The alternative was a walkout by the US delegation and potentially > some of its ... > > WCIT: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World - Governance > > www.goldsteinreport.com/article.php?article=19458 > > 6 days ago – WCIT: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World ... > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-walkout.html. > Also see: ... > > WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ... > > ecbasis.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-... > > 5 days ago – NEWS ANALYSIS: The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion > of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World > Conference ... > > WCIT WATCH: Analysis of the new ITRs Part II - Blog | Access > > https://www.accessnow.org/.../wcit-watch-analysis-of-the-new-... > > 6 days ago – WCIT WATCH: Analysis of the new ITRs Part II .... painting > the push to reject the ITRs as a US-led, developed countries walkout, it's > worth noting ... > > Report: U.S. Threatens To Walk Out Of U.N. Internet Conference ... > > livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../report-us-threate... > > > > Carl Franzen > > > > by Carl Franzen - in 131 Google+ circles > > 10 Dec 2012 – Updated 12:22 p.m. EST, Monday, December 10 The U.S. ... > that the reports the U.S. was threatening to walk-out or withdraw from the > WCIT-12 ... > > US to Walk out of ITU Meeting? - Wired State > > 3dblogger.typepad.com/.../us-to-walk-out-of-itu-meeting.html > > 10 Dec 2012 – So the US is threatening to walk out of the WCIT, the > meeting of the ITU (International Telecommunications Union, which aspires to > run the ... > > How the WCIT Should Have Been Worked So That the US Could ... > > 3dblogger.typepad.com/.../how-the-wcit-should-have-been-w... > > 5 hours ago – After threatening the walk out and simply not participate > in a highly flawed ... How the WCIT Should Have Been Worked So That the US > Could ... > > WCIT Conference in Dubai Threatens Internet Freedom > > macjordangh.com/wcit-conference-in-dubai-threatens-internet... > > 14 Dec 2012 – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., > Allies (eweek.com); The highlights and low points of WCIT (news.dot-nxt.com) > ... > > The Internet doesn't need the ITU's help, says Vint Cerf - Techworld ... > > news.techworld.com › News > > 6 days ago – The U.S. representative for WCIT had threatened to walk out > of the meeting as a result. The Russian proposal was shelved, though other > ... > > Vint Cerf: The Internet doesn't need the ITU's help | Networking ... > > www.infoworld.com › Networking › News > > 13 Dec 2012 – The U.S. representative for WCIT had threatened to walk > out of the meeting as a result. The Russian proposal was shelved, though > other ... > > WCIT-12 revises international telecommunications treaty without US ... > > thunderfeeds.com/.../wcit12-revises-international-telecommuni... > > 3 days ago – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., > Allies · eWEEK (2 days ago) - The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion > of any terms ... > > Twitter / Search - #wcit > > https://twitter.com/search?q=%23wcit > > Message, if murky, from U.S. to the world > https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-walkout.html > … - NYT analysis of the #WCIT ... > > Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... > > internetsecuritynews.com/.../ambassador-kramer-reports-of-wc... > > 10 Dec 2012 – IEEE SpectrumAmbassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout > ... on the issues that the U.S. has suggested were nonnegotiable from its > side, ... > > WCIT Developments — Russian Proposals Withdrawn | Prepper ... > > www.prepperpodcast.com/wcit-developments-russian-proposal... > > 13 Dec 2012 – WCIT 2012 (Photo credit: itupictures) ... advanced by the > Russian delegation, have been withdrawn, possibly under threat of a US > walkout. > > US prepared to walk out of ITU talks over internet regulation - 10 ... > > www.computing.co.uk › News › Communications › Telecoms > > 10 Dec 2012 – The US is prepared to "press the nuclear button" and walk > out of talks in ... Technology (WCIT), the head of the American delegation, > Terry ... > > Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue - I4U ... > > www.i4u.com/.../reports-wcit-walkout-ambassado... - United States > > Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the ITU WCIT-12 > telecom treaty ... Report: U.S. Threatens To Walk Out Of U.N. Internet > Conference ... > > The UN Fought The Internet — And The Internet Won; WCIT Summit ... > > www.internationalorganizationsdesk.com/fought-internet-inter... > > 11 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue. > Dec 11, 2012 | benton.org. Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. ... > > The Internet Battle Initiated: The UN ITC Dubai WCIT Conference ... > > www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread904894/pg2 > > 8 Dec 2012 – WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked ... Mr. Kramer > said the U.S. is prepared to walk out of the event and refuse to sign the > treaty if ... > > Russia, China withdraw controversial proposal at treaty conference ... > > computerworld.co.nz/.../russia-china-withdraw-controversial-p... > > 12 Dec 2012 – Earlier on Monday, Terry Kramer, head of the US delegation > to the WCIT denied news reports that his country had threatened to walk out > out of ... > > WCIT is Over. Who Won? Nobody Knows. | Benton Foundation > > benton.org/node/141776 > > 6 days ago – “The 'good guys' (the US, and its allies including Canada > and the UK) ... to Do · Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat > Untrue ... > > Twitter / InfernoJourno: Great article about #WCIT : ... > > twitter.com/InfernoJourno/statuses/279418697079205888 > > 13 Dec 2012 – ... ‏@InfernoJourno 13 Dec. Great article about #WCIT : UN > Telecom Treaty Approved Against US Web-Censorship Concerns - US walk out on > ... > > US denies threatening to walk out of Internet governance talks ... > > www.itproportal.com › 2012 › December › 10 > > 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer, lead representative for the US at > the World Conference on International ... Tags: itu wcit terry kramer > walkout us ... > > WCIT: Internet Governance deadlock..Delegasi AS walkout ... - Yahoo! > > tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/APWKomitel/message/54848Share > > 8 Dec 2012 – WCIT: Internet Governance deadlock. ... U.S. delegation > threatens to walk out of Dubai conference; accuses some nations of trying to > bring in ... > > WCIT ends but the Internet fight-club will continue - TelecomTV.com > > www.telecomtv.com/go/?ct=1&cid=49781&id... > > 6 days ago – The ITU's WCIT has ended as expected with a crucial > minority of ... That news is expected later today, but U.S., U.K., Canada, > Poland, ... threats to walk out, compromise texts and so on, flying about > right up to the last moment. > > Russia, China withdraw controversial proposal to have ITU control ... > > www.cio.co.ke › News › Main stories > > 11 Dec 2012 – Earlier on Monday, Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. > delegation to the WCIT denied news reports that his country had threatened > to walk out out ... > > > > > > But I guess you had to have been there... > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 3:41 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken > > > > > > On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: > > > >> The United States’s decision to walk out of the International >> Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International >> Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week >> could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. > > > > > > No one walked out. > > > > avri > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Fri Dec 21 10:13:40 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:13:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a journalistic medium... Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn of (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... Is this the US Congress/Fox News where a fairly comprehensible mispeak can lead to a total "gothcha" pre-occupation (the Benghazi "discussions") for purely political purposes to the exclusion of substantive debate... M -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 6:55 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken Come on Michael, many of those are links to the same story! The facts are no country walked out, do you agree? So which is it: Parminder is not telling the truth? Parminder does not know what he's writing about? Adam On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Hmmmm (for those of us who weren't in Dubai > > > > Search Results Google: US Walkout WCIT > > > > About 25,300 results (0.48 seconds) > > > > WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies > > www.eweek.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-wi... > > > > Wayne Rash > > > > by Wayne Rash - in 447 Google+ circles > > 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any > terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference > on International ... > > Page 2 - WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., > Allies > > www.eweek.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walko... > > by Wayne Rash - in 447 Google+ circles > > 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any > terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference > on International ... > > WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of ... - ThunderFeeds > > thunderfeeds.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walk... > > 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any > terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference > on International ... > > eCnet Solutions – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of ... > > ecnetsolutions.com/wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walko... > > WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies. > December 15, 2012 | 0 comment | in Latest News | by ... > > US threatens to walk out of WCIT > > www.commsday.com/commsday-australasia/4002 > > 10 Dec 2012 – Head of the American delegation to the World > Conference on International Telecommunications, Ambassador Terry > Kramer, has promised to ... > > Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue - 2012 ... > > www.broadcastingcable.com/.../490775-Ambassador_Kramer... > > 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat > Untrue ... Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the > ITU WCIT-12 ... > > WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ... > > www.fundamentaltp.com/index/?p=4135 > > 5 days ago – NEWS ANALYSIS: The U.S. delegation objects to the > inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed > World Conference ... > > WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of US, Allies - eWeek > > eweek.floost.com/.../post-wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-... > > The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating > to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on > International Telecommu. > > Preditable WCIT Outcome Sees US Lead Objections To ITU's ... > > www.domainpulse.com/.../preditable-wcit-outcome-sees-us-lea... > > 14 Dec 2012 – But the US led a walkout of delegates from mostly > western countries at ... day World Conference on International > Telecommunications > (WCIT) in ... > > favicon WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of US, Allies > > technewstube.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walk... > > 5 days ago – eWeek writes, The U.S. delegation objects to the > inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed > World Conference on ... > > WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies - > newsR > > newsr.in › Computer Industry > > 5 days ago – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., > Allies ♢ The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms > relating to Internet ... > > The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : A false consensus is broken > > www.thehindu.com › Opinion › Lead > > 17 hours ago – The United States's decision to walk out of the > International ... on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai > along with some of its ... > > News: WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies > > en.zicos.com/.../i28368653-WCIT-Treaty-Talks-End-iin-Duba... > > 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any > terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference > on International ... > > Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... > > benton.org/node/141277 > > 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation > to the World ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... > > Corrected: India Doesn't Sign The New ITR At WCIT; 80 Countries ... > > www.medianama.com/.../223-india-signs-the-new-itr-at-... - India > > 14 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer who is heading the American > delegation to the WCIT had already threatened to walk out of the > conference, if the ... > > WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked - Total Telecom > > www.totaltele.com › mobility > > 7 Dec 2012 – U.S. delegation threatens to walk out of Dubai > conference; accuses some nations of trying to ... WCIT talks on > Internet governance deadlocked ... > > WCIT collapses: US, UK, allies refuse to sign treaty after Africa > wins ... > > www.commsday.com/.../wcit-collapses-us-uk-allies-refuse-to-s... > > 14 Dec 2012 – WCIT collapses: US, UK, allies refuse to sign treaty > after Africa wins floor vote. Posted on: Friday .... this banner. US > threatens to walk out of WCIT. > > WCIT bombshell: Russia withdraws Internet regulation push ... > > www.aficta.org/.../150-wcit-bombshell-russia-withdraws-intern... > > WCIT bombshell: Russia withdraws Internet regulation push, > apparently under ... The alternative was a walkout by the US > delegation and potentially some of its ... > > WCIT: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World - Governance > > www.goldsteinreport.com/article.php?article=19458 > > 6 days ago – WCIT: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World ... > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-walkout.html. > Also see: ... > > WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ... > > ecbasis.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-... > > 5 days ago – NEWS ANALYSIS: The U.S. delegation objects to the > inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed > World Conference ... > > WCIT WATCH: Analysis of the new ITRs Part II - Blog | Access > > https://www.accessnow.org/.../wcit-watch-analysis-of-the-new-... > > 6 days ago – WCIT WATCH: Analysis of the new ITRs Part II .... > painting the push to reject the ITRs as a US-led, developed countries > walkout, it's worth noting ... > > Report: U.S. Threatens To Walk Out Of U.N. Internet Conference ... > > livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../report-us-threate... > > > > Carl Franzen > > > > by Carl Franzen - in 131 Google+ circles > > 10 Dec 2012 – Updated 12:22 p.m. EST, Monday, December 10 The U.S. ... > that the reports the U.S. was threatening to walk-out or withdraw from > the > WCIT-12 ... > > US to Walk out of ITU Meeting? - Wired State > > 3dblogger.typepad.com/.../us-to-walk-out-of-itu-meeting.html > > 10 Dec 2012 – So the US is threatening to walk out of the WCIT, > the meeting of the ITU (International Telecommunications Union, which > aspires to run the ... > > How the WCIT Should Have Been Worked So That the US Could ... > > 3dblogger.typepad.com/.../how-the-wcit-should-have-been-w... > > 5 hours ago – After threatening the walk out and simply not > participate in a highly flawed ... How the WCIT Should Have Been > Worked So That the US Could ... > > WCIT Conference in Dubai Threatens Internet Freedom > > macjordangh.com/wcit-conference-in-dubai-threatens-internet... > > 14 Dec 2012 – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of > U.S., Allies (eweek.com); The highlights and low points of WCIT > (news.dot-nxt.com) ... > > The Internet doesn't need the ITU's help, says Vint Cerf - Techworld ... > > news.techworld.com › News > > 6 days ago – The U.S. representative for WCIT had threatened to > walk out of the meeting as a result. The Russian proposal was shelved, > though other ... > > Vint Cerf: The Internet doesn't need the ITU's help | Networking ... > > www.infoworld.com › Networking › News > > 13 Dec 2012 – The U.S. representative for WCIT had threatened to > walk out of the meeting as a result. The Russian proposal was shelved, > though other ... > > WCIT-12 revises international telecommunications treaty without US ... > > thunderfeeds.com/.../wcit12-revises-international-telecommuni... > > 3 days ago – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., > Allies · eWEEK (2 days ago) - The U.S. delegation objects to the > inclusion of any terms ... > > Twitter / Search - #wcit > > https://twitter.com/search?q=%23wcit > > Message, if murky, from U.S. to the world > https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-w > alkout.html > … - NYT analysis of the #WCIT ... > > Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... > > internetsecuritynews.com/.../ambassador-kramer-reports-of-wc... > > 10 Dec 2012 – IEEE SpectrumAmbassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT > Walkout ... on the issues that the U.S. has suggested were > nonnegotiable from its side, ... > > WCIT Developments — Russian Proposals Withdrawn | Prepper ... > > www.prepperpodcast.com/wcit-developments-russian-proposal... > > 13 Dec 2012 – WCIT 2012 (Photo credit: itupictures) ... advanced > by the Russian delegation, have been withdrawn, possibly under threat > of a US walkout. > > US prepared to walk out of ITU talks over internet regulation - 10 ... > > www.computing.co.uk › News › Communications › Telecoms > > 10 Dec 2012 – The US is prepared to "press the nuclear button" and > walk out of talks in ... Technology (WCIT), the head of the American > delegation, Terry ... > > Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue - I4U ... > > www.i4u.com/.../reports-wcit-walkout-ambassado... - United States > > Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the ITU > WCIT-12 telecom treaty ... Report: U.S. Threatens To Walk Out Of U.N. > Internet Conference ... > > The UN Fought The Internet — And The Internet Won; WCIT Summit ... > > www.internationalorganizationsdesk.com/fought-internet-inter... > > 11 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue. > Dec 11, 2012 | benton.org. Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. ... > > The Internet Battle Initiated: The UN ITC Dubai WCIT Conference ... > > www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread904894/pg2 > > 8 Dec 2012 – WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked ... Mr. > Kramer said the U.S. is prepared to walk out of the event and refuse > to sign the treaty if ... > > Russia, China withdraw controversial proposal at treaty conference ... > > computerworld.co.nz/.../russia-china-withdraw-controversial-p... > > 12 Dec 2012 – Earlier on Monday, Terry Kramer, head of the US > delegation to the WCIT denied news reports that his country had > threatened to walk out out of ... > > WCIT is Over. Who Won? Nobody Knows. | Benton Foundation > > benton.org/node/141776 > > 6 days ago – “The 'good guys' (the US, and its allies including > Canada and the UK) ... to Do · Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT > Walkout Threat Untrue ... > > Twitter / InfernoJourno: Great article about #WCIT : ... > > twitter.com/InfernoJourno/statuses/279418697079205888 > > 13 Dec 2012 – ... ‏@InfernoJourno 13 Dec. Great article about > #WCIT : UN Telecom Treaty Approved Against US Web-Censorship Concerns > - US walk out on ... > > US denies threatening to walk out of Internet governance talks ... > > www.itproportal.com › 2012 › December › 10 > > 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer, lead representative for the > US at the World Conference on International ... Tags: itu wcit terry > kramer walkout us ... > > WCIT: Internet Governance deadlock..Delegasi AS walkout ... - Yahoo! > > tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/APWKomitel/message/54848Share > > 8 Dec 2012 – WCIT: Internet Governance deadlock. ... U.S. > delegation threatens to walk out of Dubai conference; accuses some > nations of trying to bring in ... > > WCIT ends but the Internet fight-club will continue - > TelecomTV.com > > www.telecomtv.com/go/?ct=1&cid=49781&id... > > 6 days ago – The ITU's WCIT has ended as expected with a crucial > minority of ... That news is expected later today, but U.S., U.K., > Canada, Poland, ... threats to walk out, compromise texts and so on, > flying about right up to the last moment. > > Russia, China withdraw controversial proposal to have ITU control ... > > www.cio.co.ke › News › Main stories > > 11 Dec 2012 – Earlier on Monday, Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. > delegation to the WCIT denied news reports that his country had > threatened to walk out out ... > > > > > > But I guess you had to have been there... > > > > M > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 3:41 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken > > > > > > On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: > > > >> The United States’s decision to walk out of the International >> Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International >> Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last >> week could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. > > > > > > No one walked out. > > > > avri > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Fri Dec 21 10:29:40 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:29:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Behind closed doors at the UN's attempted "takeover of the Internet" In-Reply-To: <93A28F63-1A22-43D1-BEB0-A6B303CAC8F5@gmail.com> References: <80A30C3A-37D7-4E20-A10C-405339F20146@warpspeed.com>,<93A28F63-1A22-43D1-BEB0-A6B303CAC8F5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B18131B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> FYI, 'WCITLeaks' co-founder's assessment. ________________________________________ From: DAVID J. FARBER [farber at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 8:25 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Behind closed doors at the UN's attempted "takeover of the Internet" Begin forwarded message: From: Dewayne Hendricks Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Behind closed doors at the UN's attempted "takeover of the Internet" Date: December 20, 2012 11:47:09 PM EST To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Reply-To: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com Behind closed doors at the UN's attempted "takeover of the Internet" Conflicting visions for the future of the Internet collide in Dubai. By Eli Dourado Dec 20 2012 Eli Dourado is a research fellow with the Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a co-founder of WCITLeaks, and a member of the US delegation to the WCIT. The views expressed here are his own. DUBAI, UAE—In early December, I found myself in an odd position: touching down in Dubai with credentials to attend a 12-day closed-door meeting of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). It's a meeting I spent the last six months trying to expose. Though the world had been assured that WCIT would not attempt to mount a “UN takeover of the Internet,” that was in many ways what happened. As the conference ended, I watched US Ambassador Terry Kramer abandon months of preparatory work and almost two weeks of intense negotiations to announce, as his words echoed through hundreds of headsets in six languages, that the US simply would not sign the resulting deal. “Mr. Chairman, as head of the US Delegation, I wanted to start out and thank you for your tireless work and leadership,” Kramer said. “Your personal commitment to a successful outcome here is very impressive. However, I do need to say that it's with a heavy heart and a sense of missed opportunities that the US must communicate that it's not able to sign the agreement in the current form.” He went on to say the adopted treaty text was incompatible with the existing multistakeholder model of Internet governance. Internet policy, he said, “should not be determined by Member States, but by citizens, communities, and broader society, and such consultation from the private sector and civil society is paramount. This has not happened here.” Fifty-four other countries took the same position, drawing sharp battle lines over the Internet and its future governance. How did a “consensus-driven” UN process that would not, we were told, involve the Internet end up this way? Sticky wicket When I first heard about the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) early in 2012, I understood it vaguely as the event at which the United Nations would try to “take over the Internet.” But the experts I met with soon admitted they didn’t know what would happen at the WCIT (wicket, as they pronounced it). The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the UN agency convening the meeting, vigorously denied that the conference would have anything to do with the Internet at all. The purpose of the meeting, claimed ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré, was simply to update the treaty that governs international phone calls; it had last been revised in 1988, when most phone companies were state-owned monopolies. Claims that the conference would implicate the Internet were part of a misinformation campaign pursued by unnamed opponents of the ITU, Touré said. In any case, the ITU was just a convener of the WCIT, and actual decisions would be made by member states on a non-voting, consensus-driven basis. The ITU, it was said, had no agenda of its own. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20121221082751:368D85CE-4B72-11E2-B25C-8302ED97981F Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Dec 21 10:42:24 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:42:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD7E2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <50D4567A.1050404@itforchange.net> <8CFAD92B8D38275-1878-3C53D@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD7E2@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang, Thanks, particulaly for the comment on human rights and the text of the preamble. The text is vague, and as you say does not constitute a legal obligation or new law, however, can be very sure the next time China etc wish to counter article 19 in some declaration or statement, they now have a little more treaty text to support them. Important I think that governments, whether they sign the ITRs or not, include a statement noting objection to the text. Best, Adam On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:45 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > I know that you love to play with words. However do not mix up legal language with what a journalist has said who was not in the room but has heard that somebody has said something. > > I was the whole time until 3.00 after midnight in the room, night by night. Nobody walked out. However the article says correctly the the US and a many other governments, including Germany, "left the meeting without signing the treaty ". This is something different. > > I personally support this approach of the German government. ITR are legally binding obligations. The key criteria for any law (and legally binding treaties) is clarity in language, clear common understanding on categories, full consensus on definitions. Ambuigity and diplomatic language which reflects the "agree to disagree" is acceptable in non-binding political instruments (as WSIS or the COE Declaration) but it is unaccetable in a legal binding document. > > The quoted article is partly wrong and Kramer gives just a summary. 3.8 was already out (naming and numbering) , 1.1.bis (content ) was seen as a cleaner for 5A and 5B but tghis was not widely accepted. Who really would win in a court if one party treats spam as a content related issue and the other party says this is illegal because we have 1.1bis. In a previous version there ass a footnote as the proposed dealbraker saying that "spam is not content". Wow. One delegate said this is as when we would say "water is no liquid". > > I understand that governments fully disagree if it comes to spam, security, naming and numbering etc. This is documented in numerous political documents (take enhanced cooperation with its hundreds of different interpretations). This disagreement should continue to be disucsseed and fixed from time to time in non-binding political documents on a high level. This is okay. But if you write such unclear concepts into a legally binding treaty than you have to do the next 20 years with all kinds of national and international court proceedings. Nobody wants to pay the bills for the lawyers. > > This is also true for the discussion on human rights on this list. Jus cogens is the UN Charter and the seven principles, defined in the 1970 delcaration. Full stop. The "peoples right of self-determination" - one of the seven jus cogens principles - is enshrined in the Charter and can be seen as a collective right of "peoples". The main right which emerges from the right to self-determination is the right of the people to select a social order and the form a state. And than the state enjoys "national sovereignty" (based on the peoples right to self-determination). But the "right" does no go from the people to the state. It remains with the people. There are no "collective rights" for states. Human rights are since John Milton individual rights. And states/governments - as long as they have signed the UN treaties - have the legal obligation under the present internationa law to guarantee those rights to their citizens. If governments deny those rights to their citizens, indivduals can go to the Hunman Rights Council or - in the CoE case - to the European Court on Human Rights. And governments can sanction other governments which systenmatically deny human rights because massive violation of human rights are seen under the present international law as a threat to security which opens the door to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. > > Alls this was discusses in detail in the 70s and 80s in the debate about the new international economic order and the CSCE process. International law has not changed. Insofar it was just stupid to introduce into ITRs a new understanding of human rights. This was done by (polically motivated) telco-lawyers who had no knolewdge about the body of international human rights law. You can not stop those governments to do this and you can also not give a human rights lecture at 2.00 o´clock in the morning. Hiowever it was not such a big damage because the final language in the preamble does not really constitute a legal obligation or new law. > > So I would recommend if we continue to discuss WCIT outcome to make this clear distinction between a legally binding treaty and politcal declarations and compromise language a la WSIS. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Koven Ronald > Gesendet: Fr 21.12.2012 14:03 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder at itforchange.net; avri at ella.com > Betreff: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken > > > And so now Parminder tells us not only how to organize Internet governance but also how to recast the English language. > > > Where's George Orwell now that we need him ? > > > Rony Koven > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: parminder > To: governance ; Avri Doria > Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 1:31 pm > Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken > > > > On Friday 21 December 2012 05:11 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: >> >>> The United States's decision to walk out of the International > Telecommunication Union's World Conference on International Telecommunications > (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last week could represent a > turning point in global Internet governance. >> No one walked out. >> >> avri > > You are talking like a diplomat, Avri :) . What happened is called a > walkout although maybe a diplomat wont ever utter that word. > > See > http://www.eweek.com/cloud/wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-us-allies/ > > among many instance of press coverage that uses this term 'walkout' for > what happened. > > BTW, do you have any other substantive comment on the article? > > parminder > > > >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.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 Fri Dec 21 10:53:15 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:53:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:13 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a journalistic medium... > Oh come on. Parminder influenced by some US journalist. Are you saying he's a lazy and hypocrite? > Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn of (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... Because it's not true, and anyone who has been on this list and/or read one or two news articles would know it's not true. Or, someone could go to the transcripts of the meeting and it would be perfectly clear. Parminder makes the claim throughout the article, so hardly an accident. As we know from his usual bile against anything "northern", it looks pretty deliberate. This is an OpEd in a major newspaper. The Indian government said they will hold a public consultation about the outcome of WICT and whether the country should sign etc. Clearly it's in this context Parminder's writing. So yes, the rubbish does need to be pointed out to be rubbish. > Is this the US Congress/Fox News where a fairly comprehensible mispeak can lead to a total "gothcha" pre-occupation (the Benghazi "discussions") for purely political purposes to the exclusion of substantive debate... > Then respond to criticism of support for extending state rights (also misleadingly presented in the OpEd.) Adam > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 6:55 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken > > Come on Michael, many of those are links to the same story! > > The facts are no country walked out, do you agree? So which is it: > Parminder is not telling the truth? Parminder does not know what he's writing about? > > Adam > > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Hmmmm (for those of us who weren't in Dubai >> >> >> >> Search Results Google: US Walkout WCIT >> >> >> >> About 25,300 results (0.48 seconds) >> >> >> >> WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies >> >> www.eweek.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-wi... >> >> >> >> Wayne Rash >> >> >> >> by Wayne Rash - in 447 Google+ circles >> >> 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any >> terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference >> on International ... >> >> Page 2 - WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., >> Allies >> >> www.eweek.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walko... >> >> by Wayne Rash - in 447 Google+ circles >> >> 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any >> terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference >> on International ... >> >> WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of ... - ThunderFeeds >> >> thunderfeeds.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walk... >> >> 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any >> terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference >> on International ... >> >> eCnet Solutions – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of ... >> >> ecnetsolutions.com/wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walko... >> >> WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies. >> December 15, 2012 | 0 comment | in Latest News | by ... >> >> US threatens to walk out of WCIT >> >> www.commsday.com/commsday-australasia/4002 >> >> 10 Dec 2012 – Head of the American delegation to the World >> Conference on International Telecommunications, Ambassador Terry >> Kramer, has promised to ... >> >> Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue - 2012 ... >> >> www.broadcastingcable.com/.../490775-Ambassador_Kramer... >> >> 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat >> Untrue ... Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the >> ITU WCIT-12 ... >> >> WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ... >> >> www.fundamentaltp.com/index/?p=4135 >> >> 5 days ago – NEWS ANALYSIS: The U.S. delegation objects to the >> inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed >> World Conference ... >> >> WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of US, Allies - eWeek >> >> eweek.floost.com/.../post-wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-... >> >> The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms relating >> to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference on >> International Telecommu. >> >> Preditable WCIT Outcome Sees US Lead Objections To ITU's ... >> >> www.domainpulse.com/.../preditable-wcit-outcome-sees-us-lea... >> >> 14 Dec 2012 – But the US led a walkout of delegates from mostly >> western countries at ... day World Conference on International >> Telecommunications >> (WCIT) in ... >> >> favicon WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of US, Allies >> >> technewstube.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-iin-dubai-with-walk... >> >> 5 days ago – eWeek writes, The U.S. delegation objects to the >> inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed >> World Conference on ... >> >> WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies - >> newsR >> >> newsr.in › Computer Industry >> >> 5 days ago – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., >> Allies ♢ The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any terms >> relating to Internet ... >> >> The Hindu : Opinion / Lead : A false consensus is broken >> >> www.thehindu.com › Opinion › Lead >> >> 17 hours ago – The United States's decision to walk out of the >> International ... on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai >> along with some of its ... >> >> News: WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies >> >> en.zicos.com/.../i28368653-WCIT-Treaty-Talks-End-iin-Duba... >> >> 5 days ago – The U.S. delegation objects to the inclusion of any >> terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed World Conference >> on International ... >> >> Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... >> >> benton.org/node/141277 >> >> 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation >> to the World ... Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... >> >> Corrected: India Doesn't Sign The New ITR At WCIT; 80 Countries ... >> >> www.medianama.com/.../223-india-signs-the-new-itr-at-... - India >> >> 14 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer who is heading the American >> delegation to the WCIT had already threatened to walk out of the >> conference, if the ... >> >> WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked - Total Telecom >> >> www.totaltele.com › mobility >> >> 7 Dec 2012 – U.S. delegation threatens to walk out of Dubai >> conference; accuses some nations of trying to ... WCIT talks on >> Internet governance deadlocked ... >> >> WCIT collapses: US, UK, allies refuse to sign treaty after Africa >> wins ... >> >> www.commsday.com/.../wcit-collapses-us-uk-allies-refuse-to-s... >> >> 14 Dec 2012 – WCIT collapses: US, UK, allies refuse to sign treaty >> after Africa wins floor vote. Posted on: Friday .... this banner. US >> threatens to walk out of WCIT. >> >> WCIT bombshell: Russia withdraws Internet regulation push ... >> >> www.aficta.org/.../150-wcit-bombshell-russia-withdraws-intern... >> >> WCIT bombshell: Russia withdraws Internet regulation push, >> apparently under ... The alternative was a walkout by the US >> delegation and potentially some of its ... >> >> WCIT: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World - Governance >> >> www.goldsteinreport.com/article.php?article=19458 >> >> 6 days ago – WCIT: Message, if Murky, From U.S. to the World ... >> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-walkout.html. >> Also see: ... >> >> WCIT Treaty Talks End in Dubai With Walkout of U.S., Allies ... >> >> ecbasis.com/.../wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-... >> >> 5 days ago – NEWS ANALYSIS: The U.S. delegation objects to the >> inclusion of any terms relating to Internet governance in the proposed >> World Conference ... >> >> WCIT WATCH: Analysis of the new ITRs Part II - Blog | Access >> >> https://www.accessnow.org/.../wcit-watch-analysis-of-the-new-... >> >> 6 days ago – WCIT WATCH: Analysis of the new ITRs Part II .... >> painting the push to reject the ITRs as a US-led, developed countries >> walkout, it's worth noting ... >> >> Report: U.S. Threatens To Walk Out Of U.N. Internet Conference ... >> >> livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../report-us-threate... >> >> >> >> Carl Franzen >> >> >> >> by Carl Franzen - in 131 Google+ circles >> >> 10 Dec 2012 – Updated 12:22 p.m. EST, Monday, December 10 The U.S. ... >> that the reports the U.S. was threatening to walk-out or withdraw from >> the >> WCIT-12 ... >> >> US to Walk out of ITU Meeting? - Wired State >> >> 3dblogger.typepad.com/.../us-to-walk-out-of-itu-meeting.html >> >> 10 Dec 2012 – So the US is threatening to walk out of the WCIT, >> the meeting of the ITU (International Telecommunications Union, which >> aspires to run the ... >> >> How the WCIT Should Have Been Worked So That the US Could ... >> >> 3dblogger.typepad.com/.../how-the-wcit-should-have-been-w... >> >> 5 hours ago – After threatening the walk out and simply not >> participate in a highly flawed ... How the WCIT Should Have Been >> Worked So That the US Could ... >> >> WCIT Conference in Dubai Threatens Internet Freedom >> >> macjordangh.com/wcit-conference-in-dubai-threatens-internet... >> >> 14 Dec 2012 – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of >> U.S., Allies (eweek.com); The highlights and low points of WCIT >> (news.dot-nxt.com) ... >> >> The Internet doesn't need the ITU's help, says Vint Cerf - Techworld ... >> >> news.techworld.com › News >> >> 6 days ago – The U.S. representative for WCIT had threatened to >> walk out of the meeting as a result. The Russian proposal was shelved, >> though other ... >> >> Vint Cerf: The Internet doesn't need the ITU's help | Networking ... >> >> www.infoworld.com › Networking › News >> >> 13 Dec 2012 – The U.S. representative for WCIT had threatened to >> walk out of the meeting as a result. The Russian proposal was shelved, >> though other ... >> >> WCIT-12 revises international telecommunications treaty without US ... >> >> thunderfeeds.com/.../wcit12-revises-international-telecommuni... >> >> 3 days ago – WCIT Treaty Talks End iin Dubai With Walkout of U.S., >> Allies · eWEEK (2 days ago) - The U.S. delegation objects to the >> inclusion of any terms ... >> >> Twitter / Search - #wcit >> >> https://twitter.com/search?q=%23wcit >> >> Message, if murky, from U.S. to the world >> https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/technology/in-a-huff-a-telling-us-w >> alkout.html >> … - NYT analysis of the #WCIT ... >> >> Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue ... >> >> internetsecuritynews.com/.../ambassador-kramer-reports-of-wc... >> >> 10 Dec 2012 – IEEE SpectrumAmbassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT >> Walkout ... on the issues that the U.S. has suggested were >> nonnegotiable from its side, ... >> >> WCIT Developments — Russian Proposals Withdrawn | Prepper ... >> >> www.prepperpodcast.com/wcit-developments-russian-proposal... >> >> 13 Dec 2012 – WCIT 2012 (Photo credit: itupictures) ... advanced >> by the Russian delegation, have been withdrawn, possibly under threat >> of a US walkout. >> >> US prepared to walk out of ITU talks over internet regulation - 10 ... >> >> www.computing.co.uk › News › Communications › Telecoms >> >> 10 Dec 2012 – The US is prepared to "press the nuclear button" and >> walk out of talks in ... Technology (WCIT), the head of the American >> delegation, Terry ... >> >> Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue - I4U ... >> >> www.i4u.com/.../reports-wcit-walkout-ambassado... - United States >> >> Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. delegation to the ITU >> WCIT-12 telecom treaty ... Report: U.S. Threatens To Walk Out Of U.N. >> Internet Conference ... >> >> The UN Fought The Internet — And The Internet Won; WCIT Summit ... >> >> www.internationalorganizationsdesk.com/fought-internet-inter... >> >> 11 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT Walkout Threat Untrue. >> Dec 11, 2012 | benton.org. Ambassador Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. ... >> >> The Internet Battle Initiated: The UN ITC Dubai WCIT Conference ... >> >> www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread904894/pg2 >> >> 8 Dec 2012 – WCIT talks on Internet governance deadlocked ... Mr. >> Kramer said the U.S. is prepared to walk out of the event and refuse >> to sign the treaty if ... >> >> Russia, China withdraw controversial proposal at treaty conference ... >> >> computerworld.co.nz/.../russia-china-withdraw-controversial-p... >> >> 12 Dec 2012 – Earlier on Monday, Terry Kramer, head of the US >> delegation to the WCIT denied news reports that his country had >> threatened to walk out out of ... >> >> WCIT is Over. Who Won? Nobody Knows. | Benton Foundation >> >> benton.org/node/141776 >> >> 6 days ago – “The 'good guys' (the US, and its allies including >> Canada and the UK) ... to Do · Ambassador Kramer: Reports of WCIT >> Walkout Threat Untrue ... >> >> Twitter / InfernoJourno: Great article about #WCIT : ... >> >> twitter.com/InfernoJourno/statuses/279418697079205888 >> >> 13 Dec 2012 – ... ‏@InfernoJourno 13 Dec. Great article about >> #WCIT : UN Telecom Treaty Approved Against US Web-Censorship Concerns >> - US walk out on ... >> >> US denies threatening to walk out of Internet governance talks ... >> >> www.itproportal.com › 2012 › December › 10 >> >> 10 Dec 2012 – Ambassador Terry Kramer, lead representative for the >> US at the World Conference on International ... Tags: itu wcit terry >> kramer walkout us ... >> >> WCIT: Internet Governance deadlock..Delegasi AS walkout ... - Yahoo! >> >> tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/APWKomitel/message/54848Share >> >> 8 Dec 2012 – WCIT: Internet Governance deadlock. ... U.S. >> delegation threatens to walk out of Dubai conference; accuses some >> nations of trying to bring in ... >> >> WCIT ends but the Internet fight-club will continue - >> TelecomTV.com >> >> www.telecomtv.com/go/?ct=1&cid=49781&id... >> >> 6 days ago – The ITU's WCIT has ended as expected with a crucial >> minority of ... That news is expected later today, but U.S., U.K., >> Canada, Poland, ... threats to walk out, compromise texts and so on, >> flying about right up to the last moment. >> >> Russia, China withdraw controversial proposal to have ITU control ... >> >> www.cio.co.ke › News › Main stories >> >> 11 Dec 2012 – Earlier on Monday, Terry Kramer, head of the U.S. >> delegation to the WCIT denied news reports that his country had >> threatened to walk out out ... >> >> >> >> >> >> But I guess you had to have been there... >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 3:41 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken >> >> >> >> >> >> On 21 Dec 2012, at 04:47, parminder wrote: >> >> >> >>> The United States’s decision to walk out of the International >>> Telecommunication Union’s World Conference on International >>> Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai along with some of its allies last >>> week could represent a turning point in global Internet governance. >> >> >> >> >> >> No one walked out. >> >> >> >> avri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 10:57:12 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:57:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:13 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a journalistic medium... >> > > Oh come on. Parminder influenced by some US journalist. Are you > saying he's a lazy and hypocrite? > > >> Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn of (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... > > > Because it's not true, and anyone who has been on this list and/or > read one or two news articles would know it's not true. Or, someone > could go to the transcripts of the meeting and it would be perfectly > clear. Parminder makes the claim throughout the article, so hardly > an accident. As we know from his usual bile against anything > "northern", it looks pretty deliberate. > > This is an OpEd in a major newspaper. The Indian government said they > will hold a public consultation about the outcome of WICT and whether > the country should sign etc. Clearly it's in this context Parminder's > writing. So yes, the rubbish does need to be pointed out to be > rubbish. > > >> > Is this the US Congress/Fox News where a fairly comprehensible > mispeak can lead to a total "gothcha" pre-occupation (the Benghazi > "discussions") for purely political purposes to the exclusion of > substantive debate... >> > > > Then respond to criticism of support for extending state rights (also > misleadingly presented in the OpEd.) +1 to all of Adam's above remarks. and "overlordship" is just one more example of a risible rhetorical rubbish. -- 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 garth.graham at telus.net Fri Dec 21 11:01:32 2012 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:01:32 -0800 Subject: [governance] Digital citizenship; Internet Governance as governance Message-ID: <2B91F1FE-A040-4D54-97AE-C8C20E87A307@telus.net> DIGITAL CITIZENSHIP: INTERNET GOVERNANCE AS GOVERNANCE Garth Graham December 21, 2012, a good day to reset the counters and begin a new cycle of time. Various calls have been made on the Internet Governance Caucus list for a visionary synthesis of civil society’s consensus on Internet Governance. I believe the best starting point for a “vision” (i.e. future oriented) should be the digital citizen’s Internet-based perspective on Internet Governance. My impression is that IGC’s conversations show evidence of significant divergence. Like the outcome of WCIT in Dubai, it seems to me that the attempt to synthesize positions should only aim for a catalogue of conflicting views on the critical drivers of change. I would like to see consciousness of a shift in values and norms, with a corresponding shift in practices, to become a component of that conversation. In the interests of exploring some unexamined assumptions and revealing just how deep the divergence could get, here’s one person’s alternative view of the context in which the issue of Internet Governance exists. In several forums, Michael Gurstein, (for one example among many), has been raising questions about the “what?” and “who?” of Internet Government in terms of the utility of the Internet as a public good. He has raised a call to arms for: “ … a vision of a truly global and globally beneficial Internet based on values and not exclusively on interests — one where the Internet is dedicated to the global public interest and is recognized (and governed) as a global public good….” (1). He also challenged us to find an “appropriate (globally acceptable) venue.” In IGC on 2012-11-17, Michael Gurstein wrote: > …… if we believe that there is a global public interest (in the Internet) who do we trust to best represent that public interest (IBM, Google, the USG?) and within what (global) framework will that representation best take place (the market place, the US State Department, Google, the IGF?). (Unfortunately, I don't see CS as sufficiently strong or as sufficiently independent to even mention it in this context.) I too agree that a civil society perspective is not all that helpful, although not for the same reasons. But, more importantly, I can’t response to challenges of “what? And “who?” framed in that way. It should not be assumed that attaching the adjective “global” to the public interest, the public good, and the Internet automatically ensures that benefit will be the outcome. The public interest is usually defined as activities that address the welfare or well being of the general public, with particular reference to representing vulnerable segments of society. But, while a person or a people can have interests that require a public dimension for their resolution, the assumption that persons or self-determined peoples can scale to a general public at the level of the whole planet, no longer seems to be a useful generalization. For some time, I have been musing on what might be the nature of an “Internet based on values.” I do so in the context of our transformation into a digital culture, where the values and norms are different from the cultures subject to its transformations. From that perspective, I believe that digital citizens will view a “globally beneficial Internet” based on a “global public interest” as an oxymoron. DIGITAL CULTURE We have a new culture, digital culture, which has nothing to do with hierarchy. The tools that people living in that culture create, like the Internet, are expressions of the way they do things. Here are some of my assumptions about that culture’s forms of social organization: (a). The “culture” of the digital age sees governance in a significantly different way than the culture of the industrial age. Most of us now, either consciously or unconsciously, view governance as a matter of self-organization in complex adaptive systems. Somehow the system just makes itself. In that sense, our worldview is relational rather than mechanistic. (b). Previously, we’ve understood governance, the rules about making rules, as something that’s imposed on systems from “above” or outside those systems. But, in complex adaptive systems or ecologies, order is inherent inside all of the elements or subsystems of the system and it emerges from their interdependencies. There is no center or periphery, no “higher authority,” to self-organizing systems, and the functions of organization, the rules about making rules, are distributed. (c). Technology does not cause change. Technology is always a socio-cultural expression of a particular society’s way of seeing and doing things … so societies and their technologies co-evolve. The Internet therefore did not cause digital culture but is, rather, an expression or symptom of it. The Internet, and the organizational structures of Internet Governance are examples or expressions of a worldview that understands and applies the concepts of self-organization in complex adaptive systems. This way of looking at the Internet matters because it avoids technological determinism. Technological determinism distorts the content of public policy formulation by abstracting values out of the equation. And I agree with Michael Gurstein that values questions are at the root of good governance and effective public policy formulation. Values questions are also at the root of understanding how socio-technical systems self-organize. We are not paying sufficient attention to the way in which the values questions have changed, and the acculturation pressures that result from those changes have grown. In IGC on 2012-11-30, at 10:40 AM, McTim wrote (and Michael Gurstein subsequently agreed): > I don't think that the Internet "belongs" to anyone. That’s correct. At every level, it’s a common pool resource and needs to be comprehended as such. Common pool resources are complex adaptive systems. CASs self-organize. They cannot be “governed” in the sense of external oversight because you are either of the system, and an influence on its events, or you are not. Your expectation that cause and effect will work isn’t useful, because there is no place to stand to gain an external point of view. Functioning CASs treat all external interventions, say for example the triumphant advent of major players, as a threat to their resilience and therefore something to be routed around. It’s McTim’s “anyone,” but with a critical difference. In the industrial age, to state that the Internet does not belong to anyone would imply that, collectively, it belonged to everyone (i.e. to that general public). If you espouse the values of command and control, you’ll retort, “but anyone means no one, so how fast can I exploit this resource?” But, in digital culture, with its emphasis on the interdependencies of particulars, that assumption can’t be made. I am anyone and, for my own well being, I all responsible to uphold the position that the Internet does not belong to me. And, in an opening move to connect to you, I should trust that you would do the same. Extremely complex structures can emerge from the application of that very simple rule. It’s only chaos when someone attempts to block its application DIGITAL CULTURE’S VISION OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE In IGC on 2012-11-30, John Curran wrote: > …. 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. I’m not unsure about that. I’m certain it does not. WSIS defined 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. That definition misses our experience of the Internet as an artifact of a digital culture that expresses the relational structures of societies differently. There is nothing that renders members of that triad as essential components of social structure in digital culture. The social construction that grouped society into a triad of government, the private sector and civil society falls away in the face of socio-cultural change that surfaces relational questions the triad cannot answer. In fact, belief in the construction’s utility is crumbling as people realize in their daily lives online just how much governments are not the governors of socio-economic and political relationship. That erosion is accelerated by the Internet’s existence and digital culture’s creation and use if it. The threat to the institutional basis for the stability of nation states as they now exist is very real, so they have very good reason for resisting its advance. So I suppose it’s only natural that many governments would focus on an artifact that exemplifies the nature of digital culture instead of facing the underlying epistemological shift its existence conveys. I think that nation states are beginning to see how Internet Governance as the expression of the underlying digital culture of a relational worldview is a precursor of the way in which most applied concepts of governance are evolving. For example, since self-organizing systems have no center, the exercise of delegation of authority is completely without meaning. But representative democracy now rests on the hierarchical notion of delegation of authority, at a time when the belief of the governed in the legitimacy of authoritative assertions has disappeared. Nation states are now in the process of externally imposing order on a complex adaptive system, Internet Governance, which has nothing to do with its nature. This is a mistake, and I would never assume that nation states are unaware that it’s a mistake. I think they have become completely aware of the threat that an emerging alternative expectation about the nature of organization and governance represents to modes of control that are being superceded. The tactic they are using to oppose is called – kill the messenger. Why would we push to institutionalize an inter-governmental capacity to generate Internet policy when the problem is the political instinct of nation states to ensure their stability (i.e. their survival) by slowing down the speed of destabilizing acculturation? I submit that there is a “citizenship” specific to digital culture, and that the presence of digital citizens makes for different norms, and those norms clash with the belief that all of society is divided into parts of three. It’s a fundamental mistake to take a social theory constructed by the Industrial Age as a necessary aspect of life, rather than as a temporary solution and compromise made in a historical context. The operant worldview makes current social theory and it’s related social contracts open to re-negotiation. To that end, I would re-define Internet governance by reference to its real stakeholders as: • the development and application by digital citizens, and the communities (cultures) of location, practice and interest they inhabit, of principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet in sustaining their existence and mediating their interdependences. Above all else, the relational nature of digital culture is an attack on universality. Practices based on self-organization represent structural principles that are completely other than what we’ve previously automatically assumed. The best place to act in applying principles for governance as self-organization is neither national nor global. It’s local. It’s at the level of the interaction of individuals and the communities of interest and practice they inhabit. If interdependent is the defining characteristic of digital society, then it’s wrong to believe that coordinated action to address complex systemic problems has to be “global.” Systemic interdependence means that the most effective actions will be distributed across thousands of self-organizing local networks. Seeking to construct a “higher” level capacity for addressing the “global public interest” is a holdover from the way that the assumption of hierarchy in industrial society does things. It’s the opposite of the practices that result from having a relational worldview. Concentrating power in a global institution is the opposite of an Internet-centric solution. The centralization of power is the antithesis of the distribution of functions that occurs in self-organizing systems. Nation states assume that development objectives formed at the national level will always approximate the public good but development objectives framed at the local level will always lead to conflicts over the use of scarce resources. Digital culture, assuming a fractal scale of values, does not make that assumption. Because the Triad’s attentions are governed by competition for scarce resources, its members imagine the “sphere” of influence of any global system to be closed. Because it is an expression of digital culture, the public interest that has framed or should frame Internet policy-making principles is not and should not be global in that sense. I think this means that a citizen of digital culture, a digital citizen, must and will step away from the notion of the global public interest and the question of whether or not there is an effective way to pursue it. Because the way in which open systems scale is utterly different from closed systems, this is not simply a matter of opening out closed systems. It’s a matter of being “in” community, but with a difference that emerges from holding a relational worldview. COMMUNITY AS THE “IN” OF BEING-IN-COMMON Our norms related to the concepts of the “people” as a body of persons comprising a community, and “public” as a space that is open to all in the community, depend on a definition of community that is in the process of radical transformation. In a relational worldview, actions are distributed among self-organizing networks or communities of interest. But those actions are not collective. Action is experiential, and the demand to absorb the individual into a “common shared vision” does not exist. I kind of like the question raised in Jean-Luc Nancy's "inoperative community:" (2). - how to create "being together" without a "being as one." "The community that becomes a single thing (body, mind, fatherland, Leader...) ...necessarily loses the in of being-in-common. Or, it loses the with or the together that defines it. It yields its being-together to a being of togetherness. The truth of community, on the contrary, resides in the retreat of such a being." I also like the definition of the good society as a potluck dinner (3), a togetherness, a being-in-common, that is an emergent situational consequence of autonomous individual decisions and trust. We all live in some place. That makes all our politics local and all our knowledge indigenous. A resilient community self-organizes around three, and only three, basic principles: “take care of yourself, take care of each other, take care of this place.” (4). If we put our faith in improving the place where we live, then an interdependent fabric of resilient communities will scale fractally. It will not scale towards the universality implied by that word “global.” “Authoritative” and legitimate responses to complex planetary level problems can never be commanded to sum from local solutions, but the web of relationships that emerges will optimize a balance that roughly works or can adapt rapidly when it does not. To put that in different words, because the outcomes of inoperative communities as complex adaptive systems are inherently unpredictable, rational analysis as a prelude to command and control decisions before the fact will ALWAYS result in worse decisions than letting the governance of complex adaptive systems evolve. NORMS AND PATTERNS OF DIGITAL CULTURE We are beginning to become conscious of what happens to norms (and therefore interests in public) as digital citizens choose to ignore the historical social construction that all of society is necessarily divided into parts of three - government, business, and civil society. “Octavio Paz says: ‘we need a new culture that has nothing to do with hierarchy … what cultures do you live in that have nothing to do with hierarchy?’ ….. When we change the practice of living with ourselves, we change the way everything lives with everything else.” (5). In the relational worldview: · The normative values that become socially reinforced include: learning through practice, relational interdependence, adaptive resilience, and rough consensus. · Trust becomes dynamically recursive and uncertain, rather than an absolute yes or no (i.e. as a relational opening move, cooperate until the other defects). · The latitude of “major players” in closed systems to “decide” what makes up the “bedrock of shared values” has disappeared. · The normative values of command and control – authority, hierarchy, ascribed status, and discipline - don’t apply. Transcendence is gone. The individual cannot dodge responsibility through recourse to a higher power because there is no higher power. Unlike an industrial society, digital culture will not reinforce leadership’s atypical competitive behaviours. · Other atypical roles and behaviours that digital culture will reinforce include: navigators, watchers, predictive analysts (analytic specialists), influencers (influence as a question of their emotional intelligence and thus relational reach), modifiers of the structure of the game, and people who unearth and link to great finds. Then there are people who embrace the persistence of difference and seek to increase “generativity – a system’s capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions from broad and varied audiences.” (6). In the relational worldview, equality no longer means systemic equality of opportunity before the fact. Since the outcomes of complex adaptive systems are inherently unpredictable, it means equally positive real world outcomes after the fact. That’s a significant shift in cultural expectations. The measure of effect is scaled by what individuals in the system learn about what happens to individuals. While any individual can speak to that experience, no individual can represent it …judged by history, not by prior intentions because there’s no expected link between cause and effect. Anyone can ask (and does) is equality an attribute of this system now? But, although people continue to ask, will equality be an attribute of this system, the question is without meaning. Politicians who continue to promise equality before the fact are ignoring the degree to which outcomes (the story so far) have become the only measure of reality. In the relational worldview, the accretion of individual choices results in an emergent pattern of behavior that relates as a part of another whole, but at a scale of systemic iteration that’s different. The network of emergent behaviours that stands in the world as Garth exists in a network of other emergent social beings who, in turn, exist in networks of communities. If you take apart the networked elements that comprise Garth, they cannot be put back together again, and the social networks he inhabited before you decomposed him would be altered by his absence. But the self-organizing social networks he inhabits are innately resilient and they’ll get along without him just fine. In the relational worldview, I can see that there are relations in public. And I can see that there are interests expressed by autonomous individuals who must, through making the choice to act in the world, take responsibility for that expression. Without hierarchy, the essential process of digital culture is not leadership to ensure a predictable future. It’s the way the relational component of communication occurs in the present moment. If you lose control of the expression of yourself in that present moment, you give up your autonomy in a way that sidesteps your responsibility. We now prepare a public face to meet the public faces that we meet in an added dimension. There I am in public, and responsible for the construction and presentation of my own image and its consequences. But major institutions attempting to appropriate or enclose the complex adaptive systems of digital culture hold the view that they own not only the means of simulating my relational behavior but the very expression of that behavior itself. Relations in online public spaces alter the dynamic evolution of our social identities in ways that, as yet, are not fully understood. This does not and will not change the necessity of ensuring that the person who speaks to your story is yourself. Because I do not trust the notion that “major players” are the key to effectiveness, I cannot play the opening move of a non-zero sum game - cooperate. Continuation of the notion of major players perpetuates cycles of competition, conflict and ill-intentioned behavour in the context of zero sum games. If, under the cry for representativeness, that’s where the multistakeholder model must take us, I’m not on that road. For the road I am on, I want to see increasing awareness of why this shift in norms and practice needs to inform public debate. The culture shift I’m describing specifically excludes actions like universalization, mobilization, and globalization. That makes it impossible for me to conclude with recommendations for anything that would look like a “plan.” I can speak to what I see as desirable outcomes. But I can’t tell you what you should do about it because, as a digital citizen, I shouldn’t. I can only ask you what “we” should do about it … beginning with a discussion of what “it” might be, and recognizing that “it” will change because we had that discussion. We now have the means to purposefully alter our environment (the “place” we inhabit) to shape our relational behaviours in ways we choose. “When we change the practice of living with ourselves, we change the way everything lives with everything else.” To what degree do we want to consciously apply the capacity we now have to change ourselves? THE PRACTICES OF DIGITAL CITIZENSHIP In digital culture, what’s an Internet-like solution to defining the public interest? Where do we look for the capacity to consider a “public interest” that self-organizes? Who speaks for the public interest when the “public” (I and thou) knows it cannot survive unless it speaks for itself. Who speaks truth to power in systems that reward behavior in the context of the phase spaces of daily life online where acculturation to digital culture occurs? In digital culture, control is not power. Here is where the power resides: You grieve you learn You choke you learn You laugh you learn You choose you learn You pray you learn You ask you learn You live you learn (7). In the relational worldview, deciding whose job it is to speak truth to power depends on your sense of where power now resides. Since complex adaptive systems have no centre, and the functions that structure them are intrinsically distributed, looking for the emperor to tell him he’s naked has no meaning. But looking into yourself to determine the degree of responsibility you are assuming for the consequences of your own choices about interdependencies has great meaning. If the imperative for systemic interdependence is – only connect, then the critical question for the truth seeker to ask becomes personal and relational – am I connecting or separating? A digital citizen inhabiting a world of interdependent inoperative communities has a different world model from someone who does not see it that way. They won’t be squeezed to fit into that mass-market phrase, “the user community.” They don’t agree that individual voices are ever subordinate to a larger collective. Because they are seeing relations and not parts, they do not believe the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That belief is an expression of a mechanistic world model. They see that the sum of individual experiences emerges at the systems level as changed behavior of the system. Then the system as subsystem behaves differently in relation to other subsystems. They understand how the concept of mobilizing the masses or forming a “global people’s army” is antithetical to self-organization. They know that the world stands on the back of a network and from there it’s networks all the way down. In digital culture, remembering that cultural transmission is encoded in language, the ability to write and apply code that modifies relationships in the public sphere is a radical practice for change. Here are some radical practices that seem to me consistent with enhancing the quality of life in digital societies on their own terms (i.e. actions by people who are fully indigenous to digital culture and its inoperative communities and fully committed to sharing their indigenous knowledge). I’m sure many in IGC could easily add to this list. What these activities have in common is the intention to increase individual or local capacity to use ICTs effectively: 1. First Mile Project: Canadian First Nations sharing best practices and lessons learned from building community-owned broadband systems. http://www.firstmile.ca 2. Mozilla Foundation’s objective of moving tens of millions of people from using the web to making the web. https://wiki.mozilla.org/Webmaker/2013plans 3. Digital citizenship: Users immersed in technology are beginning to organize themselves into their own society of ‘digital citizens.’ http://www.digitalcitizenship.net http://www.scribd.com/doc/13853600/Digital-Citizenship-the-Internetsociety-and-Participation-By-Karen-Mossberger-Caroline-J-Tolbert-and-Ramona-S-McNeal 4. E-Democracy’s Digital Inclusion Network; exchanging knowledge on digital inclusion strategies to close the many digital divides. http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/inclusion 5. ISOC’s Internet Ecosystem: mapping the organizations that share common values for the open development of the Internet. http://www.isoc.org/pubpolpillar/docs/internetmodel.pdf 6. ICANN’s At-Large (ALAC/RALOs) policy process, if its relations with the ALAC/RALOs become more synergetic and the RALOs actually serve to act collaboratively in fostering digital citizenship. http://www.atlarge.icann.org 7. Community Broadband Networks; building broadband networks that are directly accountable to the community they serve. http://muninetworks.org 8. Hacks/Hackers: a network of journalists (“hacks”) and technologists (“hackers”) who rethink the future of news and information. http://hackshackers.com 9. The Canadian Internet Forum – Online (CIF): sharing thoughts on the development, deployment and governance of the Internet in Canada. http://cif.cira.ca/en/ 10. Occupy Movement / The Occupy Network: provides software tools that align with the values of the #occupy movement. http://www.occupy.net http://howtocamp.takethesquare.net/files/2012/09/Quick-guide-for-a-revolution-multilanguage.pdf 11. Community Informatics Research Network (CIRN): an international network of researchers, practitioners and policy makers concerned with enabling communities through the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs). http://cirn.wikispaces.com 12. Megacities replacing nation states as the locus of human endeavor: the governance of megacities, because of their local necessity and networked maturity, is more organically coherent and experimental than other forms of governance. See: Networked Society – The three ages of megacities. http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2012/ns_megacities_report_4.pdf The people engaged in these activities are acting directly to address inequality (i.e. the public interest as it is now) by applying the practices of self-organizing systems. But I do remain puzzled by a question. When does the quiet increase in the learning occurring through digital citizenship broadly inform discourse and action in contemporary culture? Even though the industrial age has a mechanistic worldview and the digital age has a relational worldview, both cultures engage in rigorous boundary maintenance of the forms of social organization that those conflicting worldviews produce. All of those digital culture practices in that list act interstitially or in isolated “temporary autonomous zones.” Hardly anyone chooses to generalize their experiences of the structural implications that result from digitally mediated social connection into a horizontal broadening of the “ties that bind.” When we all become conscious of our digital citizenship, as I still believe we must, will that be a gradual awakening or will we undergo an abrupt phase change? Only through practice can we learn what we need to defend. END NOTES: (1). Michael Gurstein . Whose) Hand off (What) Internet? Some Reflections on WCIT 2012. December 9, 2012. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/09/whose-hand-off-what-internet-some-reflections-on-wcit-2012/ (2). Jean-Luc Nancy. La Communauté désœuvrée (The Inoperative Community), Preface, 1986, xxxix. (3). Ursula Franklin (4). Margaret Wheatley and Myron Kellner-Rogers. “The promise and paradox of community.” In: The community of the future. Drucker Foundation Future Series. Jossey-Bass, 1998. 15). (5). Andrew Culver. Anarchy and Economy 3: population, time, history, The Big Bang, a little silence. http://www.anarchicharmony.org/AnarConomy/anarco3.html (6). (Jonathan Zitain, The Future of the Internet, 2008) (7). Alanis Morissette. “I recommend biting off more then you can chew to anyone. I certainly do.” -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 21 11:07:06 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:07:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [IP] Behind closed doors at the UN's attempted "takeover of the Internet" In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B18131B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <80A30C3A-37D7-4E20-A10C-405339F20146@warpspeed.com>,<93A28F63-1A22-43D1-BEB0-A6B303CAC8F5@gmail.com>,<77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B18131B@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B18139A@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> The comments are worth a read too, with 'AndyFatBastard's' take sparking most discussion; andyfatbastardArs Legatus Legioniset Subscriptor about 19 hours ago Reader Fav I still think it's wrong that the US holds exclusive control over so many of the "keys" to the internet, but right now the alternative looks much, much worse. ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 10:29 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Behind closed doors at the UN's attempted "takeover of the Internet" FYI, 'WCITLeaks' co-founder's assessment. ________________________________________ From: DAVID J. FARBER [farber at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 8:25 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Behind closed doors at the UN's attempted "takeover of the Internet" Begin forwarded message: From: Dewayne Hendricks Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Behind closed doors at the UN's attempted "takeover of the Internet" Date: December 20, 2012 11:47:09 PM EST To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Reply-To: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com Behind closed doors at the UN's attempted "takeover of the Internet" Conflicting visions for the future of the Internet collide in Dubai. By Eli Dourado Dec 20 2012 Eli Dourado is a research fellow with the Technology Policy Program at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a co-founder of WCITLeaks, and a member of the US delegation to the WCIT. The views expressed here are his own. DUBAI, UAE—In early December, I found myself in an odd position: touching down in Dubai with credentials to attend a 12-day closed-door meeting of the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). It's a meeting I spent the last six months trying to expose. Though the world had been assured that WCIT would not attempt to mount a “UN takeover of the Internet,” that was in many ways what happened. As the conference ended, I watched US Ambassador Terry Kramer abandon months of preparatory work and almost two weeks of intense negotiations to announce, as his words echoed through hundreds of headsets in six languages, that the US simply would not sign the resulting deal. “Mr. Chairman, as head of the US Delegation, I wanted to start out and thank you for your tireless work and leadership,” Kramer said. “Your personal commitment to a successful outcome here is very impressive. However, I do need to say that it's with a heavy heart and a sense of missed opportunities that the US must communicate that it's not able to sign the agreement in the current form.” He went on to say the adopted treaty text was incompatible with the existing multistakeholder model of Internet governance. Internet policy, he said, “should not be determined by Member States, but by citizens, communities, and broader society, and such consultation from the private sector and civil society is paramount. This has not happened here.” Fifty-four other countries took the same position, drawing sharp battle lines over the Internet and its future governance. How did a “consensus-driven” UN process that would not, we were told, involve the Internet end up this way? Sticky wicket When I first heard about the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) early in 2012, I understood it vaguely as the event at which the United Nations would try to “take over the Internet.” But the experts I met with soon admitted they didn’t know what would happen at the WCIT (wicket, as they pronounced it). The International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the UN agency convening the meeting, vigorously denied that the conference would have anything to do with the Internet at all. The purpose of the meeting, claimed ITU Secretary-General Hamadoun Touré, was simply to update the treaty that governs international phone calls; it had last been revised in 1988, when most phone companies were state-owned monopolies. Claims that the conference would implicate the Internet were part of a misinformation campaign pursued by unnamed opponents of the ITU, Touré said. In any case, the ITU was just a convener of the WCIT, and actual decisions would be made by member states on a non-voting, consensus-driven basis. The ITU, it was said, had no agenda of its own. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20121221082751:368D85CE-4B72-11E2-B25C-8302ED97981F Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 11:39:42 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 08:39:42 -0800 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12bc01cddf99$c7d77930$57866b90$@gmail.com> I do not think that the IGC should endorse this nor would I encourage other CS organizations to "sign on"... And I would strongly object to this statement anointing itself as the spokerspersons for either Civil Society or the BestBits group. As I've been trying to say in my last few blogposts , I think that CS comes out of WCIT with an enormous set of opportunities, but with those opportunities go very significant responsibilities... I think those responsibilities are not towards support for certain national, corporate or sectional interests but rather towards the articulation and advocacy towards a set of principles and practices that support the on-going evolution, extension and inclusive use of the Internet in the public interest (as noted in the BestBits declaration) and as a global and globally managed public good. I think that before we go forward to support one or another "side" in the WCIT/post WCIT discussions we should be clear on the values/norms that we as CS are supporting and the longer term vision of an Internet operating for and through the "public interest" that we are working towards -- one which includes the values articulated by many concerning freedom of expression on the Internet and transparency of governance processes; but also includes the extension of the Internet to be much more broadly inclusive in access and use and more broadly equitable in the distribution of its benefits, financial and otherwise. Unfortunately I see only a very limited set of these norms which I understand to underlie our common position in CS/IGC represented in the AccessNow statement. Mike -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:04 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT Please find below a message fwded from another list. I think this is a useful statement for IGC to sign: ------------------------- Dear all, As a follow up to the civil society letter to WCIT ( https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ9 3YTbqLSM) that a number of organizations on this list have signed on to, civil society representatives in Dubai drafted a statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement. The text of the statement is pasted below. This statement assesses the opportunities and challenges faced by civil society at WCIT and sets out shortcomings we would like to see addressed to achieve meaningful civil society participation at the ITU moving forward. It is meant to be complementary to other post-WCIT civil society statements that focus on the substance of the ITRs. We would very much like to secure sign on from your organization. We feel that there is a strategic importance of having this communication with the ITU Secretariat on record as we look to future conversations/events. Though the timing is not ideal, we plan to publish this statement with the list of signatories and send a copy to the ITU on Monday. Therefore, we request that you reply to this email by 0900 EST/1400 UTC on Monday, January 24 if you would like to sign on. Like with the earlier letter, we will leave the statement open for sign on and update the list of signatories regularly. I will send out a publicly accessible link with the statement and list of signatories on Monday for people to post and circulate, but it would also be great to discuss ways to draw attention to this statement in the New Year. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for your attention to this. Warm wishes over the holidays. Best regards, Deborah Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement December 21, 2012 Civil society is disappointed that the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in revising the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). We understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new regulations. As civil society stated in its Best Bits statement, a key criterion for ITRs should be that “any proposed revisions are confined to the traditional scope of the ITRs” and “where international regulation is required around technical issues [it] is limited to telecommunications networks and interoperability standards.” We regret that an Internet governance-related resolution has been included in the Final Acts of WCIT, despite assertions by many that WCIT was not about Internet governance. We are also concerned by the lack of clarity around the applicability of the treaty, which as defined could have unforeseen consequences for an open internet, and the lack of specificity in key terms, such as security, which may negatively impact the public’s rights to privacy and freedom of expression. This said, civil society would like to acknowledge and thank those governments that opened their delegations to members of civil society and other stakeholder groups. This was a very important initial step in establishing a civil society voice in the proceedings and we trust that it signals a wider commitment to multi-stakeholder approaches in public policy development and decision-making on telecommunications and Internet-related matters. We trust that this openness and inclusive approach will continue and extend to upcoming ITU-related work and beyond, and we urge other governments to welcome and engage with civil society going forward. As we communicated to ITU Secretary General Touré, we also commend the ITU on first steps towards greater transparency and openness with regard to access to and webcasting of plenary sessions and Committee 5 sessions, as well as soliciting public submissions. These initial steps enabled civil society to play a constructive, albeit limited, role at the WCIT. However there remain serious limitations to engaging with the ITU. The substantive policy deliberations in working groups were neither webcast nor open to unaffiliated civil society. Further, while it is positive that the ITU opened the process to public comment, these comments were never part of the official record. We raised both of these challenges with the Secretary General, in writing and in person, and he committed to addressing these concerns and appealing to member states, as appropriate. Although the WCIT has concluded, we renew our request to have the public comments submitted as official ITU documents to capture these positions for the historical record. We also raised the issue of the lack of any institutional mechanism for civil society participation at the ITU. While the participation of civil society representatives in government delegations benefits both the delegations and the WCIT’s deliberations as a whole, it cannot substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We will be following up on these important matters with the Secretary General and welcome his commitment to considering institutional remedies to this challenge. Looking forward, civil society seeks to work with governments and other stakeholders around the globe towards an ever more inclusive and substantive multi-stakeholder engagement on telecommunications, Internet, and related matters. Much more needs to be done with regard to opening the ITU to greater genuine multi-stakeholder participation and in particular independent civil society participation - institutional change will need to occur and we will work with the ITU and other stakeholders to bring this about. These changes are vitally important and need to be addressed as soon as possible given the upcoming 2013 World Telecommunication Policy Forum, World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+10) and 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. ----------------------- -- 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 nyangkweagien at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 11:47:47 2012 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:47:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <12bc01cddf99$c7d77930$57866b90$@gmail.com> References: <12bc01cddf99$c7d77930$57866b90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Please add ASAFE as signatory Aaron On 12/21/12, michael gurstein wrote: > I do not think that the IGC should endorse this nor would I encourage other > CS organizations to "sign on"... And I would strongly object to this > statement anointing itself as the spokerspersons for either Civil Society > or > the BestBits group. > > > > As I've been trying to say in my last few blogposts > , I think that CS comes out of WCIT with > an > enormous set of opportunities, but with those opportunities go very > significant responsibilities... > > > > I think those responsibilities are not towards support for certain > national, > corporate or sectional interests but rather towards the articulation and > advocacy towards a set of principles and practices that support the > on-going > evolution, extension and inclusive use of the Internet in the public > interest (as noted in the BestBits declaration) and as a global and > globally > managed public good. > > > > I think that before we go forward to support one or another "side" in the > WCIT/post WCIT discussions we should be clear on the values/norms that we > as > CS are supporting and the longer term vision of an Internet operating for > and through the "public interest" that we are working towards -- one which > includes the values articulated by many concerning freedom of expression on > the Internet and transparency of governance processes; but also includes > the > extension of the Internet to be much more broadly inclusive in access and > use and more broadly equitable in the distribution of its benefits, > financial and otherwise. > > > > Unfortunately I see only a very limited set of these norms which I > understand to underlie our common position in CS/IGC represented in the > AccessNow statement. > > > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:04 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement > post-WCIT > > > > Please find below a message fwded from another list. > > > > I think this is a useful statement for IGC to sign: > > > > > > ------------------------- > > > > Dear all, > > > > As a follow up to the civil society letter to WCIT > > ( > 93YTbqLSM> > https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ9 > 3YTbqLSM) > > that a number of organizations on this list have signed on to, civil > society > representatives in Dubai drafted a statement on the new ITRs and the future > of multi-stakeholder engagement. The text of the statement is pasted below. > > > > This statement assesses the opportunities and challenges faced by civil > society at WCIT and sets out shortcomings we would like to see addressed to > achieve meaningful civil society participation at the ITU moving forward. > It > is meant to be complementary to other post-WCIT civil society statements > that focus on the substance of the ITRs. > > > > We would very much like to secure sign on from your organization. We feel > that there is a strategic importance of having this communication with the > ITU Secretariat on record as we look to future conversations/events. Though > the timing is not ideal, we plan to publish this statement with the list of > signatories and send a copy to the ITU on Monday. Therefore, we request > that > you reply to this email by 0900 EST/1400 UTC on Monday, January 24 if you > would like to sign on. Like with the earlier letter, we will leave the > statement open for sign on and update the list of signatories regularly. I > will send out a publicly accessible link with the statement and list of > signatories on Monday for people to post and circulate, but it would also > be > great to discuss ways to draw attention to this statement in the New Year. > > > > Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for your > attention to this. Warm wishes over the holidays. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Deborah > > > > > > Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder > engagement > > > > December 21, 2012 > > > > Civil society is disappointed that the World Conference on International > Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in revising the > International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). We understand, > however, the serious concerns that a number of governments have expressed > with regard to the potential impact of the new regulations. > > > > As civil society stated in its Best Bits statement, a key criterion for > ITRs > should be that “any proposed revisions are confined to the traditional > scope > of the ITRs” and “where international regulation is required around > technical issues [it] is limited to telecommunications networks and > interoperability standards.” We regret that an Internet governance-related > resolution has been included in the Final Acts of WCIT, despite assertions > by many that WCIT was not about Internet governance. We are also concerned > by the lack of clarity around the applicability of the treaty, which as > defined could have unforeseen consequences for an open internet, and the > lack of specificity in key terms, such as security, which may negatively > impact the public’s rights to privacy and freedom of expression. > > > > This said, civil society would like to acknowledge and thank those > governments that opened their delegations to members of civil society and > other stakeholder groups. This was a very important initial step in > establishing a civil society voice in the proceedings and we trust that it > signals a wider commitment to multi-stakeholder approaches in public policy > development and decision-making on telecommunications and Internet-related > matters. We trust that this openness and inclusive approach will continue > and extend to upcoming ITU-related work and beyond, and we urge other > governments to welcome and engage with civil society going forward. > > > > As we communicated to ITU Secretary General Touré, we also commend the ITU > on first steps towards greater transparency and openness with regard to > access to and webcasting of plenary sessions and Committee 5 sessions, as > well as soliciting public submissions. These initial steps enabled civil > society to play a constructive, albeit limited, role at the WCIT. > > > > However there remain serious limitations to engaging with the ITU. > > The substantive policy deliberations in working groups were neither webcast > nor open to unaffiliated civil society. Further, while it is positive that > the ITU opened the process to public comment, these comments were never > part > of the official record. We raised both of these challenges with the > Secretary General, in writing and in person, and he committed to addressing > these concerns and appealing to member states, as appropriate. Although the > WCIT has concluded, we renew our request to have the public comments > submitted as official ITU documents to capture these positions for the > historical record. > > > > We also raised the issue of the lack of any institutional mechanism for > civil society participation at the ITU. While the participation of civil > society representatives in government delegations benefits both the > delegations and the WCIT’s deliberations as a whole, it cannot substitute > for engagement with independent members of civil society. > > We will be following up on these important matters with the Secretary > General and welcome his commitment to considering institutional remedies to > this challenge. > > > > Looking forward, civil society seeks to work with governments and other > stakeholders around the globe towards an ever more inclusive and > substantive > multi-stakeholder engagement on telecommunications, Internet, and related > matters. Much more needs to be done with regard to opening the ITU to > greater genuine multi-stakeholder participation and in particular > independent civil society participation - institutional change will need to > occur and we will work with the ITU and other stakeholders to bring this > about. These changes are vitally important and need to be addressed as > soon > as possible given the upcoming 2013 World Telecommunication Policy Forum, > World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+10) and 2014 ITU > Plenipotentiary Conference. > > > > ----------------------- > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper Special Assistant to The President ASAFE P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 21 11:51:59 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:51:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <12bc01cddf99$c7d77930$57866b90$@gmail.com> References: <12bc01cddf99$c7d77930$57866b90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael, On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > I do not think that the IGC should endorse this nor would I encourage other > CS organizations to "sign on"... And I would strongly object to this > statement anointing itself as the spokerspersons for either Civil Society or > the BestBits group. What exactly do you object to in the text? > > > > As I've been trying to say in my last few blogposts, I think that CS comes > out of WCIT with an enormous set of opportunities, but with those > opportunities go very significant responsibilities... > > > > I think those responsibilities are not towards support for certain national, > corporate or sectional interests What text of the statement points to interests and not values? > > > Unfortunately I see only a very limited set of these norms which I > understand to underlie our common position in CS/IGC represented in the > AccessNow statement. My sense is that this in NOt a AccessNow statement, but a wider CS statement that will get a large number of signatories. If IGC doesn't sign on to this, will we be making our own statement that will come out of Sala's Framework? -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 12:24:35 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 09:24:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12f801cddfa0$0ced4490$26c7cdb0$@gmail.com> McTim, you were asking Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement December 21, 2012 Civil society is disappointed [MG>] did I go to heaven and come back to find that someone made you folks king/queen of CS? that the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in revising the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). [MG>] why should we/CS care whether the States came to a concensus or not unless of course, our "interests" are the same as the "interests" of specific states/corporations We understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new regulations. [MG>] as the above, and what is our alternative norm-based response to these "new regulations" what do want to see in their place or as an alternative As civil society stated in its Best Bits statement, a key criterion for ITRs should be that “any proposed revisions are confined to the traditional scope of the ITRs” and “where international regulation is required around technical issues [it] is limited to telecommunications networks and interoperability standards.” We regret that an Internet governance-related resolution has been included in the Final Acts of WCIT, despite assertions by many that WCIT was not about Internet governance. We are also concerned by the lack of clarity around the applicability of the treaty, which as defined could have unforeseen consequences for an open internet, and the lack of specificity in key terms, such as security, which may negatively impact the public’s rights to privacy and freedom of expression. [MG>] there was a lot of other stuff in that statement--"net neutrality", "public interest", "human rights", "affordable access" etc. why focus only on these areas and not mention the others This said, civil society would like to acknowledge and thank those governments that opened their delegations to members of civil society and other stakeholder groups. This was a very important initial step in establishing a civil society voice in the proceedings and we trust that it signals a wider commitment to multi-stakeholder approaches in public policy development and decision-making on telecommunications and Internet-related matters. We trust that this openness and inclusive approach will continue and extend to upcoming ITU-related work and beyond, and we urge other governments to welcome and engage with civil society going forward. [MG>] yes, but CS has other principles as well, why not mention some of those and hold governments accountable against those As we communicated to ITU Secretary General Touré, we also commend the ITU on first steps towards greater transparency and openness with regard to access to and webcasting of plenary sessions and Committee 5 sessions, as well as soliciting public submissions. These initial steps enabled civil society to play a constructive, albeit limited, role at the WCIT. [MG>] yes, see above However there remain serious limitations to engaging with the ITU. The substantive policy deliberations in working groups were neither webcast nor open to unaffiliated civil society. Further, while it is positive that the ITU opened the process to public comment, these comments were never part of the official record. We raised both of these challenges with the Secretary General, in writing and in person, and he committed to addressing these concerns and appealing to member states, as appropriate. Although the WCIT has concluded, we renew our request to have the public comments submitted as official ITU documents to capture these positions for the historical record. [MG>] yes, see above We also raised the issue of the lack of any institutional mechanism for civil society participation at the ITU. While the participation of civil society representatives in government delegations benefits both the delegations and the WCIT’s deliberations as a whole, it cannot substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We will be following up on these important matters with the Secretary General and welcome his commitment to considering institutional remedies to this challenge. [MG>] yes, see above Looking forward, civil society seeks to work with governments and other stakeholders around the globe towards an ever more inclusive and substantive multi-stakeholder engagement on telecommunications, Internet, and related matters. [MG>] surely we want something more than simply an "inclusive multi-stakeholder engagement"--what about "net neutrality", inclusive access and use etc.etc Much more needs to be done with regard to opening the ITU to greater genuine multi-stakeholder participation and in particular independent civil society participation - institutional change will need to occur and we will work with the ITU and other stakeholders to bring this about. These changes are vitally important and need to be addressed as soon as possible given the upcoming 2013 World Telecommunication Policy Forum, World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+10) and 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. [MG>] surely CS is concerned with things other than its own capacity to intervene in this particular set of discussions why not use this as a framework to start articulating those broader values--which to my mind are framed overall in the context of a global Internet governed in the public interest and for the public good. M -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 12:27:57 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:27:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:13 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > > Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn of > > (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... > > > Because it's not true, and anyone who has been on this list and/or > read one or two news articles would know it's not true. Or, someone > could go to the transcripts of the meeting and it would be perfectly > clear. Parminder makes the claim throughout the article, so hardly > an accident. As we know from his usual bile against anything > "northern", it looks pretty deliberate. > > This is an OpEd in a major newspaper. The Indian government said they > will hold a public consultation about the outcome of WICT and whether > the country should sign etc. Clearly it's in this context Parminder's > writing. > Even if the above strings of inferences regarding Parminder's authorship are assumed correct, those attacking Parminder engage in a form of the same thing Parminder stands accused of: On one hand, in a "zeal" to attack things "northern", Parminder may have made a factually incorrect assertion, if he is the author. On the other hand, in a zeal to make a sustained attack the southern Parminder, others strain civility past the breaking point. (I'll not repeat the names used here...) Of the two, it is easier to correct and repair a factual misstatement than it is to correct and repair civility. Such factual repairs need not consist of hauling someone before a worldwide listserv repeatedly, until some demanded admission of correct fact is publicly made. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4965 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Dec 21 12:48:20 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:18:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01A25C61-B087-4E56-BBA9-9536736DED14@hserus.net> It entirely depends. There are of course suppressio veri, suggestio falsi to bear in mind here Strategic misstatements are a rather distasteful but extremely powerful propaganda tool when addressing yourself to a larger, comparatively uninformed population The Hindu is a major paper, yes, but it also has a strong leftist tilt that sometimes makes it occassionally a bit too eager to swallow articles hook, line and sinker of they appear to be pro south and/or against an American hegemony Past articles have included this gem by a past but still larger than life editor, several of whose protégés are still at the paper http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/2007/07/06/mr-ram-does-a-hatchet-job-on-the-dalai-lama/ --srs (iPad) On 21-Dec-2012, at 22:57, Paul Lehto wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:13 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> > Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn of >> > (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... >> >> >> Because it's not true, and anyone who has been on this list and/or >> read one or two news articles would know it's not true. Or, someone >> could go to the transcripts of the meeting and it would be perfectly >> clear. Parminder makes the claim throughout the article, so hardly >> an accident. As we know from his usual bile against anything >> "northern", it looks pretty deliberate. >> >> This is an OpEd in a major newspaper. The Indian government said they >> will hold a public consultation about the outcome of WICT and whether >> the country should sign etc. Clearly it's in this context Parminder's >> writing. > > Even if the above strings of inferences regarding Parminder's authorship are assumed correct, those attacking Parminder engage in a form of the same thing Parminder stands accused of: > > On one hand, in a "zeal" to attack things "northern", Parminder may have made a factually incorrect assertion, if he is the author. > On the other hand, in a zeal to make a sustained attack the southern Parminder, others strain civility past the breaking point. (I'll not repeat the names used here...) > > Of the two, it is easier to correct and repair a factual misstatement than it is to correct and repair civility. Such factual repairs need not consist of hauling someone before a worldwide listserv repeatedly, until some demanded admission of correct fact is publicly made. > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4965 (cell) > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 deborah at accessnow.org Fri Dec 21 13:01:11 2012 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 13:01:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: FW: [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <12f801cddfa0$0ced4490$26c7cdb0$@gmail.com> References: <12f801cddfa0$0ced4490$26c7cdb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Michael, Thank you for raising these issues. I think there are a few misunderstandings here that I hope I can clarify. This statement is not meant to act as a spokesperson for civil society or Best Bits. As I noted in my email that was forwarded to this list, the statement "is meant to be complementary to other post-WCIT civil society statements that focus on the substance of the ITRs." If renaming the document "A civil society statement..." and including "the undersigned members of" before mentions of "civil society" would clarify that, I think we can definitely make those changes. As it happens, a number of organizations that were very involved in Best Bits have endorsed the statement, so listing those organizations should be a good indication of who within Best Bits supports the statement, and who does not. Also, this is not an Access statement, but was drafted by some civil society representatives who were present in Dubai. As one of the people who was remaining in Dubai towards the end, I volunteered to circulate the statement for sign on. It has around 20 signatories at the moment. I am happy to circulate this list once I have had the chance to collect the names. If I understand correctly, much of your criticism is related to the limited scope of issues and principles that this statement addresses. I cannot speak on behalf of the group that drafted this, but I believe that the focus was kept narrow and focused mostly on the issues raised in the letter that was presented to the ITU ahead of the 10 December meeting with Hamadoun Touré (letter accessible here: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM ) I will take your concerns back to the group that drafted this and see if there is appetite for revising the statement at this late date. If there is not, hopefully making the changes I mentioned at the end of the second paragraph of this email will be sufficient in clarifying that this statement only has the support of the groups/individuals whose names are listed on the public version. I regret any miscommunications/misunderstandings here. Thank you again for your feedback and I look forward to continuing this discussion. Best regards, Deborah On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:24 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > *McTim, you were asking…***** > > *Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of > multi-stakeholder engagement***** > > December 21, 2012**** > > Civil society is disappointed**** > > *[MG>] did I go to heaven and come back to find that someone made you > folks king/queen of CS?* > > that the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) could > not come to consensus in revising the International Telecommunications > Regulations (ITRs). **** > > *[MG>] why should we/CS care whether the States came to a concensus or > not… unless of course, our "interests" are the same as the "interests" of > specific states/corporations* > > We understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments > have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new regulations. > **** > > *[MG>] as the above, and what is our alternative norm-based response to > these "new regulations"… what do want to see in their place or as an > alternative…***** > > As civil society stated in its Best Bits statement, a key criterion for > ITRs should be that “any proposed revisions are confined to the traditional > scope of the ITRs” and “where international regulation is required around > technical issues [it] is limited to telecommunications networks and > interoperability standards.” We regret that an Internet governance-related > resolution has been included in the Final Acts of WCIT, despite assertions > by many that WCIT was not about Internet governance. We are also concerned > by the lack of clarity around the applicability of the treaty, which as > defined could have unforeseen consequences for an open internet, and the > lack of specificity in key terms, such as security, which may negatively > impact the public’s rights to privacy and freedom of expression.**** > > *[MG>] there was a lot of other stuff in that statement--"net > neutrality", "public interest", "human rights", "affordable access" etc. > why focus only on these areas and not mention the others…***** > > This said, civil society would like to acknowledge and thank those > governments that opened their delegations to members of civil society and > other stakeholder groups. This was a very important initial step in > establishing a civil society voice in the proceedings and we trust that it > signals a wider commitment to multi-stakeholder approaches in public policy > development and decision-making on telecommunications and Internet-related > matters. We trust that this openness and inclusive approach will continue > and extend to upcoming ITU-related work and beyond, and we urge other > governments to welcome and engage with civil society going forward.**** > > *[MG>] yes, but CS has other principles as well, why not mention some of > those and hold governments accountable against those***** > > As we communicated to ITU Secretary General Touré, we also commend the ITU > on first steps towards greater transparency and openness with regard to > access to and webcasting of plenary sessions and Committee 5 sessions, as > well as soliciting public submissions. These initial steps enabled civil > society to play a constructive, albeit limited, role at the WCIT.**** > > *[MG>] yes, see above***** > > However there remain serious limitations to engaging with the ITU. The > substantive policy deliberations in working groups were neither webcast nor > open to unaffiliated civil society. Further, while it is positive that the > ITU opened the process to public comment, these comments were never part of > the official record. We raised both of these challenges with the Secretary > General, in writing and in person, and he committed to addressing these > concerns and appealing to member states, as appropriate. Although the WCIT > has concluded, we renew our request to have the public comments submitted > as official ITU documents to capture these positions for the historical > record.**** > > *[MG>] yes, see above***** > > We also raised the issue of the lack of any institutional mechanism for > civil society participation at the ITU. While the participation of civil > society representatives in government delegations benefits both the > delegations and the WCIT’s deliberations as a whole, it cannot substitute > for engagement with independent members of civil society. We will be > following up on these important matters with the Secretary General and > welcome his commitment to considering institutional remedies to this > challenge.**** > > *[MG>] yes, see above***** > > Looking forward, civil society seeks to work with governments and other > stakeholders around the globe towards an ever more inclusive and > substantive multi-stakeholder engagement on telecommunications, Internet, > and related matters. **** > > *[MG>] surely we want something more than simply an > "inclusive…multi-stakeholder engagement"--what about "net neutrality", > inclusive access and use etc.etc* > > Much more needs to be done with regard to opening the ITU to greater > genuine multi-stakeholder participation and in particular independent civil > society participation - institutional change will need to occur and we will > work with the ITU and other stakeholders to bring this about. These > changes are vitally important and need to be addressed as soon as possible > given the upcoming 2013 World Telecommunication Policy Forum, World Summit > on the Information Society (WSIS+10) and 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary > Conference.**** > > *[MG>] surely CS is concerned with things other than its own capacity to > intervene in this particular set of discussions… why not use this as a > framework to start articulating those broader values--which to my mind are > framed overall in the context of a global Internet governed in the public > interest and for the public good.* > > *M***** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > -- **** > > Deborah Brown**** > > Policy Analyst**** > > Access | AccessNow.org**** > > E. deborah at accessnow.org**** > > S. deborah.l.brown**** > > T. deblebrown**** > > PGP 0x5EB4727D**** > > ** ** > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 21 13:48:06 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:48:06 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: FW: [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: References: <12f801cddfa0$0ced4490$26c7cdb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <133901cddfab$b7ba3d50$272eb7f0$@gmail.com> Thanks for your comments Deborah and I'll reply to them inline From: Deborah Brown [mailto:deborah at accessnow.org] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 10:01 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: FW: [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT Dear Michael, Thank you for raising these issues. I think there are a few misunderstandings here that I hope I can clarify. [MG>] okay This statement is not meant to act as a spokesperson for civil society or Best Bits. As I noted in my email that was forwarded to this list, the statement "is meant to be complementary to other post-WCIT civil society statements that focus on the substance of the ITRs." If renaming the document "A civil society statement..." and including "the undersigned members of" before mentions of "civil society" would clarify that, I think we can definitely make those changes. [MG>] I think that would be preferable although I guess I would like to see how it was phrased I would like to think that there was a normative agreement within CS and that to some degree that this was articulated in the statement from BestBits but that statement was I think carefully crafted so as to not attempt to be definitive on the part of CS nor should it have been, nor should this one be so presented I'ld have to look at the other statements from various CS folks in the context of Dubai but given the peculiarity of the arrangements governing CS participation (including acting as representatives/spokespersons for certain "national interests"/delegations and certain funding arrangements for attendance) at the WCIT one can hardly see anything that was said/articulated from there as being representative of anything much beyond the opinions of a particular sub-set of people who managed by some means or other to make it to Dubai. As it happens, a number of organizations that were very involved in Best Bits have endorsed the statement, so listing those organizations should be a good indication of who within Best Bits supports the statement, and who does not. [MG>] I'll look forward to seeing this Also, this is not an Access statement, but was drafted by some civil society representatives who were present in Dubai. As one of the people who was remaining in Dubai towards the end, I volunteered to circulate the statement for sign on. It has around 20 signatories at the moment. I am happy to circulate this list once I have had the chance to collect the names. [MG>] okay but see my comments above concerning the issue of statements coming out of CS Dubai If I understand correctly, much of your criticism is related to the limited scope of issues and principles that this statement addresses. I cannot speak on behalf of the group that drafted this, but I believe that the focus was kept narrow and focused mostly on the issues raised in the letter that was presented to the ITU ahead of the 10 December meeting with Hamadoun Touré (letter accessible here: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ9 3YTbqLSM [MG>] of course I have no idea of this, but one of my observations/concerns about CS in Dubai is that nowhere/no one seemed to be raising the issues that are the usual fare of CS i.e. inclusion, net neutrality, human rights, the public interest--which BTW and perhaps not incidentally were issues that were being raised by many of those countries who did sign the WCIT agreement That the folks who got in to see M. Toure said something or other is neither here nor there If I (and I would expect many others) had been there I/we would most certainly have raised some additional issues. I think the issues articulated are dramatically skewed to those issues primarily of interest to the "North" and even within that to a sub-set of CS in the North, and thus I think in no senses should represent or be presented as representing CS position overall. I will take your concerns back to the group that drafted this and see if there is appetite for revising the statement at this late date. If there is not, hopefully making the changes I mentioned at the end of the second paragraph of this email will be sufficient in clarifying that this statement only has the support of the groups/individuals whose names are listed on the public version. [MG>] Okay, but again I have significant concerns that this statement is narrowing the focus of CS and turning away from the potential leadership position which (if only by default) I think was accorded to CS as an outcome of Dubai. I think an explanation has to be given as to why even a component of CS should be univocally accepting the framework of criticism that was articulated by certain national and corporate interests (and by implication rejecting those normal CS positions e.g. digital inclusion, human rights, etc. being articulated by at least certain of the "signers"); and further I would be very interested in the reasons behind the failure of this statement to present a position for the positive values and vision for an Internet in the public interest that CS presumably should be articulating. I regret any miscommunications/misunderstandings here. Thank you again for your feedback and I look forward to continuing this discussion. [MG>] Best, Mike Best regards, Deborah On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 12:24 PM, michael gurstein wrote: McTim, you were asking Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement December 21, 2012 Civil society is disappointed [MG>] did I go to heaven and come back to find that someone made you folks king/queen of CS? that the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in revising the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). [MG>] why should we/CS care whether the States came to a concensus or not unless of course, our "interests" are the same as the "interests" of specific states/corporations We understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new regulations. [MG>] as the above, and what is our alternative norm-based response to these "new regulations" what do want to see in their place or as an alternative As civil society stated in its Best Bits statement, a key criterion for ITRs should be that “any proposed revisions are confined to the traditional scope of the ITRs” and “where international regulation is required around technical issues [it] is limited to telecommunications networks and interoperability standards.” We regret that an Internet governance-related resolution has been included in the Final Acts of WCIT, despite assertions by many that WCIT was not about Internet governance. We are also concerned by the lack of clarity around the applicability of the treaty, which as defined could have unforeseen consequences for an open internet, and the lack of specificity in key terms, such as security, which may negatively impact the public’s rights to privacy and freedom of expression. [MG>] there was a lot of other stuff in that statement--"net neutrality", "public interest", "human rights", "affordable access" etc. why focus only on these areas and not mention the others This said, civil society would like to acknowledge and thank those governments that opened their delegations to members of civil society and other stakeholder groups. This was a very important initial step in establishing a civil society voice in the proceedings and we trust that it signals a wider commitment to multi-stakeholder approaches in public policy development and decision-making on telecommunications and Internet-related matters. We trust that this openness and inclusive approach will continue and extend to upcoming ITU-related work and beyond, and we urge other governments to welcome and engage with civil society going forward. [MG>] yes, but CS has other principles as well, why not mention some of those and hold governments accountable against those As we communicated to ITU Secretary General Touré, we also commend the ITU on first steps towards greater transparency and openness with regard to access to and webcasting of plenary sessions and Committee 5 sessions, as well as soliciting public submissions. These initial steps enabled civil society to play a constructive, albeit limited, role at the WCIT. [MG>] yes, see above However there remain serious limitations to engaging with the ITU. The substantive policy deliberations in working groups were neither webcast nor open to unaffiliated civil society. Further, while it is positive that the ITU opened the process to public comment, these comments were never part of the official record. We raised both of these challenges with the Secretary General, in writing and in person, and he committed to addressing these concerns and appealing to member states, as appropriate. Although the WCIT has concluded, we renew our request to have the public comments submitted as official ITU documents to capture these positions for the historical record. [MG>] yes, see above We also raised the issue of the lack of any institutional mechanism for civil society participation at the ITU. While the participation of civil society representatives in government delegations benefits both the delegations and the WCIT’s deliberations as a whole, it cannot substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We will be following up on these important matters with the Secretary General and welcome his commitment to considering institutional remedies to this challenge. [MG>] yes, see above Looking forward, civil society seeks to work with governments and other stakeholders around the globe towards an ever more inclusive and substantive multi-stakeholder engagement on telecommunications, Internet, and related matters. [MG>] surely we want something more than simply an "inclusive multi-stakeholder engagement"--what about "net neutrality", inclusive access and use etc.etc Much more needs to be done with regard to opening the ITU to greater genuine multi-stakeholder participation and in particular independent civil society participation - institutional change will need to occur and we will work with the ITU and other stakeholders to bring this about. These changes are vitally important and need to be addressed as soon as possible given the upcoming 2013 World Telecommunication Policy Forum, World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+10) and 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. [MG>] surely CS is concerned with things other than its own capacity to intervene in this particular set of discussions why not use this as a framework to start articulating those broader values--which to my mind are framed overall in the context of a global Internet governed in the public interest and for the public good. M -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Fri Dec 21 14:08:24 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:08:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> On 21 Dec 2012, at 10:13, michael gurstein wrote: > Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a journalistic medium... > > Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn of (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... Is this the US Congress/Fox News where a fairly comprehensible mispeak can lead to a total "gothcha" pre-occupation (the Benghazi "discussions") for purely political purposes to the exclusion of substantive debate... It is simple: Because you are not permitted to have your own facts. 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 avri at ella.com Fri Dec 21 14:19:24 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 14:19:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <133901cddfab$b7ba3d50$272eb7f0$@gmail.com> References: <12f801cddfa0$0ced4490$26c7cdb0$@gmail.com> <133901cddfab$b7ba3d50$272eb7f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <645D3BC7-ABC1-49C2-880B-66DC894E7502@ella.com> On 21 Dec 2012, at 13:48, michael gurstein wrote: > If I (and I would expect many others) had been there I/we would most certainly have raised some additional issues. i guess it is too bad you did not get yourself there with the rest of the people who found a way. > I think the issues articulated are dramatically skewed to those issues primarily of interest to the "North" and even within that to a sub-set of CS in the North, and thus I think in no senses should represent or be presented as representing CS position overall. Well then, don't sign. 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 14:48:09 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:48:09 -0800 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> Message-ID: <13a001cddfb4$2b8f4790$82add6b0$@gmail.com> Is the use of a particular turn of phrase in a popular news outlet a "fact"... maybe to Fox News... q.v. swiftboating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating M -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:08 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken On 21 Dec 2012, at 10:13, michael gurstein wrote: > Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a journalistic medium... > > Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn of (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... Is this the US Congress/Fox News where a fairly comprehensible mispeak can lead to a total "gothcha" pre-occupation (the Benghazi "discussions") for purely political purposes to the exclusion of substantive debate... It is simple: Because you are not permitted to have your own facts. 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 15:01:42 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 15:01:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> Message-ID: But what is truly at issue is not a "fact" like whether someone physically locomoted using their legs in order to leave a meeting. "Walked out" has both literal and figurative meaning, and Parminder - as was obvious to me at least - intended the phrase in a figurative way. This should be especially obvious because it was a country (having no legs) that walked out, not a specific person. Since it appears some have appointed themselves inquisitors and made a charge of inaccuracy against Parminder, I assert my neutrality (not even sure why people are so hot on this), and *appoint myself judge and dismiss this claim, *on the grounds that "walked out" has clearly figurative meaning and the actual facts, even as alleged by the inquisitors, fit without the broad meaning of "walked out". :) The key word in Michael's question was "pre-occupation." Why the * pre-occupation* with this? It appears that question is unlikely to be answered. And I won't rule on it either, since I don't have enough facts before me to do so. :) Paul Lehto, J.D. PS If anyone has a problem with me being the self-appointed judge here, then they should have a very similar problem with those who have accused and also called this an open and shut case of "you can't have your own facts" - which is just judgment in a different form, and a self-appointed judgment at that. In order to reach my "judgment" I've looked at the facts in the light most favorable to the accused, given the rights of free expression at stake. All we really have here is what could be a valuable discussion about the extent to which there was or wasn't a *figurative* walk out, and that could be enlightening given the personal observations of some on the list but which devolved into something more *ad hominem* in the nature of a game of gotcha. On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 21 Dec 2012, at 10:13, michael gurstein wrote: > > > Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a > journalistic medium... > > > > Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn of > (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... Is this the US Congress/Fox News > where a fairly comprehensible mispeak can lead to a total "gothcha" > pre-occupation (the Benghazi "discussions") for purely political purposes > to the exclusion of substantive debate... > > > It is simple: > > Because you are not permitted to have your own facts. > > avri > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4965 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Fri Dec 21 16:52:05 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 16:52:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> Message-ID: <9B1DAEB5-2A94-4094-8927-4F9B9C310E45@acm.org> On 21 Dec 2012, at 15:01, Paul Lehto wrote: > Why the pre-occupation with this? Not a pre-occupation. The way the great lie wins is for no one to counter it. So every time I see this lie, [ and i was there to see it was most definitely _not the case_, in any real or figurative sense, that anyone walked out ] I counter it. And then stop reading whatever it was that started with the lie. cheers, avri hmmm, 3 messages today, must be getting precariously close to my limit for a day. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 17:54:53 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:54:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <9B1DAEB5-2A94-4094-8927-4F9B9C310E45@acm.org> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> <9B1DAEB5-2A94-4094-8927-4F9B9C310E45@acm.org> Message-ID: Wow, Avri. You were there and THIS is what you found that was really worth taking a stand on, eh? This is the "great lie?" I always thought big lies, much less great lies, were of far greater significance. In fact, they are. On Dec 21, 2012 4:52 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > On 21 Dec 2012, at 15:01, Paul Lehto wrote: > > > Why the pre-occupation with this? > > > Not a pre-occupation. > > The way the great lie wins is for no one to counter it. > So every time I see this lie, > > [ > and i was there to see it was most definitely > _not the case_, > in any real or figurative sense, > that anyone walked out > ] > > I counter it. > And then stop reading whatever it was that started with the lie. > > cheers, > > avri > > > hmmm, 3 messages today, > must be getting precariously close to my limit for a day. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Dec 21 19:26:26 2012 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 11:26:26 +1100 Subject: [governance] How the Internet became a closed shop In-Reply-To: <66533BF7-B2CE-40D4-BB72-47214F61C7D3@ciroap.org> References: <039201cddd42$1833a430$489aec90$@gmail.com> <66533BF7-B2CE-40D4-BB72-47214F61C7D3@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Some food for thought as we look towards the challenges facing both the Internet and Internet governance during 2013 and beyond. As the article points out * the Internet is now morphing into a series of gated communities * apps rather than open protocols increasingly control access * net neutrality is out the window if it threatens corporate dominance http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/how-the-internet-became-a-closed-shop-20121221-2brcp.html We do have a changed situation since WSIS, a new series of threats and challenges, and new power players. Should make for an interesting period ahead! Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kovenronald at aol.com Fri Dec 21 19:27:16 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:27:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> Message-ID: <8CFADF23AEEB9FF-1878-410C8@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> What the devil is a "figurative walkout" ? There was misrepresentation or factual error. Period. No reputable media outlet would or should accept that. A correction would be in order. Orwellian language is not in order. If we can't count on basic intellectual honesty, there is no sense in these discussions. Bests, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto To: governance ; Avri Doria Cc: michael gurstein Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 9:02 pm Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken But what is truly at issue is not a "fact" like whether someone physically locomoted using their legs in order to leave a meeting. "Walked out" has both literal and figurative meaning, and Parminder - as was obvious to me at least - intended the phrase in a figurative way. This should be especially obvious because it was a country (having no legs) that walked out, not a specific person. Since it appears some have appointed themselves inquisitors and made a charge of inaccuracy against Parminder, I assert my neutrality (not even sure why people are so hot on this), and appoint myself judge and dismiss this claim, on the grounds that "walked out" has clearly figurative meaning and the actual facts, even as alleged by the inquisitors, fit without the broad meaning of "walked out". :) The key word in Michael's question was "pre-occupation." Why the pre-occupation with this? It appears that question is unlikely to be answered. And I won't rule on it either, since I don't have enough facts before me to do so. :) Paul Lehto, J.D. PS If anyone has a problem with me being the self-appointed judge here, then they should have a very similar problem with those who have accused and also called this an open and shut case of "you can't have your own facts" - which is just judgment in a different form, and a self-appointed judgment at that. In order to reach my "judgment" I've looked at the facts in the light most favorable to the accused, given the rights of free expression at stake. All we really have here is what could be a valuable discussion about the extent to which there was or wasn't a figurative walk out, and that could be enlightening given the personal observations of some on the list but which devolved into something more ad hominem in the nature of a game of gotcha. On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote: On 21 Dec 2012, at 10:13, michael gurstein wrote: > Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a journalistic medium... > > Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn of (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... Is this the US Congress/Fox News where a fairly comprehensible mispeak can lead to a total "gothcha" pre-occupation (the Benghazi "discussions") for purely political purposes to the exclusion of substantive debate... It is simple: Because you are not permitted to have your own facts. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4965 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 ocl at gih.com Fri Dec 21 19:35:12 2012 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 01:35:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <50D4567A.1050404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50D50040.7040107@gih.com> On 21/12/2012 14:24, Adam Peake wrote: > When Saudi Arabia (yes, that bastion of democracy and fairness) said > is was unacceptable one party got everything it wants, they were not > talking about the worrisome extension of state rights you for some > misguided reason seem to support, but the proposal by Russia, UAE, > China, Saudi, Arabia, Algeria, Sudan, and Egypt to very much take over > the Internet. Saudi and UAE were threatening to bring that rubbish > back to the plenary. and for the record, Egypt completely disassociated itself with this leaked text, tweeting that they had not even been consulted, so their country had been listed without their consent. Nice move from the proponents of the paper! This week-end was not a pretty sight. Kind regards, Olivier -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:22:59 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 17:22:59 -0800 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <8CFADF23AEEB9FF-1878-410C8@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> <8CFADF23AEEB9FF-1878-410C8@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <004501cddfe2$e1f894e0$a5e9bea0$@gmail.com> All of this phony outrage is a bit much. Being outraged about a zillion dollar corporation not wanting to pay its fair share of taxes. that's something to be outraged about. Being outraged at countries in the North turning their backs on agreements to extend broadband access to countries in the South. that's something to be outraged about. Being outraged at countries not willing to sign agreements re-interating already agreed to commitments in the area of Human Rights. that's something to be outraged about. But whether the US walked out, tromped out, slid out, or flew out of the meeting on gossamer wings (after refusing to sign an agreement accepted by 2/3rds of the countries attending) . that seems to me to be a matter of the utmost triviality . of interest, dare I say, only to those who don't have anything more substantial to argue against. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Koven Ronald Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 4:27 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; lehto.paul at gmail.com; avri at acm.org Cc: gurstein at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken What the devil is a "figurative walkout" ? There was misrepresentation or factual error. Period. No reputable media outlet would or should accept that. A correction would be in order. Orwellian language is not in order. If we can't count on basic intellectual honesty, there is no sense in these discussions. Bests, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto To: governance ; Avri Doria Cc: michael gurstein Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 9:02 pm Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken But what is truly at issue is not a "fact" like whether someone physically locomoted using their legs in order to leave a meeting. "Walked out" has both literal and figurative meaning, and Parminder - as was obvious to me at least - intended the phrase in a figurative way. This should be especially obvious because it was a country (having no legs) that walked out, not a specific person. Since it appears some have appointed themselves inquisitors and made a charge of inaccuracy against Parminder, I assert my neutrality (not even sure why people are so hot on this), and appoint myself judge and dismiss this claim, on the grounds that "walked out" has clearly figurative meaning and the actual facts, even as alleged by the inquisitors, fit without the broad meaning of "walked out". :) The key word in Michael's question was "pre-occupation." Why the pre-occupation with this? It appears that question is unlikely to be answered. And I won't rule on it either, since I don't have enough facts before me to do so. :) Paul Lehto, J.D. PS If anyone has a problem with me being the self-appointed judge here, then they should have a very similar problem with those who have accused and also called this an open and shut case of "you can't have your own facts" - which is just judgment in a different form, and a self-appointed judgment at that. In order to reach my "judgment" I've looked at the facts in the light most favorable to the accused, given the rights of free expression at stake. All we really have here is what could be a valuable discussion about the extent to which there was or wasn't a figurative walk out, and that could be enlightening given the personal observations of some on the list but which devolved into something more ad hominem in the nature of a game of gotcha. On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote: On 21 Dec 2012, at 10:13, michael gurstein wrote: > Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a journalistic medium... > > Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn of (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... Is this the US Congress/Fox News where a fairly comprehensible mispeak can lead to a total "gothcha" pre-occupation (the Benghazi "discussions") for purely political purposes to the exclusion of substantive debate... It is simple: Because you are not permitted to have your own facts. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4965 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 20:25:55 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:25:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <8CFADF23AEEB9FF-1878-410C8@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> <8CFADF23AEEB9FF-1878-410C8@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: > What the devil is a "figurative walkout" ? There was misrepresentation or > factual error. Period. Ok, that's it, I'm outta here. See ya! [...] OK, now I'm back. :) But possibly Avri walked out on us today - she noted she was at her self-imposed 3 message limit. Perhaps she will walk back into this discussion tomorrow. There's two figurative walkouts, above, plus a figurative walk back in. Or, had I ceased communicating after an abrupt announcement of any kind (even if not suggesting the image of leaving or walking out), that could be called a walkout. Do you want more examples? Links to idiomatic dictionaries or examples of English usage? http://www.thefreedictionary.com/walk+out If I hit a truck head on, pass out from fright, and a firefighter pulls me away from the car uninjured, I could say I walked away without a scratch even though I had a minor concussion. "Walk" is not literal, it refers to a distancing process. Paul The problem with English speakers is the assumption, basically false, that we all speak the same language. A four letter word like "walk" - like most other short words - has many different definitions. The basic idea of a "walk" applied to something like communications is USUALLY the notion of a distancing process from something. Among two parties who continue to actively negotiate, one might say of the other that they "walked away" from the major points of negotiation (in favor of other points). Nothing physical about it. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto > To: governance ; Avri Doria > Cc: michael gurstein > Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 9:02 pm > Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken > > > But what is truly at issue is not a "fact" like whether someone physically > locomoted using their legs in order to leave a meeting. "Walked out" has > both literal and figurative meaning, and Parminder - as was obvious to me > at least - intended the phrase in a figurative way. This should be > especially obvious because it was a country (having no legs) that walked > out, not a specific person. > > Since it appears some have appointed themselves inquisitors and made a > charge of inaccuracy against Parminder, I assert my neutrality (not even > sure why people are so hot on this), and *appoint myself judge and > dismiss this claim, *on the grounds that "walked out" has clearly > figurative meaning and the actual facts, even as alleged by the > inquisitors, fit without the broad meaning of "walked out". :) > > The key word in Michael's question was "pre-occupation." Why the * > pre-occupation* with this? It appears that question is unlikely to be > answered. And I won't rule on it either, since I don't have enough facts > before me to do so. :) > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > PS If anyone has a problem with me being the self-appointed judge here, > then they should have a very similar problem with those who have accused > and also called this an open and shut case of "you can't have your own > facts" - which is just judgment in a different form, and a self-appointed > judgment at that. In order to reach my "judgment" I've looked at the facts > in the light most favorable to the accused, given the rights of free > expression at stake. > > All we really have here is what could be a valuable discussion about the > extent to which there was or wasn't a *figurative* walk out, and that > could be enlightening given the personal observations of some on the list > but which devolved into something more *ad hominem* in the nature of a > game of gotcha. > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> >> >> On 21 Dec 2012, at 10:13, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> > Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a >> journalistic medium... >> > >> > Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn of >> (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... Is this the US Congress/Fox News >> where a fairly comprehensible mispeak can lead to a total "gothcha" >> pre-occupation (the Benghazi "discussions") for purely political purposes >> to the exclusion of substantive debate... >> >> >> It is simple: >> >> Because you are not permitted to have your own facts. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4965 (cell) > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4965 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kovenronald at aol.com Fri Dec 21 20:40:08 2012 From: kovenronald at aol.com (Koven Ronald) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 20:40:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <004501cddfe2$e1f894e0$a5e9bea0$@gmail.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> <8CFADF23AEEB9FF-1878-410C8@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> <004501cddfe2$e1f894e0$a5e9bea0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CFADFC68738C13-1878-414CF@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> Disagreeing with your position constitutes a "walkout" ? -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein To: governance ; 'Koven Ronald' Sent: Sat, Dec 22, 2012 2:23 am Subject: RE: [governance] A false consensus is broken All of this phony outrage is a bit much… Being outraged about a zillion dollar corporation not wanting to pay its fair share of taxes… that's something to be outraged about… Being outraged at countries in the North turning their backs on agreements to extend broadband access to countries in the South… that's something to be outraged about… Being outraged at countries not willing to sign agreements re-interating already agreed to commitments in the area of Human Rights… that's something to be outraged about… But whether the US walked out, tromped out, slid out, or flew out of the meeting on gossamer wings (after refusing to sign an agreement accepted by 2/3rds of the countries attending) … that seems to me to be a matter of the utmost triviality … of interest, dare I say, only to those who don't have anything more substantial to argue against… M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Koven Ronald Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 4:27 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; lehto.paul at gmail.com; avri at acm.org Cc: gurstein at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken What the devil is a "figurative walkout" ? There was misrepresentation or factual error. Period. No reputable media outlet would or should accept that. A correction would be in order. Orwellian language is not in order. If we can't count on basic intellectual honesty, there is no sense in these discussions. Bests, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto To: governance ; Avri Doria Cc: michael gurstein Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 9:02 pm Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken But what is truly at issue is not a "fact" like whether someone physically locomoted using their legs in order to leave a meeting. "Walked out" has both literal and figurative meaning, and Parminder - as was obvious to me at least - intended the phrase in a figurative way. This should be especially obvious because it was a country (having no legs) that walked out, not a specific person. Since it appears some have appointed themselves inquisitors and made a charge of inaccuracy against Parminder, I assert my neutrality (not even sure why people are so hot on this), and appoint myself judge and dismiss this claim, on the grounds that "walked out" has clearly figurative meaning and the actual facts, even as alleged by the inquisitors, fit without the broad meaning of "walked out". :) The key word in Michael's question was "pre-occupation." Why the pre-occupation with this? It appears that question is unlikely to be answered. And I won't rule on it either, since I don't have enough facts before me to do so. :) Paul Lehto, J.D. PS If anyone has a problem with me being the self-appointed judge here, then they should have a very similar problem with those who have accused and also called this an open and shut case of "you can't have your own facts" - which is just judgment in a different form, and a self-appointed judgment at that. In order to reach my "judgment" I've looked at the facts in the light most favorable to the accused, given the rights of free expression at stake. All we really have here is what could be a valuable discussion about the extent to which there was or wasn't a figurative walk out, and that could be enlightening given the personal observations of some on the list but which devolved into something more ad hominem in the nature of a game of gotcha. On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote: On 21 Dec 2012, at 10:13, michael gurstein wrote: > Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a journalistic medium... > > Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn of (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... Is this the US Congress/Fox News where a fairly comprehensible mispeak can lead to a total "gothcha" pre-occupation (the Benghazi "discussions") for purely political purposes to the exclusion of substantive debate... It is simple: Because you are not permitted to have your own facts. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4965 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri Dec 21 22:14:50 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 04:14:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] TPP Negotiations, Process Becomes Even Less Transparent Message-ID: The dark face of "internet freedom" Quote from EFF The 15th round of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement negotiations in New Zealand concluded this week, locking out civil society participation in an unprecedented way. The TPP is a trade agreement between eleven Pacific nations and it covers a wide range of regulatory issues including transnational investment, services, tobacco, and textiles. The chapter that EFF and other digital rights groups around the world find alarming covers intellectual property. EFF is also looking into issues of free flow of information and cross-over issues that may appear in the ecommerce and service chapters... *read more * https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/12/digital-rights-advocates-mobilize-around-tpp-negotiations-process-become-even-less -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 22:18:05 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:18:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <8CFADFC68738C13-1878-414CF@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> <8CFADF23AEEB9FF-1878-410C8@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> <004501cddfe2$e1f894e0$a5e9bea0$@gmail.com> <8CFADFC68738C13-1878-414CF@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Koven Ronald wrote: > Disagreeing with your position constitutes a "walkout" ? It depends. It might. Did somebody distance themselves and break a bond or consensus? Well, that would be a walkout - e.g., a strike is just a disagreement involving reduced work and it can be called a "walkout." Sometimes there's legs moving, other times not, but what has definitely happened is that a consensus or bond of continuous work has been broken. But, *changing one's position could even be called "running" away from it*(by an opponent). Running, walking - all figurative of course. Don't you agree? I previously said Avri walked out of this discussion after reaching her 3 message daily limit. Nobody's called me a liar, because it's an expression. Even if Avri comes back here and says she never left, it wouldn't make me a liar for saying she walked out. At best/worst, I'm using the term loosely. Paul Lehto, J.D. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Dec 21 22:54:23 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 22:54:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <004501cddfe2$e1f894e0$a5e9bea0$@gmail.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> <8CFADF23AEEB9FF-1878-410C8@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> <004501cddfe2$e1f894e0$a5e9bea0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 8:22 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > All of this phony outrage is a bit much… > > > > Being outraged about a zillion dollar corporation not wanting to pay its > fair share of taxes… that's something to be outraged about… The outrage is that governmental (and intergovernmental) regulations allow something like "Double Dutch"), not that corporations use it. and who are you to decide what their "fair share" is? > > > > Being outraged at countries in the North turning their backs on agreements > to extend broadband access to countries in the South… that's something to be > outraged about… I've read all of the ITR (several times) and most of the proposals. there was nothing I recognised in any of them that would have "extended broadband access in the South". > > > > Being outraged at countries not willing to sign agreements re-interating > already agreed to commitments in the area of Human Rights… that's something > to be outraged about… If you followed WCIT you would realise that it was not about Human rights, but about nation states as entities claiming a new right. > > > > But whether the US walked out, tromped out, slid out, or flew out of the > meeting on gossamer wings (after refusing to sign an agreement accepted by > 2/3rds of the countries attending) … that seems to me to be a matter of the > utmost triviality … of interest, dare I say, only to those who don't have > anything more substantial to argue against… no, it's only the first untruth in the first graph of the article, one that I picked up on immediately, but let slide. I am much more worked up about "overlord", which is a willful misrepresentation designed to inflame, not educate. -- 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 tracey at traceynaughton.com Fri Dec 21 22:58:59 2012 From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 14:58:59 +1100 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <004501cddfe2$e1f894e0$a5e9bea0$@gmail.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> <8CFADF23AEEB9FF-1878-410C8@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> <004501cddfe2$e1f894e0$a5e9bea0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4DDC5AF2-5051-4A05-A098-6D653C4869A6@traceynaughton.com> Arguing about English is an excluding distraction not conducive to the basis of multi-stakeholder dialogue. Sad to see on a CS list. The article was an opinion piece. That said, as someone who remains very interested in the post WSIS goings on, I have appreciated the diversity of opinions that have emerged to assist me with understanding what actually happened at WCIT, so thanks for your enthusiastic discussions. Tracey Naughton Australia On 22 Dec 2012, at 12:22 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: All of this phony outrage is a bit much… Being outraged about a zillion dollar corporation not wanting to pay its fair share of taxes… that's something to be outraged about… Being outraged at countries in the North turning their backs on agreements to extend broadband access to countries in the South… that's something to be outraged about… Being outraged at countries not willing to sign agreements re-interating already agreed to commitments in the area of Human Rights… that's something to be outraged about… But whether the US walked out, tromped out, slid out, or flew out of the meeting on gossamer wings (after refusing to sign an agreement accepted by 2/3rds of the countries attending) … that seems to me to be a matter of the utmost triviality … of interest, dare I say, only to those who don't have anything more substantial to argue against… M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Koven Ronald Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 4:27 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; lehto.paul at gmail.com; avri at acm.org Cc: gurstein at gmail.com Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken What the devil is a "figurative walkout" ? There was misrepresentation or factual error. Period. No reputable media outlet would or should accept that. A correction would be in order. Orwellian language is not in order. If we can't count on basic intellectual honesty, there is no sense in these discussions. Bests, Rony Koven -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto To: governance ; Avri Doria Cc: michael gurstein Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 9:02 pm Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken But what is truly at issue is not a "fact" like whether someone physically locomoted using their legs in order to leave a meeting. "Walked out" has both literal and figurative meaning, and Parminder - as was obvious to me at least - intended the phrase in a figurative way. This should be especially obvious because it was a country (having no legs) that walked out, not a specific person. Since it appears some have appointed themselves inquisitors and made a charge of inaccuracy against Parminder, I assert my neutrality (not even sure why people are so hot on this), and appoint myself judge and dismiss this claim, on the grounds that "walked out" has clearly figurative meaning and the actual facts, even as alleged by the inquisitors, fit without the broad meaning of "walked out". :) The key word in Michael's question was "pre-occupation." Why the pre-occupation with this? It appears that question is unlikely to be answered. And I won't rule on it either, since I don't have enough facts before me to do so. :) Paul Lehto, J.D. PS If anyone has a problem with me being the self-appointed judge here, then they should have a very similar problem with those who have accused and also called this an open and shut case of "you can't have your own facts" - which is just judgment in a different form, and a self-appointed judgment at that. In order to reach my "judgment" I've looked at the facts in the light most favorable to the accused, given the rights of free expression at stake. All we really have here is what could be a valuable discussion about the extent to which there was or wasn't a figurative walk out, and that could be enlightening given the personal observations of some on the list but which devolved into something more ad hominem in the nature of a game of gotcha. On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote: On 21 Dec 2012, at 10:13, michael gurstein wrote: > Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a journalistic medium... > > Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn of (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... Is this the US Congress/Fox News where a fairly comprehensible mispeak can lead to a total "gothcha" pre-occupation (the Benghazi "discussions") for purely political purposes to the exclusion of substantive debate... It is simple: Because you are not permitted to have your own facts. avri ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4965 (cell) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 22 01:47:31 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:17:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <4DDC5AF2-5051-4A05-A098-6D653C4869A6@traceynaughton.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> <8CFADF23AEEB9FF-1878-410C8@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> <004501cddfe2$e1f894e0$a5e9bea0$@gmail.com> <4DDC5AF2-5051-4A05-A098-6D653C4869A6@traceynaughton.com> Message-ID: <50D55783.7030108@itforchange.net> Hopefully we are done with the inquest into figurative and other meanings of 'walkout', though we all know it was never really about it. Before I come to what it really is or was about, let me too indulge a bit on the meaning and context of 'walking out'..... 1. When countries declare their disassociation from a ongoing treaty etc process, it is very often called out as a walkout. Walking out of trade talks, climate negotiations, doha round of WTO.... Such is a regular use of the phrase. 2. WCIT was an event with the sole objective of negotiating a treaty. Declaring the intention not to sign the treaty as the process is still on is called as walking out on or of the process..... That is what the US did, and that is a walkout. (By the way, the head of US delegation was reported to use the term 'waking out of WCIT' is a figurative manner mid way during the conference. Although he later denied he said what was attibuted to him, the concerned reporter, I think from CommDay, later confirmed that he had indeed said so.) 3. Being from a poor Southern background, I am forced to take the cover of what an American said. Well, a regular columnist of the New York Times, Eric Pfanner wrote that US "refused to sign the document and *left in a huff*"... Did anyone see the US huffing.. Were the members of the US delegation huffing or the whole country.... Those on the ground can please let me know. I am really very eager. Avri, Adam, McTim, Rony..... any one of you know the 'facts' in this case.... 4. I knew the vulnerabilities of a poor Southie writing what would get forwarded to the mighty in the IG space... I knew that the wolves are out there..... and so, I actually quoted Eric Pfanner in my article. And it was from his expression that I built the 'walking out' thing..... Hope, a day will come when we from the post-colonial South would not need to do such kinds of things to earn legitimacy for simple facts that otherwise are there for anyone to see..... I must have read 40-50 articles and statements and postings before I wrote what I wrote, because, as I said, I knew the wolves will come pouncing. And they did come in any case, if for nothing else, to interrogate the use of English language by me.... 5. I am sure Terry Kramer himself must have read the NYT article... I did not see him or anyone else issue angry disclaimers for factual inaccuracy which they definitely would have if there indeed would have been one (I mean about 'leaving in a huff'). So, this is a case of the above mentioned wolves being more loyal then the emperor. Very worrying tendency for civil society indeed. 6. And of course, all of you too read the referred NYT article, which was forwarded by me with the subject like 'NYT expresses surprise at US *walkout*'. 7. There continues to be many articles in the Northern press using the term 'US walkout' for what happened, most of them though agreeing with what the US did, which is not the point here. It is just about the use of that term and the kind of vicious reaction that it attracted. The vicious reaction was of course to forcefully shut up anyone who but dare give a view or analysis which does not meekly accept the dominant discourse on the subject - which, in my view is guided and led by the global political an economic elites, who unfortunately have been able to build a very loyal following in what is being called as civil society. As said, I see this as a very disturbing trend. Therefore the issue is beyond just the uncivility of the response, it is about what and who do they represent to become so vicious just on reading an opinion piece that says that US walked out of the treaty process, and may have made a diplomatic blunder in doing so. parminder On Saturday 22 December 2012 09:28 AM, Tracey Naughton wrote: > Arguing about English is an excluding distraction not conducive to the > basis of multi-stakeholder dialogue. Sad to see on a CS list. The > article was an opinion piece. > > That said, as someone who remains very interested in the post WSIS > goings on, I have appreciated the diversity of opinions that have > emerged to assist me with understanding what actually happened at > WCIT, so thanks for your enthusiastic discussions. > > Tracey Naughton > Australia > > > On 22 Dec 2012, at 12:22 PM, "michael gurstein" > wrote: > > All of this phony outrage is a bit much… > > Being outraged about a zillion dollar corporation not wanting to pay > its fair share of taxes… that's something to be outraged about… > > Being outraged at countries in the North turning their backs on > agreements to extend broadband access to countries in the South… > that's something to be outraged about… > > Being outraged at countries not willing to sign agreements > re-interating already agreed to commitments in the area of Human > Rights… that's something to be outraged about… > > But whether the US walked out, tromped out, slid out, or flew out of > the meeting on gossamer wings (after refusing to sign an agreement > accepted by 2/3rds of the countries attending) … that seems to me to > be a matter of the utmost triviality … of interest, dare I say, only > to those who don't have anything more substantial to argue against… > > M > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Koven Ronald > *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2012 4:27 PM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > ; lehto.paul at gmail.com > ; avri at acm.org > *Cc:* gurstein at gmail.com > *Subject:* Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken > > What the devil is a "figurative walkout" ? There was misrepresentation > or factual error. Period. > > No reputable media outlet would or should accept that. A correction > would be in order. > > Orwellian language is not in order. > > If we can't count on basic intellectual honesty, there is no sense in > these discussions. > > Bests, Rony Koven > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto > > To: governance >; Avri Doria > > Cc: michael gurstein > > Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 9:02 pm > Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken > > > But what is truly at issue is not a "fact" like whether someone > physically locomoted using their legs in order to leave a meeting. > "Walked out" has both literal and figurative meaning, and Parminder - > as was obvious to me at least - intended the phrase in a figurative > way. This should be especially obvious because it was a country > (having no legs) that walked out, not a specific person. > > Since it appears some have appointed themselves inquisitors and made a > charge of inaccuracy against Parminder, I assert my neutrality (not > even sure why people are so hot on this), and *appoint myself judge > and dismiss this claim, *on the grounds that "walked out" has clearly > figurative meaning and the actual facts, even as alleged by the > inquisitors, fit without the broad meaning of "walked out". :) > > The key word in Michael's question was "pre-occupation." Why the > _pre-occupation_ with this? It appears that question is unlikely to be > answered. And I won't rule on it either, since I don't have enough > facts before me to do so. :) > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > PS If anyone has a problem with me being the self-appointed judge > here, then they should have a very similar problem with those who have > accused and also called this an open and shut case of "you can't have > your own facts" - which is just judgment in a different form, and a > self-appointed judgment at that. In order to reach my "judgment" I've > looked at the facts in the light most favorable to the accused, given > the rights of free expression at stake. > > All we really have here is what could be a valuable discussion about > the extent to which there was or wasn't a /figurative/ walk out, and > that could be enlightening given the personal observations of some on > the list but which devolved into something more /ad hominem/ in the > nature of a game of gotcha. > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > > > > > On 21 Dec 2012, at 10:13, michael gurstein wrote: > > > Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a > journalistic medium... > > > > Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn > of (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... Is this the US Congress/Fox > News where a fairly comprehensible mispeak can lead to a total > "gothcha" pre-occupation (the Benghazi "discussions") for purely > political purposes to the exclusion of substantive debate... > > It is simple: > > Because you are not permitted to have your own facts. > > avri > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-4965 (cell) > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 22 02:31:23 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:01:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <50D55783.7030108@itforchange.net> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> <8CFADF23AEEB9FF-1878-410C8@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> <004501cddfe2$e1f894e0$a5e9bea0$@gmail.com> <4DDC5AF2-5051-4A05-A098-6D653C4869A6@traceynaughton.com> <50D55783.7030108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50D561CB.6030405@itforchange.net> On the other hand, carrying on our exploration of the English language, to illustrate what a genuine misleading statement or lie is, let me refer to the WCIT assessment by Eli Dourado, that Lee forwarded. And which all of you who reacted so viciously to my article, read in complete silence, and perhaps with approval, knowing about the untruths, since many of you were 'on the ground' and have otherwise following the WCIT closely. (BTW, Eli is co-founder of WCITleaks, an outstanding contribution indeed, but at Dubai he was a part of the US delegation, and in the article liberally use the collective 'we' as referring to the US delegation) In the article he says, rather blithely, that 54 countries immediately followed US's position of not signing the treaty. We all know that 54 is the total number of countries who have not (yet) signed the treaty. This number includes those who followed the US and declared they will not sign the treaty (I think no more than 12-20) and those who wanted to go home and consult before making their decision. The important fact in this regard is that in 1988, 75 countries signed later on, after they went home from the meetin. However, the article clearly suggests, 54 countries /*refused to*/ sign the treaty. To quote ' Fifty-four other countries took the same position (as the US), drawing sharp battle lines over the Internet and its future governance. ' Now this is what is called a (extremely) misleading statement, rather, possibly, a lie. And it is this kind of statement that actually conveys a completely wrong picture about a very basic set of facts about the meeting. Then, later on in the article, Eli says, "Sweden said that it would need to consult with its capital (code in UN-speak for “not signing”)" We all know that delegations even when they are on the verge on signing something often seek time to 'consult with the capital'. So, Eli assertion is completely wrong. And if it is on this ignorance that he thought 54 countries than hadnt signed wont sign then well, it is not a lie, but an extremely misleading statement made out of ignorance. Which level of ignorance is however a bit difficult to excuse he being on the ground , part of the US delegation, in the middle of all the talk, but I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt. But it is difficult to give the same benefit of doubt to all those who seem to know so much and who passed this article without raising their grandiose banners about facts and right representation... Similarily, earlier, in a discussion on this list, Peter Hellmonds in his email listed the number 57, which refers to those who havent yet signed, as being "opposed' (to the treaty). Even after I pointed out this misrepresentation he made no corrections... Now this is what is a misleading statement, or, if some people prefer to call it so, a lie.... Just basic English lessons... parminder On Saturday 22 December 2012 12:17 PM, parminder wrote: > > Hopefully we are done with the inquest into figurative and other > meanings of 'walkout', though we all know it was never really about > it. Before I come to what it really is or was about, let me too > indulge a bit on the meaning and context of 'walking out'..... > > 1. When countries declare their disassociation from a ongoing treaty > etc process, it is very often called out as a walkout. Walking out of > trade talks, climate negotiations, doha round of WTO.... Such is a > regular use of the phrase. > > 2. WCIT was an event with the sole objective of negotiating a treaty. > Declaring the intention not to sign the treaty as the process is still > on is called as walking out on or of the process..... That is what the > US did, and that is a walkout. (By the way, the head of US delegation > was reported to use the term 'waking out of WCIT' is a figurative > manner mid way during the conference. Although he later denied he said > what was attibuted to him, the concerned reporter, I think from > CommDay, later confirmed that he had indeed said so.) > > 3. Being from a poor Southern background, I am forced to take the > cover of what an American said. Well, a regular columnist of the New > York Times, Eric Pfanner wrote that US "refused to sign the document > and *left in a huff*"... Did anyone see the US huffing.. Were the > members of the US delegation huffing or the whole country.... Those on > the ground can please let me know. I am really very eager. Avri, Adam, > McTim, Rony..... any one of you know the 'facts' in this case.... > > 4. I knew the vulnerabilities of a poor Southie writing what would get > forwarded to the mighty in the IG space... I knew that the wolves are > out there..... and so, I actually quoted Eric Pfanner in my article. > And it was from his expression that I built the 'walking out' > thing..... Hope, a day will come when we from the post-colonial South > would not need to do such kinds of things to earn legitimacy for > simple facts that otherwise are there for anyone to see..... I must > have read 40-50 articles and statements and postings before I wrote > what I wrote, because, as I said, I knew the wolves will come > pouncing. And they did come in any case, if for nothing else, to > interrogate the use of English language by me.... > > 5. I am sure Terry Kramer himself must have read the NYT article... I > did not see him or anyone else issue angry disclaimers for factual > inaccuracy which they definitely would have if there indeed would have > been one (I mean about 'leaving in a huff'). So, this is a case of the > above mentioned wolves being more loyal then the emperor. Very > worrying tendency for civil society indeed. > > 6. And of course, all of you too read the referred NYT article, which > was forwarded by me with the subject like 'NYT expresses surprise at > US *walkout*'. > > 7. There continues to be many articles in the Northern press using the > term 'US walkout' for what happened, most of them though agreeing with > what the US did, which is not the point here. It is just about the use > of that term and the kind of vicious reaction that it attracted. > > The vicious reaction was of course to forcefully shut up anyone who > but dare give a view or analysis which does not meekly accept the > dominant discourse on the subject - which, in my view is guided and > led by the global political an economic elites, who unfortunately have > been able to build a very loyal following in what is being called as > civil society. As said, I see this as a very disturbing trend. > Therefore the issue is beyond just the uncivility of the response, it > is about what and who do they represent to become so vicious just on > reading an opinion piece that says that US walked out of the treaty > process, and may have made a diplomatic blunder in doing so. > > parminder > > > On Saturday 22 December 2012 09:28 AM, Tracey Naughton wrote: >> Arguing about English is an excluding distraction not conducive to >> the basis of multi-stakeholder dialogue. Sad to see on a CS list. The >> article was an opinion piece. >> >> That said, as someone who remains very interested in the post WSIS >> goings on, I have appreciated the diversity of opinions that have >> emerged to assist me with understanding what actually happened at >> WCIT, so thanks for your enthusiastic discussions. >> >> Tracey Naughton >> Australia >> >> >> On 22 Dec 2012, at 12:22 PM, "michael gurstein" > > wrote: >> >> All of this phony outrage is a bit much… >> >> Being outraged about a zillion dollar corporation not wanting to pay >> its fair share of taxes… that's something to be outraged about… >> >> Being outraged at countries in the North turning their backs on >> agreements to extend broadband access to countries in the South… >> that's something to be outraged about… >> >> Being outraged at countries not willing to sign agreements >> re-interating already agreed to commitments in the area of Human >> Rights… that's something to be outraged about… >> >> But whether the US walked out, tromped out, slid out, or flew out of >> the meeting on gossamer wings (after refusing to sign an agreement >> accepted by 2/3rds of the countries attending) … that seems to me to >> be a matter of the utmost triviality … of interest, dare I say, only >> to those who don't have anything more substantial to argue against… >> >> M >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Koven >> Ronald >> *Sent:* Friday, December 21, 2012 4:27 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> ; lehto.paul at gmail.com >> ; avri at acm.org >> *Cc:* gurstein at gmail.com >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken >> >> What the devil is a "figurative walkout" ? There was >> misrepresentation or factual error. Period. >> >> No reputable media outlet would or should accept that. A correction >> would be in order. >> >> Orwellian language is not in order. >> >> If we can't count on basic intellectual honesty, there is no sense in >> these discussions. >> >> Bests, Rony Koven >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul Lehto > >> To: governance > >; Avri Doria > > >> Cc: michael gurstein > >> Sent: Fri, Dec 21, 2012 9:02 pm >> Subject: Re: [governance] A false consensus is broken >> >> >> But what is truly at issue is not a "fact" like whether someone >> physically locomoted using their legs in order to leave a meeting. >> "Walked out" has both literal and figurative meaning, and Parminder - >> as was obvious to me at least - intended the phrase in a figurative >> way. This should be especially obvious because it was a country >> (having no legs) that walked out, not a specific person. >> >> Since it appears some have appointed themselves inquisitors and made >> a charge of inaccuracy against Parminder, I assert my neutrality (not >> even sure why people are so hot on this), and *appoint myself judge >> and dismiss this claim, *on the grounds that "walked out" has clearly >> figurative meaning and the actual facts, even as alleged by the >> inquisitors, fit without the broad meaning of "walked out". :) >> >> The key word in Michael's question was "pre-occupation." Why the >> _pre-occupation_ with this? It appears that question is unlikely to >> be answered. And I won't rule on it either, since I don't have enough >> facts before me to do so. :) >> >> Paul Lehto, J.D. >> >> PS If anyone has a problem with me being the self-appointed judge >> here, then they should have a very similar problem with those who >> have accused and also called this an open and shut case of "you can't >> have your own facts" - which is just judgment in a different form, >> and a self-appointed judgment at that. In order to reach my >> "judgment" I've looked at the facts in the light most favorable to >> the accused, given the rights of free expression at stake. >> >> All we really have here is what could be a valuable discussion about >> the extent to which there was or wasn't a /figurative/ walk out, and >> that could be enlightening given the personal observations of some on >> the list but which devolved into something more /ad hominem/ in the >> nature of a game of gotcha. >> >> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Avri Doria > > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On 21 Dec 2012, at 10:13, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> > Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a >> journalistic medium... >> > >> > Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn >> of (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... Is this the US Congress/Fox >> News where a fairly comprehensible mispeak can lead to a total >> "gothcha" pre-occupation (the Benghazi "discussions") for purely >> political purposes to the exclusion of substantive debate... >> >> It is simple: >> >> Because you are not permitted to have your own facts. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >> P.O. Box 1 >> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >> lehto.paul at gmail.com >> 906-204-4965 (cell) >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Dec 22 04:58:35 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 10:58:35 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] A false consensus is broken References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> <8CFADF23AEEB9FF-1878-410C8@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> <004501cddfe2$e1f894e0$a5e9bea0$@gmail.com> <4DDC5AF2-5051-4A05-A098-6D653C4869A6@traceynaughton.com> <50D55783.7030108@itforchange.net> <50D561CB.6030405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD7E8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: "Then, later on in the article, Eli says, "Sweden said that it would need to consult with its capital (code in UN-speak for "not signing")" We all know that delegations even when they are on the verge on signing something often seek time to 'consult with the capital'. So, Eli assertion is completely wrong." Wolfgang: Sweden was one of the most critical member states both within the EU consultations and in the plenary. And it was mainly about 5 A & B. "To consult with capital" in the case of Sweden means we will not sign it. The German government said "to consult with stakeholders". You can look at the German civil society (www.netzpolitik.org) what they think about ITR. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Dec 22 05:07:22 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 11:07:22 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] A false consensus is broken References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> <8CFADF23AEEB9FF-1878-410C8@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> <004501cddfe2$e1f894e0$a5e9bea0$@gmail.com> <4DDC5AF2-5051-4A05-A098-6D653C4869A6@traceynaughton.com> <50D55783.7030108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD7E9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: "I knew the vulnerabilities of a poor Southie writing what would get forwarded to the mighty in the IG space... I knew that the wolves are out there..... and so, I actually quoted Eric Pfanner in my article. And it was from his expression that I built the 'walking out' thing..... Hope, a day will come when we from the post-colonial South would not need to do such kinds of things to earn legitimacy for simple facts that otherwise are there for anyone to see..... I must have read 40-50 articles and statements and postings before I wrote what I wrote, because, as I said, I knew the wolves will come pouncing. And they did come in any case, if for nothing else, to interrogate the use of English language by me...." Wolfgang: Nobody wants to censor you. You can write what you want, your are protected by Article 19 and it is good to know and to learn about other perspectives. Nobody has the full truth. And if people are critical this does not mean that they are "wolves". One side says so, the other sides say so. We need plurality and diversity. But once again, there is a difference between text which is a journalistic reflection and text which constitutes a legally binding obligation. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 22 05:17:36 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:47:36 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD7E8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> <8CFADF23AEEB9FF-1878-410C8@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> <004501cddfe2$e1f894e0$a5e9bea0$@gmail.com> <4DDC5AF2-5051-4A05-A098-6D653C4869A6@traceynaughton.com> <50D55783.7030108@itforchange.net> <50D561CB.6030405@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD7E8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <50D588C0.4070901@itforchange.net> Wolfgang, We can carry on this discussion, but please do give me some legitimate quarters... I say that Eli's assertion is completely wrong on this part of the quote "/*...*//*need to consult with its capital (code in UN-speak for "not signing")"*/ as is obviously from what I write subsequently I have no issues with Sweden's stand, and I know they are supporting the US on this. /*Specific point, and please do respond*/ - do you, or dont know, agree that a making a generalised assertion that 'to say we want to consult the capital /*is code UN-speak for "not-signing"*/ is a false and misleading statement to make. (It doesnt matter what Sweden meant by saying this.) And on basis of the wrong assertion, the writer of the article says that 54 countries are backing the US position... Is it not a wrong or misleading statement to make... parminder On Saturday 22 December 2012 03:28 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Parminder: > "Then, later on in the article, Eli says, "Sweden said that it would need to consult with its capital (code in UN-speak for "not signing")" We all know that delegations even when they are on the verge on signing something often seek time to 'consult with the capital'. So, Eli assertion is completely wrong." > > Wolfgang: > Sweden was one of the most critical member states both within the EU consultations and in the plenary. And it was mainly about 5 A & B. "To consult with capital" in the case of Sweden means we will not sign it. The German government said "to consult with stakeholders". You can look at the German civil society (www.netzpolitik.org) what they think about ITR. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 22 05:24:06 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:54:06 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD7E9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <120301cddf82$f01c6e30$d0554a90$@gmail.com> <126b01cddf8d$c2f3c1f0$48db45d0$@gmail.com> <76955FEC-DDFF-4D6A-928A-35E38AF7CD6F@acm.org> <8CFADF23AEEB9FF-1878-410C8@webmail-m003.sysops.aol.com> <004501cddfe2$e1f894e0$a5e9bea0$@gmail.com> <4DDC5AF2-5051-4A05-A098-6D653C4869A6@traceynaughton.com> <50D55783.7030108@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CD7E9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <50D58A46.7040701@itforchange.net> On Saturday 22 December 2012 03:37 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > " > > Wolfgang: > Nobody wants to censor you. You can write what you want, your are protected by Article 19 and it is good to know and to learn about other perspectives. Nobody has the full truth. And if people are critical this does not mean that they are "wolves". One side says so, the other sides say so. We need plurality and diversity. But once again, there is a difference between text which is a journalistic reflection and text which constitutes a legally binding obligation. > Wolfgang, what is it that you are referring to? Can you please make yourself clear.. Why of course there is difference between journalistic text and treaty texts... Where did I say or mean there wasnt ?! Why would I not know this simple thing... Can you be specific. (BTW, great that you are teaching me plurality and diversity... really great! Where were you when Adam, Rony et al were writing those emails to me. How patronizing one can get, really. Sorry I dont need it. Thanks.) 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 nb at bollow.ch Sat Dec 22 07:05:54 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 13:05:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: References: <12bc01cddf99$c7d77930$57866b90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20121222130554.222f6094@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > If IGC doesn't sign on to this, will we be making our own statement > that will come out of Sala's Framework? Given that the WCIT related discourse has become such a prominent part of the Internet Governance related debates, and that a significant amount of IGC effort has already been committed to analysing it, I think that Tim's suggestion is good to use the output of that WCIT analysis effort as a starting point for an IGC statement on WCIT and the revised ITRs and (most importantly, because that is what can be influenced now) how the revised ITRs should be interpreted and implemented. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 22 08:28:19 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 18:58:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <113f01cddf4d$f9bb9b30$ed32d190$@gmail.com> References: <113f01cddf4d$f9bb9b30$ed32d190$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50D5B573.9010903@itforchange.net> Hi Deborah I find the new ITRs largely in keeping with the BestBits pre WCIT statement. So, I dont see why we should decry it. The ITRs speaks everywhere only about telecommunication networks (if you dont think so, pl do point out the relevant part). In Baku we actually did agree that the physical layer of the Internet - implied by general terms like access to broadband etc - can be covered by the ITRs. This understanding was the basis of the agreement on the language that IP layer and above must not be regulated. However, developed countires did not even agree to terms concerned with the physical layer of the Internet - like access to broadband - to be included in the ITRs. This I understand was against what we wanted. So probably we should speak about it. As for the Internet resolution which is not a part of the ITRs but appended to it, this compromise actually appears very symmetric to the the compromise that we reached at the BestBits meeting, whereby the last sentence of our statement read.... "More generally we call upon the ITU to promote principles of net neutrality, open standards, affordable access and universal service, and effective competition. " All/ most of these issues are Internet issues. In fact, although the BestBit statement was open to it, the physical layer of the Internet was no included in the ITRs, how we can now criticise its inclusion even in an appended resolution. Why is your proposed statement speaking against the 'Internet resolution' that is not even part of the ITRs. We should welcome it since it correspond to the manner in which we structured our own statement. Quoting from your proposed statement "We regret that an Internet governance-related resolution has been included in the Final Acts of WCIT" When the proposed statement says "We are also concerned by the lack of clarity around the applicability of the treaty, which as defined could have unforeseen consequences for an open internet, and the lack of specificity in key terms, such as security, which may negatively impact the public's rights to privacy and freedom of expression." Can you specify what clarity would we have wanted to be included. The preamble says 'content is not included', it says, the ITRs will be implemented in a manner that respects and upholds human rights. What else could have been written in the form of clarifying text. Can you please state some specifics in this regard. It is extremely rare that civil society makes a statement of expectations from an global meeting/ treaty and than the meeting/ treaty actually meets those expectations to the extent that the new ITRs meet the expectations of the BestBits statement. This is how I look at it but I am ready to hear the views of others and discuss the matter further. The proposed statement uses selectively text from the BestBits statement and in this respect seem to take forward the same initiative, which is quite misleading. As I said, I disagree with the assessment presented in the proposed statement of the correlation of the BEstBits statement with the new ITRs. I see the correlation as largely positive. Therefore it would not be right for the proposed statement to selectively quote in the manner it does from the BestBits statement and make its case based on that quotation . The BestBits statement is the common ownership of those who signed it, and as one of signatories I object to the manner in which the proposed statement selectively quotes the BestBits statement, without giving the full picture. If you indeed want to go ahead with the statement please remove those quotes from the besbits statement. In the end, It is disappointing that while a civil society group got together to draft a pre WCIT statement, a post WCIT statement is being presented by a good number of participants of that group as a fait accompli, and was not developed together in this group. On the other hand, of course any group has a right to issue its own statement. However, I do appeal to those managing the Bestbits group at present to see if we can draft a BestBits statement on WCIT outcomes. Also, agreeing with Micheal, the proposed statement cannot use the term 'civil society in a generic manner, as if it represents 'the' civil society. Willing to talk further on the above issues. Thanks and best regards, parminder *From:* bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Deborah Brown *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:09 PM *To:* wcit12 at cdt.org; ; AfriCS-IG *Subject:* [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT Dear all, As a follow up to the civil society letter to WCIT (https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM) that a number of organizations on this list have signed on to, civil society representatives in Dubai drafted a statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement. The text of the statement is pasted below. This statement assesses the opportunities and challenges faced by civil society at WCIT and sets out shortcomings we would like to see addressed to achieve meaningful civil society participation at the ITU moving forward. It is meant to be complementary to other post-WCIT civil society statements that focus on the substance of the ITRs. We would very much like to secure sign on from your organization. We feel that there is a strategic importance of having this communication with the ITU Secretariat on record as we look to future conversations/events. Though the timing is not ideal, we plan to publish this statement with the list of signatories and send a copy to the ITU on Monday. Therefore,_we request that you reply to this email by 0900 EST/1400 UTC on Monday, January 24 if you would like to sign on_. Like with the earlier letter, we will leave the statement open for sign on and update the list of signatories regularly. I will send out a publicly accessible link with the statement and list of signatories on Monday for people to post and circulate, but it would also be great to discuss ways to draw attention to this statement in the New Year. Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for your attention to this. Warm wishes over the holidays. Best regards, Deborah *Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement* December 21, 2012 Civil society is disappointed that the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in revising the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). We understand, however, the serious concerns that a number of governments have expressed with regard to the potential impact of the new regulations. As civil society stated in its Best Bits statement, a key criterion for ITRs should be that "any proposed revisions are confined to the traditional scope of the ITRs" and "where international regulation is required around technical issues [it] is limited to telecommunications networks and interoperability standards." We regret that an Internet governance-related resolution has been included in the Final Acts of WCIT, despite assertions by many that WCIT was not about Internet governance. We are also concerned by the lack of clarity around the applicability of the treaty, which as defined could have unforeseen consequences for an open internet, and the lack of specificity in key terms, such as security, which may negatively impact the public's rights to privacy and freedom of expression. This said, civil society would like to acknowledge and thank those governments that opened their delegations to members of civil society and other stakeholder groups. This was a very important initial step in establishing a civil society voice in the proceedings and we trust that it signals a wider commitment to multi-stakeholder approaches in public policy development and decision-making on telecommunications and Internet-related matters. We trust that this openness and inclusive approach will continue and extend to upcoming ITU-related work and beyond, and we urge other governments to welcome and engage with civil society going forward. As we communicated to ITU Secretary General Touré, we also commend the ITU on first steps towards greater transparency and openness with regard to access to and webcasting of plenary sessions and Committee 5 sessions, as well as soliciting public submissions. These initial steps enabled civil society to play a constructive, albeit limited, role at the WCIT. However there remain serious limitations to engaging with the ITU. The substantive policy deliberations in working groups were neither webcast nor open to unaffiliated civil society. Further, while it is positive that the ITU opened the process to public comment, these comments were never part of the official record. We raised both of these challenges with the Secretary General, in writing and in person, and he committed to addressing these concerns and appealing to member states, as appropriate. Although the WCIT has concluded, we renew our request to have the public comments submitted as official ITU documents to capture these positions for the historical record. We also raised the issue of the lack of any institutional mechanism for civil society participation at the ITU. While the participation of civil society representatives in government delegations benefits both the delegations and the WCIT's deliberations as a whole, it cannot substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We will be following up on these important matters with the Secretary General and welcome his commitment to considering institutional remedies to this challenge. Looking forward, civil society seeks to work with governments and other stakeholders around the globe towards an ever more inclusive and substantive multi-stakeholder engagement on telecommunications, Internet, and related matters. Much more needs to be done with regard to opening the ITU to greater genuine multi-stakeholder participation and in particular independent civil society participation - institutional change will need to occur and we will work with the ITU and other stakeholders to bring this about. These changes are vitally important and need to be addressed as soon as possible given the upcoming 2013 World Telecommunication Policy Forum, World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+10) and 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Dec 22 08:43:42 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:43:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <20121222130554.222f6094@quill.bollow.ch> References: <12bc01cddf99$c7d77930$57866b90$@gmail.com> <20121222130554.222f6094@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <8B3089C3-3F77-493C-8544-C6523196F5F4@ella.com> As the IGC is as divided, if not more, than the WCIT itself, I do not see how it is possible for this group to come up with a consensus statement on the WCIT. avri On 22 Dec 2012, at 07:05, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote: > >> If IGC doesn't sign on to this, will we be making our own statement >> that will come out of Sala's Framework? > > Given that the WCIT related discourse has become such a prominent part > of the Internet Governance related debates, and that a significant > amount of IGC effort has already been committed to analysing it, I > think that Tim's suggestion is good to use the output of that WCIT > analysis effort as a starting point for an IGC statement on WCIT and > the revised ITRs and (most importantly, because that is what can be > influenced now) how the revised ITRs should be interpreted and > implemented. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nb at bollow.ch Sat Dec 22 09:05:07 2012 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:05:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <8B3089C3-3F77-493C-8544-C6523196F5F4@ella.com> References: <12bc01cddf99$c7d77930$57866b90$@gmail.com> <20121222130554.222f6094@quill.bollow.ch> <8B3089C3-3F77-493C-8544-C6523196F5F4@ella.com> Message-ID: <20121222150507.16bb7eea@quill.bollow.ch> Avri Doria wrote: > As the IGC is as divided, if not more, than the WCIT itself, I do not > see how it is possible for this group to come up with a consensus > statement on the WCIT. Even if it turns out that regarding this topic area there are more disagreements than agreements among global civil society, it would IMO be worthwhile to explain in a statement what the important agreements and disagreements are within civil society. The situation is that there are less diverse collections of civil society groups who don't hesitate to communicate their viewpoints, more or less intentionally giving the false impression that the perspective which they present is "the" civil society viewpoint. It is IMO not appropriate for the IGC to react to this situation by being simply silent. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at ella.com Sat Dec 22 10:33:41 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 10:33:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <20121222150507.16bb7eea@quill.bollow.ch> References: <12bc01cddf99$c7d77930$57866b90$@gmail.com> <20121222130554.222f6094@quill.bollow.ch> <8B3089C3-3F77-493C-8544-C6523196F5F4@ella.com> <20121222150507.16bb7eea@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <594FEB20-9E93-423B-AB4C-2309A643DCE6@ella.com> If you can get consensus on that statement, more power to you. Personally I have my doubts, especially because I beleive our IGC self appointed jurists and ideological purists who have taken it upon themselves to police the IGC of late, will heap sophism, preachings and scorn on all who disagree with them. avri On 22 Dec 2012, at 09:05, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > >> As the IGC is as divided, if not more, than the WCIT itself, I do not >> see how it is possible for this group to come up with a consensus >> statement on the WCIT. > > Even if it turns out that regarding this topic area there are more > disagreements than agreements among global civil society, it would IMO > be worthwhile to explain in a statement what the important agreements > and disagreements are within civil society. > > The situation is that there are less diverse collections of civil > society groups who don't hesitate to communicate their viewpoints, more > or less intentionally giving the false impression that the perspective > which they present is "the" civil society viewpoint. > > It is IMO not appropriate for the IGC to react to this situation by > being simply silent. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 11:37:35 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 08:37:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] US Amb: WCIT-12 Post Script Message-ID: <021701cde062$a65fde90$f31f9bb0$@gmail.com> http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/wcit_2012 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 13:16:46 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 10:16:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] Post WCIT Sign On Letter Message-ID: <002901cde070$814a1f90$83de5eb0$@gmail.com> Would there be any disagreement with a post-WCIT signon letter updating and re-contextualizing (post-WCIT) the BestBits statement? Statement of civil society members and groups participating in the "Best Bits" pre-IGF meeting at Baku in 2012 We thank the Secretariat of the ITU for making the opportunity to submit our views. Nevertheless, the process of the revision of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) has not been sufficiently inclusive and transparent, despite some recent efforts to facilitate public participation. Fundamental to the framing of public policy must be the pursuit of the public interest and fundamental human rights, and we urge Member States to uphold and protect these values. We as civil society organizations wish to engage with the World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) process in this spirit. Member States, in most cases, have not held open, broad-based, public consultations in the lead up to the WCIT, nor have they indicated such a process for the WCIT itself. In order to address this deficiency, and at a minimum, we would urge: All Member States and regional groups to make their proposals available to the public in sufficient time to allow for meaningful public participation; All delegates to support proposals to open sessions of the WCIT meeting to the public; The ITU Secretariat to increase transparency of the WCIT including live webcast with the video, audio, and text transcripts, as far as possible, to enable participation by all, including persons with disabilities; The ITU Secretariat, Member States, and regional groups to make as much documentation publicly available as possible on the ITU's website, so that civil society can provide substantive input on proposals as they are made available; Member States to encourage and facilitate civil society participation in their national delegations; The ITU to create spaces during the WCIT for civil society to express their views, as was done during the WSIS process. Given the uncertainty about the nature of final proposals that will be presented, we urge delegates that the following criteria be applied to any proposed revisions of the ITRs: That any proposed revisions are confined to the traditional scope of the ITRs, where international regulation is required around technical issues is limited to telecommunications networks and interoperability standards. There should be no revisions to the ITRs that involve regulation of the Internet Protocol and the layers above. There should be no revisions that could have a negative impact on affordable access to the Internet or the public's rights to privacy and freedom of expression. More generally we call upon the ITU to promote principles of net neutrality, open standards, affordable access and universal service, and effective competition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 13:20:57 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 10:20:57 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: Post WCIT Sign On Letter + Endorsers Message-ID: <002e01cde071$170285e0$450791a0$@gmail.com> I should have included the URL with the list of endorsers/sign-ons. http://bestbits.igf-online.net/statement/ M From: michael gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:17 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Post WCIT Sign On Letter Would there be any disagreement with a post-WCIT signon letter updating and re-contextualizing (post-WCIT) the BestBits statement? Statement of civil society members and groups participating in the "Best Bits" pre-IGF meeting at Baku in 2012 We thank the Secretariat of the ITU for making the opportunity to submit our views. Nevertheless, the process of the revision of the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs) has not been sufficiently inclusive and transparent, despite some recent efforts to facilitate public participation. Fundamental to the framing of public policy must be the pursuit of the public interest and fundamental human rights, and we urge Member States to uphold and protect these values. We as civil society organizations wish to engage with the World Conference on International Telecommunication (WCIT) process in this spirit. Member States, in most cases, have not held open, broad-based, public consultations in the lead up to the WCIT, nor have they indicated such a process for the WCIT itself. In order to address this deficiency, and at a minimum, we would urge: All Member States and regional groups to make their proposals available to the public in sufficient time to allow for meaningful public participation; All delegates to support proposals to open sessions of the WCIT meeting to the public; The ITU Secretariat to increase transparency of the WCIT including live webcast with the video, audio, and text transcripts, as far as possible, to enable participation by all, including persons with disabilities; The ITU Secretariat, Member States, and regional groups to make as much documentation publicly available as possible on the ITU's website, so that civil society can provide substantive input on proposals as they are made available; Member States to encourage and facilitate civil society participation in their national delegations; The ITU to create spaces during the WCIT for civil society to express their views, as was done during the WSIS process. Given the uncertainty about the nature of final proposals that will be presented, we urge delegates that the following criteria be applied to any proposed revisions of the ITRs: That any proposed revisions are confined to the traditional scope of the ITRs, where international regulation is required around technical issues is limited to telecommunications networks and interoperability standards. There should be no revisions to the ITRs that involve regulation of the Internet Protocol and the layers above. There should be no revisions that could have a negative impact on affordable access to the Internet or the public's rights to privacy and freedom of expression. More generally we call upon the ITU to promote principles of net neutrality, open standards, affordable access and universal service, and effective competition. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 14:16:44 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:16:44 +1300 Subject: [governance] Re: 2013 Preparations for MAG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, This is a summary of the discussions and a general status update. The consultations went into a recess on 26th November, 2012. I would encourage you to continue with the discussions on the topic. I would like to thank Baudouin Schombe for volunteering to help prepare this Summary. If there are any other volunteers who would like to help in formulating the first Draft, please let us know by responding to this thread. Kind Regards, Sala *Summary 1. IGF should run for 5 days instead of 4 2. Selection of Venue [Criteria for selection] 1. IGF Secretariat needs to call for expressions of interest from Host countries in advance; 2. Host countries should meet certain predetermined criteria; 3. Criteria should include suitability of location -conference facilities, wifi access, open environment that enables discourse; 4. Improvements to the MAG [see CSTD discussions on IGF improvements] 5. Logistical support in terms of visa procurements 6. Identification of location [accessibility challenges when held outside the City] 1. Main Session 1. Time spent on main sessions should be halved and reduced to a day 2. Workshops are a sideshow, main sessions are the main event (or should be). Workshops and main sessions should not overlap . Lessons can be learnt from other Internet governance events such as APRICOT, which are scheduled in this way. 3. Every main session needs to build upon or do anything substantive with the so-called feeder workshops. The content of plenaries/main sessions somehow reflect and build upon what has gone on before. 4. Main Sessions should have deliverables such as Resolutions or outcomes. 1. Planning for Workshops 1. Proper Planning of pre-IGF events; 2. Evaluation of existing criteria 1. Focus on Quality 2. Focus on Issues 3. Gender balance; 4. Regional representation; 5. Multi-stakeholder balance; 1. Logistical Support for People from Developing Countries 2. Logistical Visa Support There should be balance between balancing participants access and country immigration policies. 1. Internet Connectivity Policy (precondition for Host Countries) 1. An onsite liaison officer from the Host Country’s ISP; 2. Suitable redundancy plans; 3. Dedicated Bandwidth to service 2000 people with 6000 devices (assuming that each person has 3 devices) 4. Dedicated Bandwidth for remote participation; 5. Dedicated Bandwidth for remote participation; 6. A specialised Unit -Internet Infrastructure Team whose responsibilities should include facilitating the Policy; [Tender should be issued and this should be outsourced to professional vendor of conference networking services]; 7. Service Level Agreement and standard of networking across events. 1. Shift of Venue for MAG consultations without open consultations and impact on participation. 2. At present, the IGF consultation and MAG are scheduled in the same week (13-17 May) as not on only the WSIS Forum, per usual, but also the ITU's World Telecom Policy Forum on global Internet governance. Were stakeholders with an interest in IG were precluded from attending the WTPF by this scheduling. SCHEDULE AND STATUS UPDATE DateTaskStatus25 Nov 2012Issue Notice to IGC and Gather Feedback Notice was issued and feedback is trickling in15 Jan 2013Formulate first Draft16 Jan - 30 Jan 2013Review first Draft and gather feedback 31 Jan - 5th Feb 2013Produce 2nd Draft6th Feb - 10th Feb 2013Finalise Submissions from IGC11th Feb 2013Send to IGF Secretariat and representatives to MAG **Volunteers Baudouin Schombe Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro* * * *Kind Regards,* *Sala * On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > We need to start preparing for issues and topics that we would like raised > by current MAG members. > > The Secretariat has put up a call for contributions on the IGF website > inviting stakeholders to submit written contributions taking stock of the > 2012 Baku meeting and inviting suggestions on the themes and format of the > IGF 2013 meeting. The deadline for contributions is *14 February 2012*. > These inputs will be summarized in a synthesis paper that will act as an > input into the discussions of the February meeting. > > The IGC Plan is as follows: > > 25 Nov 2012 - Issue Notice to IGC > > 25 Nov 2012 - 15 January, 2013 - Gather Feedback and formulate first draft > > 16-Jan -30 Jan 2013 - Review first Draft and gather feedback > > 31 Jan - 5th February 2013 - Produce 2nd Draft > 6th Feb - 10th February - Finalise submissions from IGC > 11th Feb - Send to IGF Secretariat and our representatives to the MAG > > > It will be great to start discussions on what some of the themes we would > like canvassed. > > Warm Regards > > > -- > 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 salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Dec 22 14:42:40 2012 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:42:40 +1300 Subject: [governance] World Summit on the Information Society Forum 2013 [WSIS 2013 Call for Volunteers for IGC Working Group] Message-ID: Dear All, The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2013 will be jointly organized by UNESCO, ITU, UNCTAD and UNDP in Geneva, Switzerland, from 13 to 17 May 2013. It would be good to ascertain how many from the IGC plan on attending the WSIS 2013 and will be hosting Workshops? We will also begin preparations of preparing an Official Contribution prior to 21st January 2013. As such I would like to make an open call for volunteers who are interested in a Working Group that will comprise of those who will attend physically and those who will participate remotely in the WSIS. The Working Group will be responsible in consolidating ideas from the IGC and preparing for the WSIS, hosting workshops and also submitting the Official documents for the IGC. The deadline for the official contributions and binding requests for workshops will need to be finalised before 10th January, 2012 at 10.00pm UTC +12and put to the IGC for open consultations till 14th January, 2012 at 10.00pm UTC+12 . The Working Group will have 48 hours to prepare a Draft by 16th January, 2012. This will then be put again to the IGC for final review and edits. The Chairs will be expected to provide a short brief report and submit the Official Contribution on behalf of the IGC to the WSIS 2013. See: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/events/all-events/?tx_browser_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=5560&cHash=04dad58b71 or http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2013/forum/ *WSIS 2013 Schedule* * * Phase I - 8 October 2012 - Opening of the Open Consultations • Online Dialogues • Official Submissions Form Phase II - 16 November 2012 - First Physical Meeting, 15h00-18h00, Room H, ITU Headquarters, Geneva Phase III - 21 January 2013 - Deadline for the submission of the Official Contributions and binding requests for Workshops Phase IV - 15 February 2013 - Final Review Meeting Phase V - 16 April 2013 - Final Brief -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862Suva 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 peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Sat Dec 22 20:28:18 2012 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 02:28:18 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> Message-ID: <010301cde0ac$c9f81d50$5de857f0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Hi Avri, You wrote: > Which ITU treaty or ITU standard defines what "Unsolicited bulk communications" means? Your question got me searching and I found something: In ITU RESOLUTION 130 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010) http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/resoultions_2010/PP-10/RESOLUTION_130.pdf on "Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the use of information and communication technologies", there is a reference saying "that although there are no universally agreed upon definitions of spam and other terms in this sphere, spam was characterized by ITU-T Study Group 2, at its June 2006 session, as a term commonly used to describe unsolicited electronic bulk communications over e-mail or mobile messaging (SMS, MMS), usually with the objective of marketing commercial products or services" It may not be a treaty or a standard, but exemplifies the way this is considered. Is this helpful to the discussion? Best, Peter -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: 17 December 2012 18:31 An: IGC Betreff: Re: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty On 15 Dec 2012, at 13:04, Roland Perry wrote: > The anti-spam industry, and several privacy laws worldwide, have established beyond doubt what 'Unsolicited bulk communications' means for over a decade. There's no need to start new hares running. Exactly where are these well established definitions? Which ITU treaty or ITU standard defines what "Unsolicited bulk communications" means? And I have not the faintest idea what you mean when you speak of 'hares running.' 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 peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Sat Dec 22 20:41:05 2012 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 02:41:05 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> Message-ID: <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Another very explicit reference can be found in a paper titled ITU WSIS THEMATIC MEETING ON COUNTERING SPAM - SPAM IN THE INFORMATION SOCIETY: BUILDING FRAMEWORKS FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Background%20Paper_Building%20 frameworks%20for%20Intl%20Cooperation.pdf ("This paper was prepared by Claudia Sarrocco, Policy Analyst, International Telecommunication Union, for the ITU World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Thematic Meeting on Countering Spam. The annex was compiled by Cristina Bueti, ITU. This meeting was organized under the ITU New Initiatives Programme of the Office of the Secretary-General of the ITU.") There are a number of references throughout the text, notably under heading 2.1 "What is spam?": "Several stakeholders have given definitions of spam, and although there are common points, there is still no universally accepted definition. Broadly speaking, spam includes all electronic messages that are unsolicited or unwanted, sent to a large number of users (bulk) without regard to the identity of the individual user, usually having commercial purposes, and that can include viruses that propagate via e-mail, or fraud and scam mechanisms." -- Peter -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Peter H. Hellmonds [mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu] Gesendet: 23 December 2012 02:28 An: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Avri Doria' Betreff: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty Hi Avri, You wrote: > Which ITU treaty or ITU standard defines what "Unsolicited bulk communications" means? Your question got me searching and I found something: In ITU RESOLUTION 130 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010) http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/resoultions_2010/PP-10/RESOLUTION_130.pdf on "Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the use of information and communication technologies", there is a reference saying "that although there are no universally agreed upon definitions of spam and other terms in this sphere, spam was characterized by ITU-T Study Group 2, at its June 2006 session, as a term commonly used to describe unsolicited electronic bulk communications over e-mail or mobile messaging (SMS, MMS), usually with the objective of marketing commercial products or services" It may not be a treaty or a standard, but exemplifies the way this is considered. Is this helpful to the discussion? Best, Peter -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: 17 December 2012 18:31 An: IGC Betreff: Re: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty On 15 Dec 2012, at 13:04, Roland Perry wrote: > The anti-spam industry, and several privacy laws worldwide, have established beyond doubt what 'Unsolicited bulk communications' means for over a decade. There's no need to start new hares running. Exactly where are these well established definitions? Which ITU treaty or ITU standard defines what "Unsolicited bulk communications" means? And I have not the faintest idea what you mean when you speak of 'hares running.' 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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Dec 22 21:02:28 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 07:32:28 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: <010301cde0ac$c9f81d50$5de857f0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <010301cde0ac$c9f81d50$5de857f0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: <8157935A-1BBC-474E-9685-CBB27A754144@hserus.net> Spam is generally content neutral, with unsolicited and bulk being the key tests So, wih "usually" implying that there can be non commercial spam, it is a definition tht antispam activists as well as the industry should be able to live with. We do have to see how far this gels with individual laws in various countries though. For example there is a specific exemption carved out for political email in the US CAN SPAM act. So while that is a useful operative distinction of what spam is, it is not something that I would support being put into an international treaty. --srs (iPad) On 23-Dec-2012, at 6:58, "Peter H. Hellmonds" wrote: > Hi Avri, > > You wrote: >> Which ITU treaty or ITU standard defines what "Unsolicited bulk > communications" means? > > Your question got me searching and I found something: > > In ITU RESOLUTION 130 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010) > http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/resoultions_2010/PP-10/RESOLUTION_130.pdf > on "Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the > use of information and communication technologies", there is a reference > saying "that although there are no universally agreed upon definitions of > spam and other terms in this sphere, spam was characterized by ITU-T Study > Group 2, at its June 2006 session, as a term commonly used to describe > unsolicited electronic bulk communications over e-mail or mobile messaging > (SMS, MMS), usually with the objective of marketing commercial products or > services" > > It may not be a treaty or a standard, but exemplifies the way this is > considered. > > Is this helpful to the discussion? > > Best, > Peter > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: 17 December 2012 18:31 > An: IGC > Betreff: Re: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet > treaty > > > On 15 Dec 2012, at 13:04, Roland Perry wrote: > >> The anti-spam industry, and several privacy laws worldwide, have > established beyond doubt what 'Unsolicited bulk communications' means for > over a decade. There's no need to start new hares running. > > > Exactly where are these well established definitions? > Which ITU treaty or ITU standard defines what "Unsolicited bulk > communications" means? > > And I have not the faintest idea what you mean when you speak of 'hares > running.' > > avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sat Dec 22 21:05:42 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 07:35:42 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: That was from the heyday of the ITU actually engaging deeply with civil society and industry for those meetings, under bob shaw. 2005 or 2006 I would say, Claudia has not been in ITU for a very long time. The use of stakeholders is quite appropriate there, I saw several stakeholders from across the antispam community including civil society at those meetings --srs (iPad) On 23-Dec-2012, at 7:11, "Peter H. Hellmonds" wrote: > > Another very explicit reference can be found in a paper titled > ITU WSIS THEMATIC MEETING ON COUNTERING SPAM - SPAM IN THE INFORMATION > SOCIETY: BUILDING FRAMEWORKS FOR INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION > http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/spam/contributions/Background%20Paper_Building%20 > frameworks%20for%20Intl%20Cooperation.pdf > > ("This paper was prepared by Claudia Sarrocco, Policy Analyst, International > Telecommunication Union, for the ITU World Summit on the Information Society > (WSIS) Thematic Meeting on Countering Spam. The annex was compiled by > Cristina Bueti, ITU. This meeting was organized under the ITU New > Initiatives Programme of the Office of the Secretary-General of the ITU.") > > There are a number of references throughout the text, notably under heading > 2.1 "What is spam?": > > "Several stakeholders have given definitions of spam, and although there are > common points, there is still no universally accepted definition. Broadly > speaking, spam includes all electronic messages that are unsolicited or > unwanted, sent to a large number of users (bulk) without regard to the > identity of the individual user, usually having commercial purposes, and > that can include viruses that propagate via e-mail, or fraud and scam > mechanisms." > > -- Peter > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Peter H. Hellmonds [mailto:peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu] > Gesendet: 23 December 2012 02:28 > An: 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org'; 'Avri Doria' > Betreff: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet > treaty > > Hi Avri, > > You wrote: >> Which ITU treaty or ITU standard defines what "Unsolicited bulk > communications" means? > > Your question got me searching and I found something: > > In ITU RESOLUTION 130 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010) > http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/resoultions_2010/PP-10/RESOLUTION_130.pdf > on "Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the > use of information and communication technologies", there is a reference > saying "that although there are no universally agreed upon definitions of > spam and other terms in this sphere, spam was characterized by ITU-T Study > Group 2, at its June 2006 session, as a term commonly used to describe > unsolicited electronic bulk communications over e-mail or mobile messaging > (SMS, MMS), usually with the objective of marketing commercial products or > services" > > It may not be a treaty or a standard, but exemplifies the way this is > considered. > > Is this helpful to the discussion? > > Best, > Peter > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: 17 December 2012 18:31 > An: IGC > Betreff: Re: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet > treaty > > > On 15 Dec 2012, at 13:04, Roland Perry wrote: > >> The anti-spam industry, and several privacy laws worldwide, have > established beyond doubt what 'Unsolicited bulk communications' means for > over a decade. There's no need to start new hares running. > > > Exactly where are these well established definitions? > Which ITU treaty or ITU standard defines what "Unsolicited bulk > communications" means? > > And I have not the faintest idea what you mean when you speak of 'hares > running.' > > avri > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 deborah at accessnow.org Sat Dec 22 22:20:02 2012 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 22:20:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: <50D5B573.9010903@itforchange.net> References: <113f01cddf4d$f9bb9b30$ed32d190$@gmail.com> <50D5B573.9010903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Thank you very much for this detailed response. As I wrote to Michael, and I would like to reiterate here, this statement was neither meant to speak on behalf of "civil society" as a whole, nor the BestBits group in full. I see how it might be read this way, and I have proposed to go back to the group that drafted it with edits that would clarify exactly who this statement is on behalf of. I think it might also help here to give a bit more information on the origin and intended purpose of this statement. As you are aware, a number of civil society representatives in Dubai met with SG Touré during WCIT and had presented him with concerns regarding limitations civil society participation (both in person and remotely). They presented him with a letter, which around 70 civil society orgs/individuals, including IT for Change, signed onto. After the meeting, there was a general sense that it was of strategic importance to follow up with the ITU post-WCIT to hold the SG to the commitments that he made. That is the primary purpose of the letter. Most of your criticism seems focused on the first two paragraphs of the statement, which relate to the content of the ITRs and BestBits, not the following five paragraphs, which deal with civil society participation. Is that correct? In the immediate post-WCIT environment, it seemed necessary to take into account the new treaty in this statement. Referring to the BestBits statement in reacting to the new ITRs seemed like the natural and right thing to do, but it was most certainly not meant to speak on behalf of the BestBits group. There are of course a variety of different views on WCIT, so it is understandable that there may be disagreement among BestBits signatories on how the new treaty measures against the BestBits statement. But as you suggest, initiating that conversation within the BestBits group may be valuable. Since as you note, the BestBits statement is the common ownership of those who signed it, and as a signatory you object to the use of selective quotations, I will go back to the group of signatories of this post-WCIT statement with two options: one essentially removing the first two paragraphs, and mentions of BestBits so that it is a statement on civil society participation only; and the second with the current text with the minor, but critical change of adding "the undersigned members of" before any mention of civil society. If everyone who has signed the current version is equally satisfied with the new version (first option) then we can go with the narrower statement. I hope you appreciate that with around 20 signatories, I'm not in a position to make substantive edits to the text unilaterally. But I am happy to go back to the signatories and offer an option that would seem to satisfy your criticism. I also hope that the intention behind this statement is more clear now. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this approach and to continuing the discussion. Kind regards, Deborah On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:28 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi Deborah > > I find the new ITRs largely in keeping with the BestBits pre WCIT > statement. So, I dont see why we should decry it. The ITRs speaks > everywhere only about telecommunication networks (if you dont think so, pl > do point out the relevant part). In Baku we actually did agree that the > physical layer of the Internet - implied by general terms like access to > broadband etc - can be covered by the ITRs. This understanding was the > basis of the agreement on the language that IP layer and above must not be > regulated. However, developed countires did not even agree to terms > concerned with the physical layer of the Internet - like access to > broadband - to be included in the ITRs. This I understand was against what > we wanted. So probably we should speak about it. > > As for the Internet resolution which is not a part of the ITRs but > appended to it, this compromise actually appears very symmetric to the the > compromise that we reached at the BestBits meeting, whereby the last > sentence of our statement read.... > > "More generally we call upon the ITU to promote principles of net > neutrality, open standards, affordable access and universal service, and > effective competition. " > > All/ most of these issues are Internet issues. In fact, although the > BestBit statement was open to it, the physical layer of the Internet was no > included in the ITRs, how we can now criticise its inclusion even in an > appended resolution. Why is your proposed statement speaking against the > 'Internet resolution' that is not even part of the ITRs. We should welcome > it since it correspond to the manner in which we structured our own > statement. Quoting from your proposed statement "We regret that an Internet > governance-related resolution has been included in the Final Acts of WCIT" > > When the proposed statement says > > "We are also concerned by the lack of clarity around the applicability of > the treaty, which as defined could have unforeseen consequences for an open > internet, and the lack of specificity in key terms, such as security, which > may negatively impact the public’s rights to privacy and freedom of > expression." > > Can you specify what clarity would we have wanted to be included. The > preamble says 'content is not included', it says, the ITRs will be > implemented in a manner that respects and upholds human rights. What else > could have been written in the form of clarifying text. Can you please > state some specifics in this regard. > > It is extremely rare that civil society makes a statement of expectations > from an global meeting/ treaty and than the meeting/ treaty actually meets > those expectations to the extent that the new ITRs meet the expectations of > the BestBits statement. This is how I look at it but I am ready to hear the > views of others and discuss the matter further. > > The proposed statement uses selectively text from the BestBits statement > and in this respect seem to take forward the same initiative, which is > quite misleading. As I said, I disagree with the assessment presented in > the proposed statement of the correlation of the BEstBits statement with > the new ITRs. I see the correlation as largely positive. > > Therefore it would not be right for the proposed statement to selectively > quote in the manner it does from the BestBits statement and make its case > based on that quotation . The BestBits statement is the common ownership of > those who signed it, and as one of signatories I object to the manner in > which the proposed statement selectively quotes the BestBits statement, > without giving the full picture. If you indeed want to go ahead with the > statement please remove those quotes from the besbits statement. > > In the end, It is disappointing that while a civil society group got > together to draft a pre WCIT statement, a post WCIT statement is being > presented by a good number of participants of that group as a fait > accompli, and was not developed together in this group. On the other hand, > of course any group has a right to issue its own statement. However, I do > appeal to those managing the Bestbits group at present to see if we can > draft a BestBits statement on WCIT outcomes. > > Also, agreeing with Micheal, the proposed statement cannot use the term > 'civil society in a generic manner, as if it represents 'the' civil > society. > > Willing to talk further on the above issues. > > Thanks and best regards, parminder > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > *On Behalf Of *Deborah Brown > > *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:09 PM > *To:* wcit12 at cdt.org; ; > AfriCS-IG > *Subject:* [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement > post-WCIT**** > > ** ** > > Dear all, **** > > ** ** > > As a follow up to the civil society letter to WCIT ( > https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM) > that a number of organizations on this list have signed on to, civil > society representatives in Dubai drafted a statement on the new ITRs and > the future of multi-stakeholder engagement. The text of the statement is > pasted below.**** > > This statement assesses the opportunities and challenges faced by civil > society at WCIT and sets out shortcomings we would like to see addressed to > achieve meaningful civil society participation at the ITU moving forward. > It is meant to be complementary to other post-WCIT civil society statements > that focus on the substance of the ITRs. **** > > We would very much like to secure sign on from your organization. We feel > that there is a strategic importance of having this communication with the > ITU Secretariat on record as we look to future conversations/events. Though > the timing is not ideal, we plan to publish this statement with the list of > signatories and send a copy to the ITU on Monday. Therefore,* we request > that you reply to this email by 0900 EST/1400 UTC on Monday, January 24 if > you would like to sign on*. Like with the earlier letter, we will leave > the statement open for sign on and update the list of > signatories regularly. I will send out a publicly accessible link with the > statement and list of signatories on Monday for people to post and > circulate, but it would also be great to discuss ways to draw attention to > this statement in the New Year.**** > > Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for your > attention to this. Warm wishes over the holidays.**** > > Best regards,**** > > Deborah **** > > ** ** > > *Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of > multi-stakeholder engagement***** > > December 21, 2012**** > > Civil society is disappointed that the World Conference on International > Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to consensus in revising the > International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs). We understand, > however, the serious concerns that a number of governments have expressed > with regard to the potential impact of the new regulations.**** > > As civil society stated in its Best Bits statement, a key criterion for > ITRs should be that “any proposed revisions are confined to the traditional > scope of the ITRs” and “where international regulation is required around > technical issues [it] is limited to telecommunications networks and > interoperability standards.” We regret that an Internet governance-related > resolution has been included in the Final Acts of WCIT, despite assertions > by many that WCIT was not about Internet governance. We are also concerned > by the lack of clarity around the applicability of the treaty, which as > defined could have unforeseen consequences for an open internet, and the > lack of specificity in key terms, such as security, which may negatively > impact the public’s rights to privacy and freedom of expression.**** > > This said, civil society would like to acknowledge and thank those > governments that opened their delegations to members of civil society and > other stakeholder groups. This was a very important initial step in > establishing a civil society voice in the proceedings and we trust that it > signals a wider commitment to multi-stakeholder approaches in public policy > development and decision-making on telecommunications and Internet-related > matters. We trust that this openness and inclusive approach will continue > and extend to upcoming ITU-related work and beyond, and we urge other > governments to welcome and engage with civil society going forward.**** > > As we communicated to ITU Secretary General Touré, we also commend the ITU > on first steps towards greater transparency and openness with regard to > access to and webcasting of plenary sessions and Committee 5 sessions, as > well as soliciting public submissions. These initial steps enabled civil > society to play a constructive, albeit limited, role at the WCIT.**** > > However there remain serious limitations to engaging with the ITU. The > substantive policy deliberations in working groups were neither webcast nor > open to unaffiliated civil society. Further, while it is positive that the > ITU opened the process to public comment, these comments were never part of > the official record. We raised both of these challenges with the Secretary > General, in writing and in person, and he committed to addressing these > concerns and appealing to member states, as appropriate. Although the WCIT > has concluded, we renew our request to have the public comments submitted > as official ITU documents to capture these positions for the historical > record.**** > > We also raised the issue of the lack of any institutional mechanism for > civil society participation at the ITU. While the participation of civil > society representatives in government delegations benefits both the > delegations and the WCIT’s deliberations as a whole, it cannot substitute > for engagement with independent members of civil society. We will be > following up on these important matters with the Secretary General and > welcome his commitment to considering institutional remedies to this > challenge.**** > > Looking forward, civil society seeks to work with governments and other > stakeholders around the globe towards an ever more inclusive and > substantive multi-stakeholder engagement on telecommunications, Internet, > and related matters. Much more needs to be done with regard to opening the > ITU to greater genuine multi-stakeholder participation and in particular > independent civil society participation - institutional change will need to > occur and we will work with the ITU and other stakeholders to bring this > about. These changes are vitally important and need to be addressed as > soon as possible given the upcoming 2013 World Telecommunication Policy > Forum, World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS+10) and 2014 ITU > Plenipotentiary Conference.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > -- **** > > Deborah Brown**** > > Policy Analyst**** > > Access | AccessNow.org**** > > E. deborah at accessnow.org**** > > S. deborah.l.brown**** > > T. deblebrown**** > > PGP 0x5EB4727D**** > > ** ** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 22 23:06:50 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:36:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society statement post-WCIT In-Reply-To: References: <113f01cddf4d$f9bb9b30$ed32d190$@gmail.com> <50D5B573.9010903@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50D6835A.1070308@itforchange.net> Dear Deborah, Thanks for your response and the very genuine attempts at accommodating my concerns. Any set of civil society actors are of course welcome to make any statement on WCIT on their own behalf, and also seek wider endorsements for it. Further comments in-line. On Sunday 23 December 2012 08:50 AM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > Thank you very much for this detailed response. As I wrote to Michael, > and I would like to reiterate here, this statement was neither meant > to speak on behalf of "civil society" as a whole, nor the BestBits > group in full. I see how it might be read this way, and I have > proposed to go back to the group that drafted it with edits that would > clarify exactly who this statement is on behalf of. Thanks. > > I think it might also help here to give a bit more information on the > origin and intended purpose of this statement. As you are aware, a > number of civil society representatives in Dubai met with SG Touré > during WCIT and had presented him with concerns regarding limitations > civil society participation (both in person and remotely). They > presented him with a letter > , > which around 70 civil society orgs/individuals, including IT for > Change, signed onto. Yes, IT for Change stands with that statement, and is happy to sign on any follow-on statement on procedural issues. > After the meeting, there was a general sense that it was of strategic > importance to follow up with the ITU post-WCIT to hold the SG to the > commitments that he made. That is the primary purpose of the letter. > Most of your criticism seems focused on the first two paragraphs of > the statement, which relate to the content of the ITRs and BestBits, > not the following five paragraphs, which deal with civil society > participation. Is that correct? You are right. My concern is only about para 1 (second line), para 2 and para 3. I agree with the rest of the statement. > > In the immediate post-WCIT environment, it seemed necessary to take > into account the new treaty in this statement. I do understand that. > Referring to the BestBits statement in reacting to the new ITRs seemed > like the natural and right thing to do, but it was most certainly not > meant to speak on behalf of the BestBits group. There are of course a > variety of different views on WCIT, so it is understandable that there > may be disagreement among BestBits signatories on how the new treaty > measures against the BestBits statement. But as you suggest, > initiating that conversation within the BestBits group may be valuable. I propose that Jeremy and Andrew attempt that exercise, whether or not it culminates into an agreement on a single text. > > Since as you note, the BestBits statement is the common ownership of > those who signed it, and as a signatory you object to the use of > selective quotations, I will go back to the group of signatories of > this post-WCIT statement with two options: one essentially removing > the first two paragraphs, and mentions of BestBits so that it is a > statement on civil society participation only; and the second with the > current text with the minor, but critical change of adding "the > undersigned members of" before any mention of civil society. If > everyone who has signed the current version is equally satisfied with > the new version (first option) then we can go with the narrower > statement. Thanks. Although, even a narrower statement (without para 1,2 and 3) has be claimed only to be on the behalf of those who sign it, as all civil society statements should be. IT for Change would sign that statement, and it is possible that BestBits as a group may agree to do so too. > > I hope you appreciate that with around 20 signatories, I'm not in a > position to make substantive edits to the text unilaterally. Of course. Through you I address all the present signatories to the inappropriateness-es that I mentioned in my last email, and this. I am sure that all will understand the concerns that I have raised. To repeat, of course any set of actors are welcome to frame any statement whatsoever on their own behalf, which however should not appear to have umbilical linkages with any statement of another group that might or might not be in agreement with the new statement. Best regards parminder > But I am happy to go back to the signatories and offer an option that > would seem to satisfy your criticism. I also hope that the intention > behind this statement is more clear now. I look forward to hearing > your thoughts on this approach and to continuing the discussion. > > Kind regards, > Deborah > > > On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 8:28 AM, parminder > wrote: > > Hi Deborah > > I find the new ITRs largely in keeping with the BestBits pre WCIT > statement. So, I dont see why we should decry it. The ITRs speaks > everywhere only about telecommunication networks (if you dont > think so, pl do point out the relevant part). In Baku we actually > did agree that the physical layer of the Internet - implied by > general terms like access to broadband etc - can be covered by > the ITRs. This understanding was the basis of the agreement on the > language that IP layer and above must not be regulated. However, > developed countires did not even agree to terms concerned with the > physical layer of the Internet - like access to broadband - to be > included in the ITRs. This I understand was against what we > wanted. So probably we should speak about it. > > As for the Internet resolution which is not a part of the ITRs but > appended to it, this compromise actually appears very symmetric to > the the compromise that we reached at the BestBits meeting, > whereby the last sentence of our statement read.... > > "More generally we call upon the ITU to promote principles of net > neutrality, open standards, affordable access and universal > service, and effective competition. " > > All/ most of these issues are Internet issues. In fact, although > the BestBit statement was open to it, the physical layer of the > Internet was no included in the ITRs, how we can now criticise its > inclusion even in an appended resolution. Why is your proposed > statement speaking against the 'Internet resolution' that is not > even part of the ITRs. We should welcome it since it correspond to > the manner in which we structured our own statement. Quoting from > your proposed statement "We regret that an Internet > governance-related resolution has been included in the Final Acts > of WCIT" > > When the proposed statement says > > "We are also concerned by the lack of clarity around the > applicability of the treaty, which as defined could have > unforeseen consequences for an open internet, and the lack of > specificity in key terms, such as security, which may negatively > impact the public’s rights to privacy and freedom of expression." > > Can you specify what clarity would we have wanted to be included. > The preamble says 'content is not included', it says, the ITRs > will be implemented in a manner that respects and upholds human > rights. What else could have been written in the form of > clarifying text. Can you please state some specifics in this regard. > > It is extremely rare that civil society makes a statement of > expectations from an global meeting/ treaty and than the meeting/ > treaty actually meets those expectations to the extent that the > new ITRs meet the expectations of the BestBits statement. This is > how I look at it but I am ready to hear the views of others and > discuss the matter further. > > The proposed statement uses selectively text from the BestBits > statement and in this respect seem to take forward the same > initiative, which is quite misleading. As I said, I disagree with > the assessment presented in the proposed statement of the > correlation of the BEstBits statement with the new ITRs. I see the > correlation as largely positive. > > Therefore it would not be right for the proposed statement to > selectively quote in the manner it does from the BestBits > statement and make its case based on that quotation . The BestBits > statement is the common ownership of those who signed it, and as > one of signatories I object to the manner in which the proposed > statement selectively quotes the BestBits statement, without > giving the full picture. If you indeed want to go ahead with the > statement please remove those quotes from the besbits statement. > > In the end, It is disappointing that while a civil society group > got together to draft a pre WCIT statement, a post WCIT statement > is being presented by a good number of participants of that group > as a fait accompli, and was not developed together in this group. > On the other hand, of course any group has a right to issue its > own statement. However, I do appeal to those managing the Bestbits > group at present to see if we can draft a BestBits statement on > WCIT outcomes. > > Also, agreeing with Micheal, the proposed statement cannot use the > term 'civil society in a generic manner, as if it represents 'the' > civil society. > > Willing to talk further on the above issues. > > Thanks and best regards, parminder > > *From:* bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of > *Deborah Brown > > *Sent:* Thursday, December 20, 2012 2:09 PM > *To:* wcit12 at cdt.org ; > > ; AfriCS-IG > *Subject:* [bestbits] Your sign on requested- Civil society > statement post-WCIT > > Dear all, > > As a follow up to the civil society letter to WCIT > (https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ93YTbqLSM) > that a number of organizations on this list have signed on > to, civil society representatives in Dubai drafted a statement on > the new ITRs and the future of multi-stakeholder engagement. The > text of the statement is pasted below. > > This statement assesses the opportunities and challenges faced by > civil society at WCIT and sets out shortcomings we would like to > see addressed to achieve meaningful civil society participation at > the ITU moving forward. It is meant to be complementary to other > post-WCIT civil society statements that focus on the substance of > the ITRs. > > We would very much like to secure sign on from your > organization. We feel that there is a strategic importance of > having this communication with the ITU Secretariat on record as we > look to future conversations/events. Though the timing is not > ideal, we plan to publish this statement with the list of > signatories and send a copy to the ITU on Monday. Therefore,_we > request that you reply to this email by 0900 EST/1400 UTC on > Monday, January 24 if you would like to sign on_. Like with the > earlier letter, we will leave the statement open for sign on and > update the list of signatories regularly. I will send out a > publicly accessible link with the statement and list of > signatories on Monday for people to post and circulate, but it > would also be great to discuss ways to draw attention to this > statement in the New Year. > > Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for > your attention to this. Warm wishes over the holidays. > > Best regards, > > Deborah > > *Civil Society statement on the new ITRs and the future of > multi-stakeholder engagement* > > December 21, 2012 > > Civil society is disappointed that the World Conference on > International Telecommunications (WCIT) could not come to > consensus in revising the International Telecommunications > Regulations (ITRs). We understand, however, the serious concerns > that a number of governments have expressed with regard to the > potential impact of the new regulations. > > As civil society stated in its Best Bits statement, a key > criterion for ITRs should be that “any proposed revisions are > confined to the traditional scope of the ITRs” and “where > international regulation is required around technical issues [it] > is limited to telecommunications networks and interoperability > standards.” We regret that an Internet governance-related > resolution has been included in the Final Acts of WCIT, despite > assertions by many that WCIT was not about Internet governance. We > are also concerned by the lack of clarity around the applicability > of the treaty, which as defined could have unforeseen consequences > for an open internet, and the lack of specificity in key terms, > such as security, which may negatively impact the public’s rights > to privacy and freedom of expression. > > This said, civil society would like to acknowledge and thank those > governments that opened their delegations to members of civil > society and other stakeholder groups. This was a very important > initial step in establishing a civil society voice in the > proceedings and we trust that it signals a wider commitment to > multi-stakeholder approaches in public policy development and > decision-making on telecommunications and Internet-related > matters. We trust that this openness and inclusive approach will > continue and extend to upcoming ITU-related work and beyond, and > we urge other governments to welcome and engage with civil society > going forward. > > As we communicated to ITU Secretary General Touré, we also commend > the ITU on first steps towards greater transparency and openness > with regard to access to and webcasting of plenary sessions and > Committee 5 sessions, as well as soliciting public submissions. > These initial steps enabled civil society to play a constructive, > albeit limited, role at the WCIT. > > However there remain serious limitations to engaging with the ITU. > The substantive policy deliberations in working groups were > neither webcast nor open to unaffiliated civil society. Further, > while it is positive that the ITU opened the process to public > comment, these comments were never part of the official record. > We raised both of these challenges with the Secretary General, in > writing and in person, and he committed to addressing these > concerns and appealing to member states, as appropriate. Although > the WCIT has concluded, we renew our request to have the public > comments submitted as official ITU documents to capture these > positions for the historical record. > > We also raised the issue of the lack of any institutional > mechanism for civil society participation at the ITU. While the > participation of civil society representatives in government > delegations benefits both the delegations and the WCIT’s > deliberations as a whole, it cannot substitute for engagement with > independent members of civil society. We will be following up on > these important matters with the Secretary General and welcome his > commitment to considering institutional remedies to this challenge. > > Looking forward, civil society seeks to work with governments and > other stakeholders around the globe towards an ever more inclusive > and substantive multi-stakeholder engagement on > telecommunications, Internet, and related matters. Much more > needs to be done with regard to opening the ITU to greater genuine > multi-stakeholder participation and in particular independent > civil society participation - institutional change will need to > occur and we will work with the ITU and other stakeholders to > bring this about. These changes are vitally important and need to > be addressed as soon as possible given the upcoming 2013 World > Telecommunication Policy Forum, World Summit on the Information > Society (WSIS+10) and 2014 ITU Plenipotentiary Conference. > > -- > > Deborah Brown > > Policy Analyst > > Access | AccessNow.org > > E. deborah at accessnow.org > > S. deborah.l.brown > > T. deblebrown > > PGP 0x5EB4727D > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > S. deborah.l.brown > T. deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Dec 23 05:00:21 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:00:21 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: <010301cde0ac$c9f81d50$5de857f0$@hellmonds> References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <010301cde0ac$c9f81d50$5de857f0$@hellmonds> Message-ID: <2yDU+BZ1Yt1QFA3T@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <010301cde0ac$c9f81d50$5de857f0$@hellmonds>, at 02:28:18 on Sun, 23 Dec 2012, Peter H. Hellmonds writes >In ITU RESOLUTION 130 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010) >http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/resoultions_2010/PP-10/RESOLUTION_130.pdf >on "Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the >use of information and communication technologies", there is a reference >saying "that although there are no universally agreed upon definitions of >spam and other terms in this sphere, spam was characterized by ITU-T Study >Group 2, at its June 2006 session, as a term commonly used to describe >unsolicited electronic bulk communications over e-mail or mobile messaging >(SMS, MMS), usually with the objective of marketing commercial products or >services" > >It may not be a treaty or a standard, but exemplifies the way this is >considered. > >Is this helpful to the discussion? The problem with that definition is that it's about "good spam" (for want of a better term) which is the variety which I characterise as from "clueless marketers" who think it's a good way to publicise their otherwise legitimate products. There's also "bad spam" which has a criminal payload. Often it's a phishing attempt (to get people to reveal passwords), but it can also be used to send people to sites carrying drive-by-malware, offering potentially counterfeit pharmaceuticals (where the international trade of the real thing is banned as well), or enticing people into more conventional scams such as 419 (advance fee fraud). Additionally there's the spam which is designed to build "sucker[1] lists" of people who respond to spam emails, for sale to other spammers. Yet another category is excessively off-topic or over-enthusiastically cc'd or cross-posted emails from colleagues (or other list members), although I wish there was another word for it ("noise" perhaps) because almost no "anti-spam" solution attempts to stop what's at worst a severe breach of etiquette. [1] Sucker - A person who is easily deceived -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 23 05:16:21 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:46:21 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty Message-ID: Even spammers do have a commercial, though illegal, motive Whatever operating definition it is needs to be short, crisp and general enough Besides which that dates back to say 2004 when bots and phishing were at least a manageable problem --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Roland Perry" To: Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty Date: Sun, Dec 23, 2012 3:30 PM In message <010301cde0ac$c9f81d50$5de857f0$@hellmonds>, at 02:28:18 on Sun, 23 Dec 2012, Peter H. Hellmonds writes >In ITU RESOLUTION 130 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010) >http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/resoultions_2010/PP-10/RESOLUTION_130.pdf >on "Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the >use of information and communication technologies", there is a reference >saying "that although there are no universally agreed upon definitions of >spam and other terms in this sphere, spam was characterized by ITU-T Study >Group 2, at its June 2006 session, as a term commonly used to describe >unsolicited electronic bulk communications over e-mail or mobile messaging >(SMS, MMS), usually with the objective of marketing commercial products or >services" > >It may not be a treaty or a standard, but exemplifies the way this is >considered. > >Is this helpful to the discussion? The problem with that definition is that it's about "good spam" (for want of a better term) which is the variety which I characterise as from "clueless marketers" who think it's a good way to publicise their otherwise legitimate products. There's also "bad spam" which has a criminal payload. Often it's a phishing attempt (to get people to reveal passwords), but it can also be used to send people to sites carrying drive-by-malware, offering potentially counterfeit pharmaceuticals (where the international trade of the real thing is banned as well), or enticing people into more conventional scams such as 419 (advance fee fraud). Additionally there's the spam which is designed to build "sucker[1] lists" of people who respond to spam emails, for sale to other spammers. Yet another category is excessively off-topic or over-enthusiastically cc'd or cross-posted emails from colleagues (or other list members), although I wish there was another word for it ("noise" perhaps) because almost no "anti-spam" solution attempts to stop what's at worst a severe breach of etiquette. [1] Sucker - A person who is easily deceived -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Dec 23 05:07:54 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 10:07:54 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds> References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds> Message-ID: In message <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds>, at 02:41:05 on Sun, 23 Dec 2012, Peter H. Hellmonds writes >There are a number of references throughout the text, notably under heading >2.1 "What is spam?": > >"Several stakeholders have given definitions of spam, and although there are >common points, there is still no universally accepted definition. Broadly >speaking, spam includes all electronic messages that are unsolicited or >unwanted, sent to a large number of users (bulk) without regard to the >identity of the individual user, usually having commercial purposes, and >that can include viruses that propagate via e-mail, or fraud and scam >mechanisms." Curiously, this definition is almost the opposite of the previous one, concentrating as it does on "without regard to the identity of the individual user". Using the same terminology as my previous email, it's mainly "bad spam" which has that characteristic. "Good spam" is generally[1] targeted at specific people[2] as is my last category of "noise"[3]. But if they modified the definition to "without regard to the *receptiveness*[4] of the individual user", they'd be quite close to the mark. [1] Although sometimes when "clueless marketers" buy lists of people to spam, those lists aren't very clean. [2] For example, I bought a laptop online about six years ago, and still get an email once a week asking me if I want to buy another one, listing their current special offers. Definitely targeted to former customers but also definitely spam. [3] Another way of looking at "noise" is that it's people cluelessly 'marketing' their ideas. [4] Whether or not the email is "welcomed" by the recipient. However, this is such a subjective matter that it's virtually impossible to build a policy based on the concept. As a proxy, policy often uses: "did the recipient give their permission (implicitly or explicitly) to receive the email." Although that leaves many edge-cases, including the unsolicited receipt of welcome news like a job opportunity or an Xmas greeting. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 23 06:43:11 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 17:13:11 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds> Message-ID: <8307243E-F886-4B76-85A3-BA00C93318C3@hserus.net> Do note unsolicited / unwanted to address your comment about receptiveness --srs (iPad) On 23-Dec-2012, at 15:37, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds>, at 02:41:05 on Sun, 23 Dec 2012, Peter H. Hellmonds writes >> There are a number of references throughout the text, notably under heading >> 2.1 "What is spam?": >> >> "Several stakeholders have given definitions of spam, and although there are >> common points, there is still no universally accepted definition. Broadly >> speaking, spam includes all electronic messages that are unsolicited or >> unwanted, sent to a large number of users (bulk) without regard to the >> identity of the individual user, usually having commercial purposes, and >> that can include viruses that propagate via e-mail, or fraud and scam >> mechanisms." > > Curiously, this definition is almost the opposite of the previous one, concentrating as it does on "without regard to the identity of the individual user". > > Using the same terminology as my previous email, it's mainly "bad spam" which has that characteristic. > > "Good spam" is generally[1] targeted at specific people[2] as is my last category of "noise"[3]. > > But if they modified the definition to "without regard to the *receptiveness*[4] of the individual user", they'd be quite close to the mark. > > [1] Although sometimes when "clueless marketers" buy lists of people to spam, those lists aren't very clean. > > [2] For example, I bought a laptop online about six years ago, and still get an email once a week asking me if I want to buy another one, listing their current special offers. Definitely targeted to former customers but also definitely spam. > > [3] Another way of looking at "noise" is that it's people cluelessly 'marketing' their ideas. > > [4] Whether or not the email is "welcomed" by the recipient. However, this is such a subjective matter that it's virtually impossible to build a policy based on the concept. As a proxy, policy often uses: "did the recipient give their permission (implicitly or explicitly) to receive the email." Although that leaves many edge-cases, including the unsolicited receipt of welcome news like a job opportunity or an Xmas greeting. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Dec 23 08:24:37 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:24:37 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 15:46:21 on Sun, 23 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >Even spammers do have a commercial, though illegal, motive The police are convinced that all criminality on the 'net is financially motivated, but I'm not so sure. But it's a useful point to make that a commercial incentive doesn't necessarily mean taking money or intellectual property[1] off the recipient in a direct way that they either agree with or understand. (ie by selling them something they want). >Whatever operating definition it is needs to be short, crisp and >general enough Agreed. [1] eg Phishing. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Dec 23 08:29:24 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:29:24 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: <8307243E-F886-4B76-85A3-BA00C93318C3@hserus.net> References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds> <8307243E-F886-4B76-85A3-BA00C93318C3@hserus.net> Message-ID: In message <8307243E-F886-4B76-85A3-BA00C93318C3 at hserus.net>, at 17:13:11 on Sun, 23 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >Do note unsolicited / unwanted to address your comment about receptiveness I'm very receptive to many unsolicited emails, especially ones offering me a [genuine] job or sending me seasonal greetings. People also get unwanted emails one-to-one, for example when being stalked or harassed by an ex-partner. As you said earlier, there's a need to involve the concept of "bulk", but even that fails, if someone sends an Xmas card to their entire group of friends. R. >--srs (iPad) > >On 23-Dec-2012, at 15:37, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds>, at 02:41:05 >>on Sun, 23 Dec 2012, Peter H. Hellmonds >>writes >>> There are a number of references throughout the text, notably under heading >>> 2.1 "What is spam?": >>> >>> "Several stakeholders have given definitions of spam, and although there are >>> common points, there is still no universally accepted definition. Broadly >>> speaking, spam includes all electronic messages that are unsolicited or >>> unwanted, sent to a large number of users (bulk) without regard to the >>> identity of the individual user, usually having commercial purposes, and >>> that can include viruses that propagate via e-mail, or fraud and scam >>> mechanisms." >> >> Curiously, this definition is almost the opposite of the previous >>one, concentrating as it does on "without regard to the identity of >>the individual user". >> >> Using the same terminology as my previous email, it's mainly "bad >>spam" which has that characteristic. >> >> "Good spam" is generally[1] targeted at specific people[2] as is my >>last category of "noise"[3]. >> >> But if they modified the definition to "without regard to the >>*receptiveness*[4] of the individual user", they'd be quite close to >>the mark. >> >> [1] Although sometimes when "clueless marketers" buy lists of people >>to spam, those lists aren't very clean. >> >> [2] For example, I bought a laptop online about six years ago, and >>still get an email once a week asking me if I want to buy another one, >>listing their current special offers. Definitely targeted to former >>customers but also definitely spam. >> >> [3] Another way of looking at "noise" is that it's people cluelessly >>'marketing' their ideas. >> >> [4] Whether or not the email is "welcomed" by the recipient. However, >>this is such a subjective matter that it's virtually impossible to >>build a policy based on the concept. As a proxy, policy often uses: >>"did the recipient give their permission (implicitly or explicitly) to >>receive the email." Although that leaves many edge-cases, including >>the unsolicited receipt of welcome news like a job opportunity or an >>Xmas greeting. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Dec 23 08:27:53 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:27:53 -0200 Subject: [governance] A false consensus is broken In-Reply-To: <50D45C03.7030804@gih.com> References: <50D43033.7080304@itforchange.net> <3AD32874-36F6-4F9A-B2CE-27AE0B9C03FA@ella.com> <50D4567A.1050404@itforchange.net> <50D45C03.7030804@gih.com> Message-ID: <50D706D9.7010908@cafonso.ca> But he did eat the hamster! :) --c.a. On 12/21/2012 10:54 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > On 21/12/2012 13:30, parminder wrote: >> You are talking like a diplomat, Avri :) . What happened is called a >> walkout although maybe a diplomat wont ever utter that word. >> >> See >> http://www.eweek.com/cloud/wcit-treaty-talks-end-in-dubai-with-walkout-of-us-allies/ >> among many instance of press coverage that uses this term 'walkout' >> for what happened. >> >> BTW, do you have any other substantive comment on the article? > > That's right, I always believe the Press. In fact, if it's in the news, > it must be true, irrespective of whether it has happened or not. > > Here's another famous, iconic fact from the Press: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Freddiehamster.jpg > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 23 09:52:48 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:22:48 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds> <8307243E-F886-4B76-85A3-BA00C93318C3@hserus.net> Message-ID: <9C0669AA-E179-4378-B5C1-F64CF55F1152@hserus.net> Roland, this thread can quickly go circular - having experience of several similar threads that have led to this rather uneasy consensus definition. Over a decade or more, elsewhere. ** Unsolicited + Bulk ** If I email you out of the blue and give you - and you alone - a job offer .. a personalized one to one email - that is absolutely not spam. However if I for example buy a list of email addresses of supposed job seekers, and use a mail merge sort of software to create form letters - Dear Roland, Dear Suresh, and so on, with the same text - and send that out, in bulk, unsolicited .. After that, there's spam you complain about and spam that you sometimes buy from. Suppose that's a list of say a million addresses. Maybe a fraction of a percent of people who actually get sent that email will receive it - the rest would be detected by spam filters, or rejected because the recipient address doesn't exist .. And out of that fraction of a percent, maybe another fraction of a percent will actually think they need, say, a sexual organ enlarged, or think that they'll actually get to date beautiful women if they reply to the spam. Or maybe, to pick a more mainstream example, actually choose one major brand over another for their christmas shopping That fraction of a percent of a fraction of a percent is enough to more than repay the costs of the spammer's campaign multiple times over. Which is why spam is extremely popular, and which is why several marketers have been extremely averse to suggestions from privacy rights advocates, and only (till some years back) grudgingly receptive to suggestions from ISPs that they should adopt marketing best practices that respect an individual users' consent to send them email [optin], rather than sending unsolicited offers. ISPs tend to carry a rather larger stick than assorted civil society privacy advocates do, especially if they have multiple million users, several of whom report the marketer's campaign as spam. --srs (iPad) On 23-Dec-2012, at 18:59, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <8307243E-F886-4B76-85A3-BA00C93318C3 at hserus.net>, at 17:13:11 on Sun, 23 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >> Do note unsolicited / unwanted to address your comment about receptiveness > > I'm very receptive to many unsolicited emails, especially ones offering me a [genuine] job or sending me seasonal greetings. People also get unwanted emails one-to-one, for example when being stalked or harassed by an ex-partner. > > As you said earlier, there's a need to involve the concept of "bulk", but even that fails, if someone sends an Xmas card to their entire group of friends. > > R. > >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 23-Dec-2012, at 15:37, Roland Perry wrote: >> >>> In message <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds>, at 02:41:05 on Sun, 23 Dec 2012, Peter H. Hellmonds writes >>>> There are a number of references throughout the text, notably under heading >>>> 2.1 "What is spam?": >>>> >>>> "Several stakeholders have given definitions of spam, and although there are >>>> common points, there is still no universally accepted definition. Broadly >>>> speaking, spam includes all electronic messages that are unsolicited or >>>> unwanted, sent to a large number of users (bulk) without regard to the >>>> identity of the individual user, usually having commercial purposes, and >>>> that can include viruses that propagate via e-mail, or fraud and scam >>>> mechanisms." >>> >>> Curiously, this definition is almost the opposite of the previous one, concentrating as it does on "without regard to the identity of the individual user". >>> >>> Using the same terminology as my previous email, it's mainly "bad spam" which has that characteristic. >>> >>> "Good spam" is generally[1] targeted at specific people[2] as is my last category of "noise"[3]. >>> >>> But if they modified the definition to "without regard to the *receptiveness*[4] of the individual user", they'd be quite close to the mark. >>> >>> [1] Although sometimes when "clueless marketers" buy lists of people to spam, those lists aren't very clean. >>> >>> [2] For example, I bought a laptop online about six years ago, and still get an email once a week asking me if I want to buy another one, listing their current special offers. Definitely targeted to former customers but also definitely spam. >>> >>> [3] Another way of looking at "noise" is that it's people cluelessly 'marketing' their ideas. >>> >>> [4] Whether or not the email is "welcomed" by the recipient. However, this is such a subjective matter that it's virtually impossible to build a policy based on the concept. As a proxy, policy often uses: "did the recipient give their permission (implicitly or explicitly) to receive the email." Although that leaves many edge-cases, including the unsolicited receipt of welcome news like a job opportunity or an Xmas greeting. >>> -- >>> Roland Perry >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- > Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Dec 23 11:01:08 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:01:08 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: <9C0669AA-E179-4378-B5C1-F64CF55F1152@hserus.net> References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds> <8307243E-F886-4B76-85A3-BA00C93318C3@hserus.net> <9C0669AA-E179-4378-B5C1-F64CF55F1152@hserus.net> Message-ID: <5+$X9yWEry1QFAnG@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <9C0669AA-E179-4378-B5C1-F64CF55F1152 at hserus.net>, at 20:22:48 on Sun, 23 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >Roland, this thread can quickly go circular - having experience of several similar threads that have led to this rather uneasy consensus >definition. Over a decade or more, elsewhere. > >** Unsolicited + Bulk ** Agreed, that this is the best definition. >If I email you out of the blue and give you - and you alone - a job offer .. a personalized one to one email - that is absolutely not spam. Although I was careful not to use the example of a job offer, rather than a job opportunity (and yes, I'm fully aware that many of the ones circulating on the net are scams). > However if I for example buy a list of email addresses of supposed job seekers, and use a mail merge sort of software to create form letters - >Dear Roland, Dear Suresh, and so on, with the same text - and send that out, in bulk, unsolicited .. > >After that, there's spam you complain about and spam that you sometimes buy from. Suppose that's a list of say a million addresses. Maybe a >fraction of a percent of people who actually get sent that email will receive it - the rest would be detected by spam filters, or rejected >because the recipient address doesn't exist .. And out of that fraction of a percent, maybe another fraction of a percent will actually think >they need, say, a sexual organ enlarged, or think that they'll actually get to date beautiful women if they reply to the spam. Or maybe, to >pick a more mainstream example, actually choose one major brand over another for their christmas shopping > >That fraction of a percent of a fraction of a percent is enough to more than repay the costs of the spammer's campaign multiple times over. Which is "good spam", to use my earlier definition. >Which is why spam is extremely popular, and which is why several marketers have been extremely averse to suggestions from privacy rights >advocates, and only (till some years back) grudgingly receptive to suggestions from ISPs that they should adopt marketing best practices that >respect an individual users' consent to send them email [optin], rather than sending unsolicited offers. In Europe the pressure from "big business" has been to consider that all your previous customers have by default given permission, and they need to "Opt out" to demonstrate their lack of consent. While many anti-Spam activists regard even this as unacceptable, on balance I think the vast majority of the problem is elsewhere - despite a personal view that I'd rather even ex-customer mailings were opt-in. >ISPs tend to carry a rather larger stick than assorted civil society privacy advocates do, especially if they have multiple million users, >several of whom report the marketer's campaign as spam. Indeed, and I worked with ISPs on these very issues for several years, helping to publish some of the most respected codes of practice (eg the LINX/RIPE BCP). -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Sun Dec 23 11:17:41 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:47:41 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: <5+$X9yWEry1QFAnG@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds> <8307243E-F886-4B76-85A3-BA00C93318C3@hserus.net> <9C0669AA-E179-4378-B5C1-F64CF55F1152@hserus.net> <5+$X9yWEry1QFAnG@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: On 23-Dec-2012, at 21:31, Roland Perry wrote: >> That fraction of a percent of a fraction of a percent is enough to more than repay the costs of the spammer's campaign multiple times over. > > Which is "good spam", to use my earlier definition. > The same economics are at work in both "good" and "bad" spam. Even more so in "bad" spam because such spammers make extensive use of other peoples resources - hacked servers, virus infected PCs and such. > In Europe the pressure from "big business" has been to consider that all your previous customers have by default given permission, and they need to "Opt out" to demonstrate their I am sorry - the US CAN-SPAM act is optout, but a lot of european data protection and other regulations tend towards optin. As do the australian and canadian antispam acts. Of course that's not the case throughout Europe - and the laws of the individual country would apply. Yes, the LINX BCPs were an early, and quite good example of best practice in this area, thanks for reminding me of them. --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 diegocanabarro at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 12:43:53 2012 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:43:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Topological Ordering in Cyberspace by Jeanette Hofmann Message-ID: Does anyone have a digital copy of that paper? Regards Diego -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 15:27:21 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:27:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem In-Reply-To: <009b01cde14b$b51966b0$1f4c3410$@gmail.com> References: <009b01cde14b$b51966b0$1f4c3410$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <009c01cde14b$f5c9c3d0$e15d4b70$@gmail.com> http://isoc-ny.org/misc/isoc-dc_wcit_post_mortem.mp3 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 15:36:02 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:36:02 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?FW=3A_=5BDewayne-Net=5D_Facebook_paid_?= =?UTF-8?Q?=C2=A32=2E9m_tax_on_=C2=A3840m_profits?= In-Reply-To: <6D33DFB1-E580-4A47-B25B-AD660DC87043@warpspeed.com> References: <6D33DFB1-E580-4A47-B25B-AD660DC87043@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <00a001cde14d$204533f0$60cf9bd0$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 12:29 PM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Facebook paid £2.9m tax on £840m profits Facebook paid £2.9m tax on £840m profits made outside US, figures show Company channelled bulk of profits through Ireland and onto Cayman Islands, allowing to it pay just £238,000 to UK taxman By Rupert Neate, The Guardian Sunday 23 December 2012 Facebook has become the latest multinational to come under the spotlight for its tax affairs after figures revealed it paid just £2.9m in tax on profits of more than more than £800m. Filings for Facebook Ireland, through which all of the social network's profits outside the US are channelled, show it paid the Irish tax authority €3.2m (£2.9m) last year. Facebook is structured so that companies buying advertisements on the website in the UK, or anywhere outside of the US, have to pay Facebook Ireland. This allowed Facebook Ireland to make gross 2011 profits of £840m – or £3.1m per each of its 287 staff. Despite the high gross profit, Facebook Ireland was able to cut its tax bill to just €3.2m by using an accounting technique called the "Double Irish". The manoeuvre allows multinationals to move large amounts of money to other subsidiaries in the form of royalty payments. Facebook moved nearly £750m to the Cayman Islands and its Californian parent in licensing and royalty payments. After the transfers, Facebook Ireland reported a £15m annual loss, despite it accounting for 44% of the social network's $3.15bn (£1.95bn) revenues. Like Apple and Google, Facebook uses its Irish subsidiary to reduce its liabilities to HM Revenue & Customs and other European tax regimes. Amazon and Starbucks also cut their British tax bills by using the same technique via other European countries. Last year Facebook paid just £238,000 in UK corporation tax – less than the average pay and bonus of its UK-based staff. It's estimated UK revenues amounted to £175m last year. The revelations are likely to reignite anger at giant US companies paying very little tax in the UK despite making hundreds of millions of pounds in the country. Starbucks had been facing calls for a mass boycott after it emerged it paid no corporation tax in Britain for the last three years, and just £8.6m since 1998. It has promised to pay about £10m to the exchequer a year for the next two years. A Facebook spokeswoman said: "Facebook complies with all relevant corporate regulations including those related to filing company reports and taxation." The company added that it chose to base its international headquarters in Ireland as it was the "best location to hire staff with the right skills to run a multilingual hi-tech operation serving the whole of Europe". George Osborne, the chancellor, promised to tackle "unacceptable" tax avoidance in his autumn statement this month. He said more resources were being put into ensuring multinational companies "pay their proper share of taxes". [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 17:39:04 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:39:04 -0800 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture Message-ID: <00da01cde15e$50e73ec0$f2b5bc40$@gmail.com> One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified themselves as speaking from civil society. Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is discussed and blogged there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism". There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet governance. As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other, for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet governance processes and their outcomes. The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways. One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests. For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Dec 23 18:09:40 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:09:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: <010301cde0ac$c9f81d50$5de857f0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <010301cde0ac$c9f81d50$5de857f0$@hellmonds@hellmonds.eu> Message-ID: Hi, A Guadalajara,-10 resolution is as good as it gets. thanks avri On 22 Dec 2012, at 20:28, Peter H. Hellmonds wrote: > You wrote: >> Which ITU treaty or ITU standard defines what "Unsolicited bulk > communications" means? > > Your question got me searching and I found something: > > In ITU RESOLUTION 130 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010) > http://www.itu.int/osg/csd/intgov/resoultions_2010/PP-10/RESOLUTION_130.pdf > on "Strengthening the role of ITU in building confidence and security in the > use of information and communication technologies", there is a reference > saying "that although there are no universally agreed upon definitions of > spam and other terms in this sphere, spam was characterized by ITU-T Study > Group 2, at its June 2006 session, as a term commonly used to describe > unsolicited electronic bulk communications over e-mail or mobile messaging > (SMS, MMS), usually with the objective of marketing commercial products or > services" > > It may not be a treaty or a standard, but exemplifies the way this is > considered. > > Is this helpful to the discussion? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 21:08:33 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:08:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture In-Reply-To: <1ACF685F-22EE-4362-B2DB-A0DB59C44521@gmail.com> References: <00da01cde15e$50e73ec0$f2b5bc40$@gmail.com> <1ACF685F-22EE-4362-B2DB-A0DB59C44521@gmail.com> Message-ID: <014301cde17b$94053a50$bc0faef0$@gmail.com> Thanks Gene, the framing that I did was to point to specific identified "stakeholders" in the multi-stakeholder process. I don't think/see "experts" or "academics' as "experts" or "academics" as being specific stakeholders i.e. as having a specific "stake" separate from any of the existing group of stakeholders. Rather I see them as advisors/contributors to the activities/positioning of the other identified stakeholders--governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community--each of whom I understand as having interests/values which are specific to them and their grouping. But others might disagree. M From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:46 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture This is a very helpful framing Michael. All of these issues related to legitimacy of various types of groups, transparency of funding, and refinement of multi-stakeholder definitions are most welcome. But I'm curious that you leave out so-called "experts" and "academics" who also have historically played a significant role in these discussions, but may not have been subject to the same rigorous vetting that you're suggesting for organizations. My sense is that these categories of civil society participation are subject to the exact same financial and political forces you describe for other elements of civil society. On Dec 23, 2012, at 5:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote: One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified themselves as speaking from civil society. Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is discussed and blogged there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism". There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet governance. As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other, for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet governance processes and their outcomes. The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways. One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests. For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 23 21:55:17 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:25:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture In-Reply-To: <014301cde17b$94053a50$bc0faef0$@gmail.com> References: <00da01cde15e$50e73ec0$f2b5bc40$@gmail.com> <1ACF685F-22EE-4362-B2DB-A0DB59C44521@gmail.com> <014301cde17b$94053a50$bc0faef0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <49973760-FDD5-4941-B05A-7717099F0491@hserus.net> I agree. There is no reason to specifically include individual experts and academia from civil society, industry or whatever group they identify with (maybe a combination of groups, depending on whether they participate representing their organization, or in their individual capacity) --srs (iPad) On 24-Dec-2012, at 7:38, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Thanks Gene, the framing that I did was to point to specific identified "stakeholders" in the multi-stakeholder process… I don't think/see "experts" or "academics' as "experts" or "academics" as being specific stakeholders i.e. as having a specific "stake" separate from any of the existing group of stakeholders… Rather I see them as advisors/contributors to the activities/positioning of the other identified stakeholders--governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community--each of whom I understand as having interests/values which are specific to them and their grouping… > > But others might disagree… > > M > > From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:46 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture > > This is a very helpful framing Michael. All of these issues related to legitimacy of various types of groups, transparency of funding, and refinement of multi-stakeholder definitions are most welcome. But I'm curious that you leave out so-called "experts" and "academics" who also have historically played a significant role in these discussions, but may not have been subject to the same rigorous vetting that you're suggesting for organizations. My sense is that these categories of civil society participation are subject to the exact same financial and political forces you describe for other elements of civil society. > On Dec 23, 2012, at 5:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified themselves as speaking from civil society. > > Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is discussed and blogged there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism". > > There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet governance. > > As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other, for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet governance processes and their outcomes. > > The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways. > > One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms". > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing > > http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf > > Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... " > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture > > I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests. > > For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy. > > Mike > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sun Dec 23 22:06:25 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:36:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture In-Reply-To: <49973760-FDD5-4941-B05A-7717099F0491@hserus.net> References: <00da01cde15e$50e73ec0$f2b5bc40$@gmail.com> <1ACF685F-22EE-4362-B2DB-A0DB59C44521@gmail.com> <014301cde17b$94053a50$bc0faef0$@gmail.com> <49973760-FDD5-4941-B05A-7717099F0491@hserus.net> Message-ID: "include experts and academia ****as a group distinct from**** civil society [etc]" Thanks - and merry christmas and a happy new year. It must be the holiday spirit but I find myself agreeing 100% with Mike Gurstein, so, my best wishes especially to you, Mike. --srs (iPad) On 24-Dec-2012, at 8:25, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I agree. There is no reason to specifically include individual experts and academia from civil society, industry or whatever group they identify with (maybe a combination of groups, depending on whether they participate representing their organization, or in their individual capacity) > > --srs (iPad) > > On 24-Dec-2012, at 7:38, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Thanks Gene, the framing that I did was to point to specific identified "stakeholders" in the multi-stakeholder process… I don't think/see "experts" or "academics' as "experts" or "academics" as being specific stakeholders i.e. as having a specific "stake" separate from any of the existing group of stakeholders… Rather I see them as advisors/contributors to the activities/positioning of the other identified stakeholders--governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community--each of whom I understand as having interests/values which are specific to them and their grouping… >> >> But others might disagree… >> >> M >> >> From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:46 PM >> To: michael gurstein >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture >> >> This is a very helpful framing Michael. All of these issues related to legitimacy of various types of groups, transparency of funding, and refinement of multi-stakeholder definitions are most welcome. But I'm curious that you leave out so-called "experts" and "academics" who also have historically played a significant role in these discussions, but may not have been subject to the same rigorous vetting that you're suggesting for organizations. My sense is that these categories of civil society participation are subject to the exact same financial and political forces you describe for other elements of civil society. >> On Dec 23, 2012, at 5:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> >> One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified themselves as speaking from civil society. >> >> Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is discussed and blogged there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism". >> >> There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet governance. >> >> As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other, for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet governance processes and their outcomes. >> >> The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways. >> >> One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms". >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing >> >> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf >> >> Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... " >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture >> >> I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests. >> >> For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy. >> >> Mike >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 23 22:39:34 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:39:34 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture In-Reply-To: References: <00da01cde15e$50e73ec0$f2b5bc40$@gmail.com> <1ACF685F-22EE-4362-B2DB-A0DB59C44521@gmail.com> <014301cde17b$94053a50$bc0faef0$@gmail.com> <49973760-FDD5-4941-B05A-7717099F0491@hserus.net> Message-ID: <015e01cde188$56de1810$049a4830$@gmail.com> Tks Suresh :) and best to you (and everyone) as well! M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 7:06 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Gene Kimmelman; ; Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture "include experts and academia ****as a group distinct from**** civil society [etc]" Thanks - and merry christmas and a happy new year. It must be the holiday spirit but I find myself agreeing 100% with Mike Gurstein, so, my best wishes especially to you, Mike. --srs (iPad) On 24-Dec-2012, at 8:25, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: I agree. There is no reason to specifically include individual experts and academia from civil society, industry or whatever group they identify with (maybe a combination of groups, depending on whether they participate representing their organization, or in their individual capacity) --srs (iPad) On 24-Dec-2012, at 7:38, "michael gurstein" wrote: Thanks Gene, the framing that I did was to point to specific identified "stakeholders" in the multi-stakeholder process… I don't think/see "experts" or "academics' as "experts" or "academics" as being specific stakeholders i.e. as having a specific "stake" separate from any of the existing group of stakeholders… Rather I see them as advisors/contributors to the activities/positioning of the other identified stakeholders--governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community--each of whom I understand as having interests/values which are specific to them and their grouping… But others might disagree… M From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:46 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture This is a very helpful framing Michael. All of these issues related to legitimacy of various types of groups, transparency of funding, and refinement of multi-stakeholder definitions are most welcome. But I'm curious that you leave out so-called "experts" and "academics" who also have historically played a significant role in these discussions, but may not have been subject to the same rigorous vetting that you're suggesting for organizations. My sense is that these categories of civil society participation are subject to the exact same financial and political forces you describe for other elements of civil society. On Dec 23, 2012, at 5:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote: One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified themselves as speaking from civil society. Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is discussed and blogged there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism". There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet governance. As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other, for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet governance processes and their outcomes. The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways. One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests. For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy. Mike ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Dec 24 03:34:45 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:34:45 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds> <8307243E-F886-4B76-85A3-BA00C93318C3@hserus.net> <9C0669AA-E179-4378-B5C1-F64CF55F1152@hserus.net> <5+$X9yWEry1QFAnG@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: In message , at 21:47:41 on Sun, 23 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >On 23-Dec-2012, at 21:31, Roland Perry wrote: > >>> That fraction of a percent of a fraction of a percent is enough to >>>more than repay the costs of the spammer's campaign multiple times over. >> >> Which is "good spam", to use my earlier definition. > >The same economics are at work in both "good" and "bad" spam. Even >more so in "bad" spam because such spammers make extensive use of other >peoples resources - hacked servers, virus infected PCs and such. I agree that "bad spam" steals more of other people's resources, which is why it's frustrating to see so many anti-spam initiatives concentrating entirely on the "white middle-class"[1] good spam. >> In Europe the pressure from "big business" has been to consider that >>all your previous customers have by default given permission, and they >>need to "Opt out" to demonstrate their > >I am sorry - the US CAN-SPAM act is optout, but a lot of european data >protection and other regulations tend towards optin. As do the >australian and canadian antispam acts. Of course that's not the case >throughout Europe - and the laws of the individual country would apply. The main driver for the ability of countries to implement opt-out regimes for supplier-customer emailing is the Privacy Directive [2002/58, so most of the work was done in 2001], which *allows* countries to make that decision. It does not allow them to choose opt-out for regular person-person emailing, which it mandates to be opt-in. For a while the regular person-person emailing was also going to allow opt-out, on the grounds that European Parliamentarians at the time were new to email and didn't see very much spam themselves. And what they did see tended to be filtered into a special quarantine folder by their sysadmins, so they could efficiently ignore/delete it. It was only after I conducted a successful campaign in the European Parliament, under the Euro-ISPA banner, that they changed their mind. >Yes, the LINX BCPs were an early, and quite good example of best >practice in this area, thanks for reminding me of them. I'm glad you liked them; making sure that government and regulators were aware of them, and the fundamental ideas contained within, was a big part of my job for three years. [1] ie sent by clueless marketers who can, if you try hard enough, be educated to see the error of their ways. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 24 04:55:41 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 15:25:41 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty Message-ID: Actually the focus in industry (maawg) and intergovernmental (Apectel spsg, oecd) has been on criminal spam.. The same with other, more closed / vetted groups Snowshoe spammers as well as poor best practices at more legitimate email marketers is getting less and less priority compared to criminal spam over the past few years --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Roland Perry" To: Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty Date: Mon, Dec 24, 2012 2:04 PM In message , at 21:47:41 on Sun, 23 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >On 23-Dec-2012, at 21:31, Roland Perry wrote: > >>> That fraction of a percent of a fraction of a percent is enough to >>>more than repay the costs of the spammer's campaign multiple times over. >> >> Which is "good spam", to use my earlier definition. > >The same economics are at work in both "good" and "bad" spam. Even >more so in "bad" spam because such spammers make extensive use of other >peoples resources - hacked servers, virus infected PCs and such. I agree that "bad spam" steals more of other people's resources, which is why it's frustrating to see so many anti-spam initiatives concentrating entirely on the "white middle-class"[1] good spam. >> In Europe the pressure from "big business" has been to consider that >>all your previous customers have by default given permission, and they >>need to "Opt out" to demonstrate their > >I am sorry - the US CAN-SPAM act is optout, but a lot of european data >protection and other regulations tend towards optin. As do the >australian and canadian antispam acts. Of course that's not the case >throughout Europe - and the laws of the individual country would apply. The main driver for the ability of countries to implement opt-out regimes for supplier-customer emailing is the Privacy Directive [2002/58, so most of the work was done in 2001], which *allows* countries to make that decision. It does not allow them to choose opt-out for regular person-person emailing, which it mandates to be opt-in. For a while the regular person-person emailing was also going to allow opt-out, on the grounds that European Parliamentarians at the time were new to email and didn't see very much spam themselves. And what they did see tended to be filtered into a special quarantine folder by their sysadmins, so they could efficiently ignore/delete it. It was only after I conducted a successful campaign in the European Parliament, under the Euro-ISPA banner, that they changed their mind. >Yes, the LINX BCPs were an early, and quite good example of best >practice in this area, thanks for reminding me of them. I'm glad you liked them; making sure that government and regulators were aware of them, and the fundamental ideas contained within, was a big part of my job for three years. [1] ie sent by clueless marketers who can, if you try hard enough, be educated to see the error of their ways. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 03:12:56 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:12:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] At WIPO, A Complex Fight Against Counterfeiting, Piracy Message-ID: <50D80E88.50707@gmail.com> At WIPO, A Complex Fight Against Counterfeiting, Piracy Published on 21 December 2012 @ 7:35 pm Print This Post Print This Post By Catherine Saez , Intellectual Property Watch The fight against counterfeiting and piracy is at the heart of the World Intellectual Property Organization committee on enforcement, a non-negotiating body. In a meeting of the committee this week, delegates heard expert presentations on ways to tackle infringement and measure its impact. However, the smooth discussions were disrupted by considerations of the future work of the committee. The 8^th session of the WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement (ACE) took place from 19-20 December. At the outset of the meeting, WIPO Director General Francis Gurry said he was delighted to see the number of delegations present in the committee, and took it as an indication of the high importance of the subject matter. "It is very difficult to find what role an international organisation can play in this area, because it is a very delicate area and the international community has been very good in the last 50 years at developing rules," but a number of compliance mechanisms, in all fields, not just IP, are extremely limited," he said. The future work of the committee, Gurry added, is an important opportunity to reflect and find creative solutions which will have a positive impact on the issue of enforcement. Ambassador Thomas Fitschen of Germany was elected chair of the committee. He said that at the 7th session of the ACE (30 November -- 1 December 2011), following a request from the Development Agenda Group (DAG), an agenda item on the contribution of the ACE to the implementation of the respective WIPO Development Agenda Recommendations was adopted. Since the establishment in November of the draft agenda for this week's meeting, informal consultations on this point were held and regional groups decided to proceed as last year, he said. The additional agenda on the contribution of the ACE to the implementation of the WIPO Development Agenda was adopted and was inserted just before the last item of the draft agenda . Belgium on behalf of the Group B developed countries said the group welcomed the proposal for the additional agenda item, as long as it did not become a standing item of the committee. Future Work: Group B, DAG Proposals Stored Till Next Session At the end of each session of the ACE, the work for the next session of the committee is discussed. Four proposals were on the table for the future work of the committee. These included two submitted this month: a proposal from Group B [pdf], calling for a study identifying the existence of initiatives targeted at school age students, to be presented at the 9th session of the committee; and**a proposal from Korea [pdf], proposing that the WIPO secretariat conduct a study on practices and operation of alternative dispute resolution systems in IP areas, and whose results be presented at the 9th session. Also on the table were two earlier proposals. This included one from Peru [pdf], submitted in December 2011 and updated for this session, calling for a study on the economic impact of piracy and counterfeiting, identifying preventive actions, measures and successful experiences, taking into account the different level of development of member states. And the fourth proposal for future work**was from the Development Agenda Group [pdf] dating from December 2010, requesting a discussion on how to intensify and improve WIPO's enforcement-related technical assistance, including legislative assistance with a view to preventing the abuse of enforcement procedures such as "sham litigation," and legislative assistance in drafting national laws of enforcement that take into account the use of flexibilities as well as the different socio-economic realities and the difference in the legal tradition of each country. Group B said they had concerns about duplication of work in the DAG proposal, in particular on the legislative assistance as described in the proposal, because earlier work had been carried out by the WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property. Despite informal consultations on the last afternoon, delegates found it difficult to agree on the four proposals. The chair proposed that the four proposals be incorporated into the future work of the committee, but some countries, in particular Group B, disagreed, and proposed to withdraw its proposal if the DAG would withdraw its proposal, in an effort to reach consensus on the future work of the committee. However, the DAG said Group B's decision to withdraw its proposal was its sole responsibility and did not engage a decision by the DAG. Fitschen put a swift end to the polemics by declaring that the Korean and the Peruvian proposals, on which there was consensus, would be kept as the future work programme, and that further discussions would be undertaken at the next session on the Group B and the DAG proposals. The Brazilian delegate told /Intellectual Property Watch/ that it would have been preferable to the DAG to have kept the four proposals in the work programme. No Norm-Setting in ACE A WIPO source noted that "the ACE, unlike other WIPO standing committees, does not have any norm-setting mandate, but a technical assistance and coordination mandate." "In particular, the ACE coordinates with certain organisations and the private sector to combat counterfeiting and piracy," the source told /Intellectual Property Watch/. For example, WIPO works with the World Customs Organization, Interpol, and private sector organizations to organise the Global Congress on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy. The ACE was established by the WIPO General Assembly in 2002 and "emerged from various preceding WIPO Committees and Meetings dealing with IP enforcement issues," according to WIPO. The committee focusses on a number of objectives, such as "public education, assistance, coordination to undertake national and regional training programs for all relevant stakeholders and exchange of information on enforcement issues," said the WIPO source. During the 8th session, several experts were asked to give presentations on a number of subjects, including: the quantification of economic effects of counterfeit and pirated goods; media piracy in emerging economies; consumer attitudes and perceptions on counterfeiting and piracy; methods of disposal and destruction of counterfeit and pirated goods within the Asia-Pacific region; and IPR infringements and enforcement accounting for socio-economic, technical and development variables. The WIPO secretariat also presented a report on recent activities [pdf]**of WIPO in the field of "building respect for intellectual property." Brazil said that its comments from the last session of the ACE had been followed and the new version of the WIPO**document presented more information, and was easier to access. However, the delegation said, the secretariat should give more details on activities undertaken by WIPO, in particular in the area of technical assistance and on WIPO's participation in symposiums and seminars. Brazil said it would be interesting to member states to know who the speakers were at those events, the subjects discussed, and to be able to access the presentations made. WIPO said it would look into the issue and try providing more information within the limits of what is possible. For example, it said that on the congress on combating counterfeiting and piracy, some meetings of the steering groups are not public and thus content of the meeting is not publicly available. Meanwhile, Turkey said it will host the 7th Global Congress on combating counterfeiting and piracy, taking place in Istanbul, from 24-26 April 2013. The WIPO secretariat said the UN agency is preparing three panels for the congress, on the subjects of building respect for IP, looking at the broader picture, and public-private partnerships, with inputs with other partners of the congress. A representative of the World Customs Organization, which is co-organising the congress, said the programme is expected to be posted shortly on the congress website. The committee's work this week mainly consisted of listening and commenting on the eight presentations provided by experts in the field. Group B Favours Enforcement, DAG Wants Development Ties In their opening statement, Group B emphasised the importance attached to the ACE and the effective enforcement of IP rights, which was of utmost importance for right holders, consumers, and the economy. The delegate said this is true irrespective of the stage of development of countries. Brazil, on behalf of the DAG, said "the discussions on building respect for IP in this committee illustrates how complex is this issue and the need to further study and understand it in order to provide orientation to adequate and efficient public policies, taking into account the different socioeconomic conditions of each country." The Brazilian delegate called for "combining strategies and regarding not only repression, but also educational and economic measures," recalling that Recommendation 45 of the WIPO Development Agenda is "essential." Recommendation 45 requests "to approach intellectual property enforcement in the context of broader societal interests and especially development-oriented concerns, with a view that 'the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations', in accordance with Article 7 of the TRIPS [World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights]" The Brazilian delegate added that "only WIPO, a specialised UN agency, has the necessary credentials of expertise and legitimacy to lead the debate on how to better ensure IP protection. Our group is of the view that initiatives outside WIPO that reject this broader understanding of the problem have small chances to achieve sustainable results." The European Union said there was need for developing further comprehensive and effective enforcement mechanisms, also emphasising the importance of compliance with existing enforcement, while recognising the different stages of development of member states and the need for technical assistance to achieve objectives. The EU suggested corporate social responsibility as part of an enforcement strategy, adding that strict social standards could play a key role in preventing piracy and counterfeiting. The Third World Network , a non-governmental organisation working on development issues, said in its statement [pdf] that the initiatives on IP enforcement "should not hamper the development policy space of WIPO member states, especially developing countries." The representative said "IP enforcement should respect other competing legal obligations of member states, especially human rights obligations such as [the] right to development, right to health, right to education and right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications." "We are concerned," he said, "with the over expansion of [the] legal concept of counterfeit to include all types of infringement of IP rights. This would lead to the criminalization of all forms of IP infringement and diversion of public money for the enforcement of private rights, which is currently limited to counterfeiting of trademarks and pirated copyrights**goods." The ACE did not have time to discuss a summary by the chair, which is expected to be approved at the next session, after member states have the opportunity to provide comments. The next meeting of the ACE has not yet been scheduled, but is likely to be at least a year from now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Dec 24 07:45:32 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 12:45:32 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 15:25:41 on Mon, 24 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >Actually the focus in industry (maawg) and intergovernmental (Apectel >spsg, oecd) has been on criminal spam.. The same with other, more >closed / vetted groups > >Snowshoe spammers as well as poor best practices at more legitimate >email marketers is getting less and less priority compared to criminal >spam over the past few years Glad to hear it, and plenty of precedent for ITU to build upon. No need to invent new definitions. However, I cannot agree with their RESOLUTION 130 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010) characterising spam as "usually with the objective of marketing commercial products or services", *especially* if the definition of "commerce" has to be bent to include proceeds of crime. Apart from the fact that stealing money from my bank account isn't marketing a commercial product of service, but it also serves to unhelpfully blur the line between the 'genuine' clueless marketer and the person trying to sell me a fake Rolex or a share of the deceased ex-President's secret $20 million hoard. Today's scam was offering me a fake tax refund, but they spoilt it (not that it wasn't already painfully obvious) by sending me the email eight times. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 24 08:19:44 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:49:44 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ITU or any other organization would do very well to move beyond haggling over definitions here to fulfil their additional role of capacity building in developing countries. I've written papers for the OECD in 2005, the ITU in 2008 .. and contributed to other best practices elsewhere. These are typically distilled from an industry (and individual experts from academia and civil society) consensus that has been around for over a decade now. Putting those into practice at an ISP and a national level would help mitigate the issue. The usual problem is that those that adopt best practices [across policy, regulation, technology, capacity building ..] aren't the problem. The problem is those that don't adopt the best practices for one reason or the other, and then develop an infestation of spam, malware, criminals or whatever else that poses a threat to the entire world. Despite the usual analogies about war, sun tzu maxims and such drawn for security, I tend to prefer public health models, with the difference that an undrained swamp (or an ISP that doesn't follow best practices) is a threat to the overall health of other ISPs on the internet, not limited to say ISPs it peers with (to sort of create an analogy with neighborhoods on the fringes of the swamp). --srs (iPad) On 24-Dec-2012, at 18:15, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 15:25:41 on Mon, 24 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >> Actually the focus in industry (maawg) and intergovernmental (Apectel spsg, oecd) has been on criminal spam.. The same with other, more closed / vetted groups > >Snowshoe spammers as well as poor best practices at more legitimate >email marketers is getting less and less priority compared to criminal >spam over the past few years > > Glad to hear it, and plenty of precedent for ITU to build upon. No need to invent new definitions. > > However, I cannot agree with their RESOLUTION 130 (Rev. Guadalajara, 2010) characterising spam as "usually with the objective of marketing commercial products or services", *especially* if the definition of "commerce" has to be bent to include proceeds of crime. > > Apart from the fact that stealing money from my bank account isn't marketing a commercial product of service, but it also serves to unhelpfully blur the line between the 'genuine' clueless marketer and the person trying to sell me a fake Rolex or a share of the deceased ex-President's secret $20 million hoard. > > Today's scam was offering me a fake tax refund, but they spoilt it (not that it wasn't already painfully obvious) by sending me the email eight times. > -- > 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 avri at acm.org Mon Dec 24 08:23:34 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 08:23:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <63CEEB4A-8DCB-45BD-B348-A5BED6F40C44@acm.org> Hi, Certainly in terms of Civil Society 'advisors' from the developed economies, I think many of us not only went looking for the applications, we the applied and followed up on the applications. For various reasons we wanted to be at what might have been a critical milestone in Internet governance. I think many did the fundraising for their own trips, though some were NGO members who had organizational sponsorship. I think there may have also been some funding directed to some organizations for participants from the developing and least developed economies, but I am not clear on that. There were also some NGO ITU sector members in attendance. I am not sure how many or how they were funded - I expect it is a mix. And since it is finger pointing season - my SoI for WCIT I applied as a part time employee of dotgay LLC, a for profit company that is applying for a gTLD for the LGBTQIA community [talk about a community with interesting 'who represents whom' issues]. dotgay sponsored my tour of WTSA, WCIT and ILGA. Something I discovered on the trip is that in many cases just passing out a business card that said .gay, was a political act in the UAE. And as a bizactivist who supports my advocacy activities, that pleased my boss. BTW my contract with dotgay makes it clear that I remain a multi-denominational free-radical and that 'I say what I say' and they are free to end the relationship if I ever go too far for them. Our views tend to be mostly in harmony, so the relationship works. [And I wonder why I have a hard time finding work.] I denoted myself as a civil society participant both in the application for a seat on the US Delegation and whenever I was asked, based on both independent activities/affinities and of being a contracted part time volunteer at APC. I also noted that I was a long time participant and contributor in the Internet technical community. I do not actually remember ever identifying myself as a representative of Civil Society or of the Technical Community. cheers and happy celebrations. avri On 24 Dec 2012, at 07:35, Gene Kimmelman wrote: > So just to follow your logic, who selects these "advisors/consultants?" I get the impression many select themselves and identify as a civil society group rather thsn being invited to advise a group. Maybe you can clarify? > michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks Gene, the framing that I did was to point to specific identified "stakeholders" in the multi-stakeholder process… I don't think/see "experts" or "academics' as "experts" or "academics" as being specific stakeholders i.e. as having a specific "stake" separate from any of the existing group of stakeholders… Rather I see them as advisors/contributors to the activities/positioning of the other identified stakeholders--governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community--each of whom I understand as having interests/values which are specific to them and their grouping… > > > > But others might disagree… > > > > M > > > > From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:46 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture > > > > This is a very helpful framing Michael. All of these issues related to legitimacy of various types of groups, transparency of funding, and refinement of multi-stakeholder definitions are most welcome. But I'm curious that you leave out so-called "experts" and "academics" who also have historically played a significant role in these discussions, but may not have been subject to the same rigorous vetting that you're suggesting for organizations. My sense is that these categories of civil society participation are subject to the exact same financial and political forces you describe for other elements of civil society. > > On Dec 23, 2012, at 5:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified themselves as speaking from civil society. > > > > Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is discussed and blogged there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism". > > > > There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet governance. > > > > As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other, for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet governance processes and their outcomes. > > > > The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways. > > > > One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms". > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing > > > > http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf > > > > Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... " > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture > > > > I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests. > > > > For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy. > > > > Mike > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 24 10:30:22 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 07:30:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderism, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture Message-ID: <023b01cde1eb$971ce5b0$c556b110$@gmail.com> Good question Gene, and I really don't have an answer readily to hand. How is anyone within the MS framework "selected"… What this line of discussion points to I think, is how difficult it is going to be in practice to operationalize multi-stakeholderism (and particularly Civil Society's role within this). M From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 4:36 AM To: gurstein at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture So just to follow your logic, who selects these "advisors/consultants?" I get the impression many select themselves and identify as a civil society group rather thsn being invited to advise a group. Maybe you can clarify? michael gurstein wrote: Thanks Gene, the framing that I did was to point to specific identified "stakeholders" in the multi-stakeholder process… I don't think/see "experts" or "academics' as "experts" or "academics" as being specific stakeholders i.e. as having a specific "stake" separate from any of the existing group of stakeholders… Rather I see them as advisors/contributors to the activities/positioning of the other identified stakeholders--governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community--each of whom I understand as having interests/values which are specific to them and their grouping… But others might disagree… M From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:46 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture This is a very helpful framing Michael. All of these issues related to legitimacy of various types of groups, transparency of funding, and refinement of multi-stakeholder definitions are most welcome. But I'm curious that you leave out so-called "experts" and "academics" who also have historically played a significant role in these discussions, but may not have been subject to the same rigorous vetting that you're suggesting for organizations. My sense is that these categories of civil society participation are subject to the exact same financial and political forces you describe for other elements of civil society. On Dec 23, 2012, at 5:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote: One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified themselves as speaking from civil society. Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is discussed and blogged there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism". There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet governance. As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other, for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet governance processes and their outcomes. The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways. One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests. For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 24 10:42:06 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:12:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderism, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture In-Reply-To: <023b01cde1eb$971ce5b0$c556b110$@gmail.com> References: <023b01cde1eb$971ce5b0$c556b110$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2F5621BA-6247-477D-87F3-9A3FBD7E2282@hserus.net> is there a centralized licensing department of cs actors or something? you can speak in your individual capacity or as part of a nonprofit you represent as for advising or consulting .. well you need a client to consult for, who has to hire you in which case you identify yourself as such --srs (iPad) On 24-Dec-2012, at 21:00, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Good question Gene, and I really don't have an answer readily to hand. > > How is anyone within the MS framework "selected"… > > What this line of discussion points to I think, is how difficult it is going to be in practice to operationalize multi-stakeholderism (and particularly Civil Society's role within this). > > M > > From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 4:36 AM > To: gurstein at gmail.com; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture > > So just to follow your logic, who selects these "advisors/consultants?" I get the impression many select themselves and identify as a civil society group rather thsn being invited to advise a group. Maybe you can clarify? > michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks Gene, the framing that I did was to point to specific identified "stakeholders" in the multi-stakeholder process… I don't think/see "experts" or "academics' as "experts" or "academics" as being specific stakeholders i.e. as having a specific "stake" separate from any of the existing group of stakeholders… Rather I see them as advisors/contributors to the activities/positioning of the other identified stakeholders--governments, the private sector, civil society, the technical community--each of whom I understand as having interests/values which are specific to them and their grouping… > > But others might disagree… > > M > > From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2012 5:46 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture > > This is a very helpful framing Michael. All of these issues related to legitimacy of various types of groups, transparency of funding, and refinement of multi-stakeholder definitions are most welcome. But I'm curious that you leave out so-called "experts" and "academics" who also have historically played a significant role in these discussions, but may not have been subject to the same rigorous vetting that you're suggesting for organizations. My sense is that these categories of civil society participation are subject to the exact same financial and political forces you describe for other elements of civil society. > On Dec 23, 2012, at 5:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > > One, among the many thoughts that arise from listening to the ISOC/USG post-mortem is the role and significance of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. This was mentioned by all of the discussants--the US Ambassador, ISOC and someone who identified themselves as speaking from civil society. > > Both in this discussion and more broadly, as the significance of the WCIT is discussed and blogged there is emerging the broad understanding of the central role that Civil Society of necessity plays in multi-stakeholderism--i.e. that without an active, engaged Civil Society there can be no "multi-stakeholderism". > > There is also emerging a further recognition of the central role (through multi-stakeholderism) that CS has going forward in overall global Internet governance. > > As everyone knows there are huge, even overwhelming financial (and other, for example, security) interests involved in these global Internet governance processes and their outcomes. > > The experience has been that where such interests/outcomes are involved there are likely to be attempts by various parties to influence these processes and their participants in both legitimate and illegitimate ways. > > One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms". > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing > > http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Astroturf > > Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... " > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture > > I think that it is quite likely that CS will become a venue for such astroturfing and attempted "capture" (if this hasn't already been occuring) and including by governments who will look to create or enable what appear to be CS stakeholder organizations but which in fact, function rather as non-formal spokespersons for national and/or corporate interests. > > For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy. > > Mike > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Mon Dec 24 10:46:44 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:16:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture In-Reply-To: <63CEEB4A-8DCB-45BD-B348-A5BED6F40C44@acm.org> References: <63CEEB4A-8DCB-45BD-B348-A5BED6F40C44@acm.org> Message-ID: <28AB689C-425C-477E-8B8B-AAE36A1B2DAA@hserus.net> for good reason, because there isnt any single entity called "cs" or "technical community" there are individual organizations, and coalitions of these, tops - but in both cases, a very specific and well defined entity --srs (iPad) On 24-Dec-2012, at 18:53, Avri Doria wrote: > > I also noted that I was a long time participant and contributor in the Internet technical community. > > I do not actually remember ever identifying myself as a representative of Civil Society or of the Technical Community. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Dec 24 11:35:34 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:35:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] 2013! In-Reply-To: References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds> <8307243E-F886-4B76-85A3-BA00C93318C3@hserus.net> <9C0669AA-E179-4378-B5C1-F64CF55F1152@hserus.net> <5+$X9yWEry1QFAnG@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <50D88456.5060703@cafonso.ca> [with apologies for cross-posting] We hope you all will enjoy a wonderful and peaceful 2013! fraternal regards Carlos A. Afonso & family -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kabani.asif at gmail.com Mon Dec 24 11:53:31 2012 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:53:31 +0500 Subject: [governance] 2013! In-Reply-To: <50D88456.5060703@cafonso.ca> References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds> <8307243E-F886-4B76-85A3-BA00C93318C3@hserus.net> <9C0669AA-E179-4378-B5C1-F64CF55F1152@hserus.net> <5+$X9yWEry1QFAnG@internetpolicyagency.com> <50D88456.5060703@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Seasons Greetings From: Asif Kabani -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 Mon Dec 24 12:01:35 2012 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Clement Martial Aboudem Bavou) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:01:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] 2013! In-Reply-To: <50D88456.5060703@cafonso.ca> References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds> <8307243E-F886-4B76-85A3-BA00C93318C3@hserus.net> <9C0669AA-E179-4378-B5C1-F64CF55F1152@hserus.net> <5+$X9yWEry1QFAnG@internetpolicyagency.com> <50D88456.5060703@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Thanks, same to you. Sent from my HTC ONE S Smartphone. Le 24 déc. 2012 17:51, "Carlos A. Afonso" a écrit : > [with apologies for cross-posting] > > We hope you all will enjoy a wonderful and peaceful 2013! > > fraternal regards > > Carlos A. Afonso & family > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 sonigituekpe at CROSSRIVERSTATE.GOV.NG Mon Dec 24 12:07:01 2012 From: sonigituekpe at CROSSRIVERSTATE.GOV.NG (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:07:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] 2013! Message-ID: <82m91769f3xufql7eskgtr5v.1356368776074@email.android.com> Great friends and fellows, Hope peace and Justice will reign in 2013. Have a blissful and prosperous holiday. To the Supreme Father we all honour. With love from, Sonigitu Ekpe Committee Secretary, State Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on Flood Food Recovery and Double-Up Food Production Programme. 3 Barracks Road Calabar - Nigeria. +234 8050232469 Kabani wrote: Seasons Greetings From: Asif Kabani -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dvbirve at yandex.ru Mon Dec 24 12:20:57 2012 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:20:57 +0400 Subject: [governance] 2013! In-Reply-To: <50D88456.5060703@cafonso.ca> References: <637EB1E0-3AD5-454D-8BD3-635789041268@acm.org> <010601cde0ae$930397f0$b90ac7d0$@hellmonds> <8307243E-F886-4B76-85A3-BA00C93318C3@hserus.net> <9C0669AA-E179-4378-B5C1-F64CF55F1152@hserus.net> <5+$X9yWEry1QFAnG@internetpolicyagency.com> <50D88456.5060703@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <2752441356369657@web2g.yandex.ru> Dear Colleagues! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year from Russia I wish you all a great success in 2013! With kind regards, Andrey 24.12.2012, 20:51, "Carlos A. Afonso" : > [with apologies for cross-posting] > > We hope you all will enjoy a wonderful and peaceful 2013! > > fraternal regards > > Carlos A. Afonso & family > > , > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: >      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: >      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Mon Dec 24 12:52:21 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:52:21 +0000 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 18:49:44 on Mon, 24 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >ITU or any other organization would do very well to move beyond >haggling over definitions here to fulfil their additional role of >capacity building in developing countries. That's ITU-D, but there's also ITU-T (the bit that does telecoms standards). >I've written papers for the OECD in 2005, the ITU in 2008 .. and >contributed to other best practices elsewhere. These are typically >distilled from an industry (and individual experts from academia and >civil society) consensus that has been around for over a decade now. >Putting those into practice at an ISP and a national level would help >mitigate the issue. A Best Practice of Best Practices. Could be a very useful document. Maybe CS should offer such a thing to the ITU. >The usual problem is that those that adopt best practices [across >policy, regulation, technology, capacity building ..] aren't the >problem. "Adopt" as in "put into practice" I assume. >The problem is those that don't adopt the best practices for one reason >or the other, What's needed is more "adopting" as in "stating the requirement and evangelising others to put it into practice". Although part of the problem is that spam is a social issue that simply can't be completely solved by technical measures, and many Best Practices are very technology-heavy and sociology-light. >and then develop an infestation of spam, malware, criminals or whatever >else that poses a threat to the entire world. Having police and regulators the world over all treating the problem equally seriously would be a great help. So the Best Practice has to be something Law Enforcement can relate to, rather than Internet engineers. >Despite the usual analogies about war, sun tzu maxims and such drawn >for security, I tend to prefer public health models, with the >difference that an undrained swamp (or an ISP that doesn't follow best >practices) is a threat to the overall health of other ISPs on the >internet, not limited to say ISPs it peers with (to sort of create an >analogy with neighborhoods on the fringes of the swamp). I agree completely, that's a very useful analogy, and one that Governments are more likely to understand than worn-out complaints about spammers stealing all the bandwidth (which in the YouTube day and age is no longer credible). The bandwidth issue was, in the run-up to the Plenipot, the main reason why the ITU was being urged to take action. And I've lost count of the number of meetings I've been to where spam hugely damages the reputation of the Internet Technical Community. Despite the latter tending to say "well, it's not really our problem", the inability to solve what the general public sees as a fairly simple issue, casts doubts in those observer's minds on the I* community's ability to solve what seem to be more complex problems. Just to show things are interlinked, one of the accepted reasons for spam is to build botnets, which really can then be used to damage bandwidth (ie DDOS attacks). Part of the problem with publicised DDOS attacks (rather then the ones against corporates that they try to brush under the carpet) is they often seem to be politically motivated, rather than commercially. >--srs (iPad) > >On 24-Dec-2012, at 18:15, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message , at 15:25:41 on Mon, >>24 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >>> Actually the focus in industry (maawg) and intergovernmental >>>(Apectel spsg, oecd) has been on criminal spam.. The same with other, >>>more closed / vetted groups >> >Snowshoe spammers as well as poor best practices at more legitimate >> >>email marketers is getting less and less priority compared to >> >criminal >spam over the past few years >> >> Glad to hear it, and plenty of precedent for ITU to build upon. No >>need to invent new definitions. >> >> However, I cannot agree with their RESOLUTION 130 (Rev. Guadalajara, >>2010) characterising spam as "usually with the objective of marketing >>commercial products or services", *especially* if the definition of >>"commerce" has to be bent to include proceeds of crime. >> >> Apart from the fact that stealing money from my bank account isn't >>marketing a commercial product of service, but it also serves to >>unhelpfully blur the line between the 'genuine' clueless marketer and >>the person trying to sell me a fake Rolex or a share of the deceased >>ex-President's secret $20 million hoard. >> >> Today's scam was offering me a fake tax refund, but they spoilt it >>(not that it wasn't already painfully obvious) by sending me the email >>eight times. >> -- >> Roland Perry > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Mon Dec 24 15:04:16 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 01:34:16 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty Message-ID: Read mine and see :) - i have tried not to over focus on tech, and code is law isnt policy by a long chalk. Whatever the best practice though, it is only useful when translated from ppt and pdf to real world implementation As for itu, as you say, there's multiple different divisions across their organization that have a capacity building mandate. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Roland Perry" To: , "Suresh Ramasubramanian" Subject: AW: [governance] [] US, UK and Canada refuse to sign UN's internet treaty Date: Mon, Dec 24, 2012 11:22 PM In message , at 18:49:44 on Mon, 24 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >ITU or any other organization would do very well to move beyond >haggling over definitions here to fulfil their additional role of >capacity building in developing countries. That's ITU-D, but there's also ITU-T (the bit that does telecoms standards). >I've written papers for the OECD in 2005, the ITU in 2008 .. and >contributed to other best practices elsewhere. These are typically >distilled from an industry (and individual experts from academia and >civil society) consensus that has been around for over a decade now. >Putting those into practice at an ISP and a national level would help >mitigate the issue. A Best Practice of Best Practices. Could be a very useful document. Maybe CS should offer such a thing to the ITU. >The usual problem is that those that adopt best practices [across >policy, regulation, technology, capacity building ..] aren't the >problem. "Adopt" as in "put into practice" I assume. >The problem is those that don't adopt the best practices for one reason >or the other, What's needed is more "adopting" as in "stating the requirement and evangelising others to put it into practice". Although part of the problem is that spam is a social issue that simply can't be completely solved by technical measures, and many Best Practices are very technology-heavy and sociology-light. >and then develop an infestation of spam, malware, criminals or whatever >else that poses a threat to the entire world. Having police and regulators the world over all treating the problem equally seriously would be a great help. So the Best Practice has to be something Law Enforcement can relate to, rather than Internet engineers. >Despite the usual analogies about war, sun tzu maxims and such drawn >for security, I tend to prefer public health models, with the >difference that an undrained swamp (or an ISP that doesn't follow best >practices) is a threat to the overall health of other ISPs on the >internet, not limited to say ISPs it peers with (to sort of create an >analogy with neighborhoods on the fringes of the swamp). I agree completely, that's a very useful analogy, and one that Governments are more likely to understand than worn-out complaints about spammers stealing all the bandwidth (which in the YouTube day and age is no longer credible). The bandwidth issue was, in the run-up to the Plenipot, the main reason why the ITU was being urged to take action. And I've lost count of the number of meetings I've been to where spam hugely damages the reputation of the Internet Technical Community. Despite the latter tending to say "well, it's not really our problem", the inability to solve what the general public sees as a fairly simple issue, casts doubts in those observer's minds on the I* community's ability to solve what seem to be more complex problems. Just to show things are interlinked, one of the accepted reasons for spam is to build botnets, which really can then be used to damage bandwidth (ie DDOS attacks). Part of the problem with publicised DDOS attacks (rather then the ones against corporates that they try to brush under the carpet) is they often seem to be politically motivated, rather than commercially. >--srs (iPad) > >On 24-Dec-2012, at 18:15, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message , at 15:25:41 on Mon, >>24 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >>> Actually the focus in industry (maawg) and intergovernmental >>>(Apectel spsg, oecd) has been on criminal spam.. The same with other, >>>more closed / vetted groups >> >Snowshoe spammers as well as poor best practices at more legitimate >> >>email marketers is getting less and less priority compared to >> >criminal >spam over the past few years >> >> Glad to hear it, and plenty of precedent for ITU to build upon. No >>need to invent new definitions. >> >> However, I cannot agree with their RESOLUTION 130 (Rev. Guadalajara, >>2010) characterising spam as "usually with the objective of marketing >>commercial products or services", *especially* if the definition of >>"commerce" has to be bent to include proceeds of crime. >> >> Apart from the fact that stealing money from my bank account isn't >>marketing a commercial product of service, but it also serves to >>unhelpfully blur the line between the 'genuine' clueless marketer and >>the person trying to sell me a fake Rolex or a share of the deceased >>ex-President's secret $20 million hoard. >> >> Today's scam was offering me a fake tax refund, but they spoilt it >>(not that it wasn't already painfully obvious) by sending me the email >>eight times. >> -- >> Roland Perry > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Dec 24 23:58:17 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:28:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem In-Reply-To: <009c01cde14b$f5c9c3d0$e15d4b70$@gmail.com> References: <009b01cde14b$b51966b0$1f4c3410$@gmail.com> <009c01cde14b$f5c9c3d0$e15d4b70$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50D93269.2060605@itforchange.net> On Monday 24 December 2012 01:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://isoc-ny.org/misc/isoc-dc_wcit_post_mortem.mp3 Could not open this link but saw on youtube ar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN_PwWkv14A A good and cogent speech by Terry Kramer. One thing surprised me, and it links to what I think was the failure to posit a positive agenda at the WCIT by civil society. Kramer says, first let me deal with the telecommunication side, and there are many positives there (vis a vis WCIT)... (paraphrased) And then he speaks of the ETNO proposal, as being /on the telecom side/.... Of course, he (like us) was happy that ENTO proposal did not pass, he clearly seems to agree that it belonged to the telecom side, and thus to ITR's mandate. This is very significant. (Others who know US positions better can perhaps clarify.) If ETNO proposal was within ITR mandates, even if otherwise a very disagreeable one, would not Internet traffic interconnection regimes be also in ITR's remit.... I dont think it is anyone's case that ETNO proposal was not about the Internet (its physical/ infrastructural layer). So, isnt the US agreeing here that/some kind of Internet could/ should well have been in the ITRs/. Later in the speech, Kramer regrets that much could be done (at the WCIT) about spread of broadband, but that this was not something members were willing to pursue seriously.... Again, it surprised me, but this statement is consistent with the above one on ETNO..... Of course, broadband is Internet, right! This is perplexing. Does the Ambassador say that US would have accepted to write in the ITR's high-level principles that, say, ETNO kind of proposals should never be encouraged (I mean, of course, in some form of non-specific formal text) and that, say, more competition should be promoted to improve universal access to broadband . From his speech I clearly get this impression. And if true, that makes a revealing point. Why did the civil society then had this single agenda - no internet in the ITRs (as if the Internet was a kind of virus which, even if present in the minutest quantity, spreads everywhere quickly) - without making the distinction between the physical/ infrastructure player (with issues like broadband access, net neutrality, inter-connection regimes) and higher, application and content players. Why were we not able to present and articulate a positive agenda around broadband access, net neutrality and the such, vis a vis the issues that belong to physical/ infrastructure layer. Why were we, the CS, ended up looking like also motivated by the secret desire (though not difficult to divine) - as were the extreme libertarian actors, to just see the ITU die, and with it, also all regulatory regimes around the Internet at national levels. If we indeed want to see ITU simply die, lets not play games and say so it clearly. No Internet in ITU's scope - not even the physical/ infrastructure layer - is simple a death warrant for the ITU. Which may be fine, but then who, for instance addresses the issue of ' global net neutrality'. ('Global net neutrality' was identified as a key cross-border issues by a Council of Europe's expert committee, in which incidentally, Wolfgang also participated.) Why do we think that these are questions for someone else to answer, not for us, the 'global IG civil society'. Why did we allow ourselves to so blatantly take sides in the intense ideological struggle taking place around the remit and powers of the FCC in the US, where the struggle for net neutrality is now all but lost. A game which is going to soon visit our own national regulatory systems very soon. Just watch out! That was at least as big a game that played out at the WCIT as the efforts by some authoritarian countries to use ITU to carve out tightly controllable 'national segments' of the Internet. But, such is the power of the neoliberal social intermediary space - in which I include media as well as the civil society - that only one story is coming out of the WCIT. parminder > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Tue Dec 25 00:12:30 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:42:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem Message-ID: The etno proposal did try to muddle the distinction between telecom settlement and peering. And had aspects of both if I remember correctly So I won't go as far as to pick that particular nit especially as the etno proposal is, currently, moot. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "parminder" To: , "michael gurstein" Subject: [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem Date: Tue, Dec 25, 2012 10:28 AM On Monday 24 December 2012 01:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://isoc-ny.org/misc/isoc-dc_wcit_post_mortem.mp3 Could not open this link but saw on youtube ar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN_PwWkv14A A good and cogent speech by Terry Kramer. One thing surprised me, and it links to what I think was the failure to posit a positive agenda at the WCIT by civil society. Kramer says, first let me deal with the telecommunication side, and there are many positives there (vis a vis WCIT)... (paraphrased) And then he speaks of the ETNO proposal, as being /on the telecom side/.... Of course, he (like us) was happy that ENTO proposal did not pass, he clearly seems to agree that it belonged to the telecom side, and thus to ITR's mandate. This is very significant. (Others who know US positions better can perhaps clarify.) If ETNO proposal was within ITR mandates, even if otherwise a very disagreeable one, would not Internet traffic interconnection regimes be also in ITR's remit.... I dont think it is anyone's case that ETNO proposal was not about the Internet (its physical/ infrastructural layer). So, isnt the US agreeing here that/some kind of Internet could/ should well have been in the ITRs/. Later in the speech, Kramer regrets that much could be done (at the WCIT) about spread of broadband, but that this was not something members were willing to pursue seriously.... Again, it surprised me, but this statement is consistent with the above one on ETNO..... Of course, broadband is Internet, right! This is perplexing. Does the Ambassador say that US would have accepted to write in the ITR's high-level principles that, say, ETNO kind of proposals should never be encouraged (I mean, of course, in some form of non-specific formal text) and that, say, more competition should be promoted to improve universal access to broadband . From his speech I clearly get this impression. And if true, that makes a revealing point. Why did the civil society then had this single agenda - no internet in the ITRs (as if the Internet was a kind of virus which, even if present in the minutest quantity, spreads everywhere quickly) - without making the distinction between the physical/ infrastructure player (with issues like broadband access, net neutrality, inter-connection regimes) and higher, application and content players. Why were we not able to present and articulate a positive agenda around broadband access, net neutrality and the such, vis a vis the issues that belong to physical/ infrastructure layer. Why were we, the CS, ended up looking like also motivated by the secret desire (though not difficult to divine) - as were the extreme libertarian actors, to just see the ITU die, and with it, also all regulatory regimes around the Internet at national levels. If we indeed want to see ITU simply die, lets not play games and say so it clearly. No Internet in ITU's scope - not even the physical/ infrastructure layer - is simple a death warrant for the ITU. Which may be fine, but then who, for instance addresses the issue of ' global net neutrality'. ('Global net neutrality' was identified as a key cross-border issues by a Council of Europe's expert committee, in which incidentally, Wolfgang also participated.) Why do we think that these are questions for someone else to answer, not for us, the 'global IG civil society'. Why did we allow ourselves to so blatantly take sides in the intense ideological struggle taking place around the remit and powers of the FCC in the US, where the struggle for net neutrality is now all but lost. A game which is going to soon visit our own national regulatory systems very soon. Just watch out! That was at least as big a game that played out at the WCIT as the efforts by some authoritarian countries to use ITU to carve out tightly controllable 'national segments' of the Internet. But, such is the power of the neoliberal social intermediary space - in which I include media as well as the civil society - that only one story is coming out of the WCIT. parminder > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Dec 25 00:36:00 2012 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 14:36:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem In-Reply-To: <50D93269.2060605@itforchange.net> References: <009b01cde14b$b51966b0$1f4c3410$@gmail.com> <009c01cde14b$f5c9c3d0$e15d4b70$@gmail.com> <50D93269.2060605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 1:58 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 24 December 2012 01:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://isoc-ny.org/misc/isoc-dc_wcit_post_mortem.mp3 > > > Could not open this link but saw on youtube ar > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN_PwWkv14A > > A good and cogent speech by Terry Kramer. One thing surprised me, and it > links to what I think was the failure to posit a positive agenda at the WCIT > by civil society. > > Kramer says, first let me deal with the telecommunication side, and there > are many positives there (vis a vis WCIT)... (paraphrased) > > And then he speaks of the ETNO proposal, as being on the telecom side.... Of > course, he (like us) was happy that ENTO proposal did not pass, he clearly > seems to agree that it belonged to the telecom side, and thus to ITR's > mandate. > > This is very significant. (Others who know US positions better can perhaps > clarify.) > > If ETNO proposal was within ITR mandates, even if otherwise a very > disagreeable one, would not Internet traffic interconnection regimes be also > in ITR's remit.... I dont think it is anyone's case that ETNO proposal was > not about the Internet (its physical/ infrastructural layer). So, isnt the > US agreeing here that some kind of Internet could/ should well have been in > the ITRs. > > Later in the speech, Kramer regrets that much could be done (at the WCIT) > about spread of broadband, but that this was not something members were > willing to pursue seriously.... Again, it surprised me, but this statement > is consistent with the above one on ETNO..... Of course, broadband is > Internet, right! > No. In the same way as Article 9 is not Internet. Adam > This is perplexing. Does the Ambassador say that US would have accepted to > write in the ITR's high-level principles that, say, ETNO kind of proposals > should never be encouraged (I mean, of course, in some form of non-specific > formal text) and that, say, more competition should be promoted to improve > universal access to broadband . > > From his speech I clearly get this impression. And if true, that makes a > revealing point. > > Why did the civil society then had this single agenda - no internet in the > ITRs (as if the Internet was a kind of virus which, even if present in the > minutest quantity, spreads everywhere quickly) - without making the > distinction between the physical/ infrastructure player (with issues like > broadband access, net neutrality, inter-connection regimes) and higher, > application and content players. > > Why were we not able to present and articulate a positive agenda around > broadband access, net neutrality and the such, vis a vis the issues that > belong to physical/ infrastructure layer. > > Why were we, the CS, ended up looking like also motivated by the secret > desire (though not difficult to divine) - as were the extreme libertarian > actors, to just see the ITU die, and with it, also all regulatory regimes > around the Internet at national levels. If we indeed want to see ITU simply > die, lets not play games and say so it clearly. No Internet in ITU's scope - > not even the physical/ infrastructure layer - is simple a death warrant for > the ITU. Which may be fine, but then who, for instance addresses the issue > of ' global net neutrality'. ('Global net neutrality' was identified as a > key cross-border issues by a Council of Europe's expert committee, in which > incidentally, Wolfgang also participated.) Why do we think that these are > questions for someone else to answer, not for us, the 'global IG civil > society'. > > Why did we allow ourselves to so blatantly take sides in the intense > ideological struggle taking place around the remit and powers of the FCC in > the US, where the struggle for net neutrality is now all but lost. A game > which is going to soon visit our own national regulatory systems very soon. > Just watch out! > > That was at least as big a game that played out at the WCIT as the efforts > by some authoritarian countries to use ITU to carve out tightly controllable > 'national segments' of the Internet. But, such is the power of the > neoliberal social intermediary space - in which I include media as well as > the civil society - that only one story is coming out of the WCIT. > > parminder > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Dec 25 01:13:09 2012 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 11:43:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem In-Reply-To: References: <009b01cde14b$b51966b0$1f4c3410$@gmail.com> <009c01cde14b$f5c9c3d0$e15d4b70$@gmail.com> <50D93269.2060605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <50D943F5.30909@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 25 December 2012 11:06 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 1:58 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> >> Later in the speech, Kramer regrets that much could be done (at the WCIT) >> about spread of broadband, but that this was not something members were >> willing to pursue seriously.... Again, it surprised me, but this statement >> is consistent with the above one on ETNO..... Of course, broadband is >> Internet, right! >> > No. In the same way as Article 9 is not Internet. So, you are saying that broadband is not Internet. Whereby, do you agree that we could have had text in the new ITRs like ' universal access to broadband will be promoted through greater competition and......' ? Also, are inter-connection regimes, and net neutrality, telecom issues or Internet issues? If they are telecom issues, could we have had them mentioned in the new ITRs. (Wish we were having this conversation before dubai. We may just have saved the world from the bad effects of the eventual stand off.) parminder (PS; what article 9 are you speaking of? ITR's article 9 on special arrangements?) > > Adam > >> This is perplexing. Does the Ambassador say that US would have accepted to >> write in the ITR's high-level principles that, say, ETNO kind of proposals >> should never be encouraged (I mean, of course, in some form of non-specific >> formal text) and that, say, more competition should be promoted to improve >> universal access to broadband . >> >> From his speech I clearly get this impression. And if true, that makes a >> revealing point. >> >> Why did the civil society then had this single agenda - no internet in the >> ITRs (as if the Internet was a kind of virus which, even if present in the >> minutest quantity, spreads everywhere quickly) - without making the >> distinction between the physical/ infrastructure player (with issues like >> broadband access, net neutrality, inter-connection regimes) and higher, >> application and content players. >> >> Why were we not able to present and articulate a positive agenda around >> broadband access, net neutrality and the such, vis a vis the issues that >> belong to physical/ infrastructure layer. >> >> Why were we, the CS, ended up looking like also motivated by the secret >> desire (though not difficult to divine) - as were the extreme libertarian >> actors, to just see the ITU die, and with it, also all regulatory regimes >> around the Internet at national levels. If we indeed want to see ITU simply >> die, lets not play games and say so it clearly. No Internet in ITU's scope - >> not even the physical/ infrastructure layer - is simple a death warrant for >> the ITU. Which may be fine, but then who, for instance addresses the issue >> of ' global net neutrality'. ('Global net neutrality' was identified as a >> key cross-border issues by a Council of Europe's expert committee, in which >> incidentally, Wolfgang also participated.) Why do we think that these are >> questions for someone else to answer, not for us, the 'global IG civil >> society'. >> >> Why did we allow ourselves to so blatantly take sides in the intense >> ideological struggle taking place around the remit and powers of the FCC in >> the US, where the struggle for net neutrality is now all but lost. A game >> which is going to soon visit our own national regulatory systems very soon. >> Just watch out! >> >> That was at least as big a game that played out at the WCIT as the efforts >> by some authoritarian countries to use ITU to carve out tightly controllable >> 'national segments' of the Internet. But, such is the power of the >> neoliberal social intermediary space - in which I include media as well as >> the civil society - that only one story is coming out of the WCIT. >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Tue Dec 25 05:48:33 2012 From: bavouc at gmail.com (Martial Bavou[Private Business Account]) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 11:48:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] 2013 Wishes Message-ID: Dear, The Bavou Family, Yaoundé – Cameroon have the pleasure to send this special 2013 wishes for you. - May this New Year bring many opportunities your way to explore every joy of life. - May this New Year all your dreams turn into reality and all your efforts into great achievements. - May the New Year bring new hopes, new promises and new reasons to celebrate your presence in your lives. - Hoping that this new year leads you towards path of new found glories - May each day of the coming year be vibrant and new bringing along many reasons for celebrations. - Here is a wishing that the coming year is a glorious one that rewards all your future endeavors with success. - May all the dreams in your eyes, all the desires in your heart and all the hopes in your life blend together, to give you the most spectacular New Year ever. - May you found Health, Success, Abundance, Love, Prosperity, and Great Achievement throughout 2013… YOU ARE SPECIAL AND BLESSED cid:781401211 at 23122008-1F92 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 62532 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 kerry at kdbsystems.com Tue Dec 25 08:42:45 2012 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 13:42:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Happy Holidays Message-ID: I don't post here much but I very much appreciate following the ebb and flow of this mailing list. Thank you all. I wish you all the best in the coming year and in the name of whatever holiday or ceremony you celebrate near the winter solstice I wish you joy and good health. Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 26 02:35:21 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 23:35:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Google: Copyright removal requests spike to 2.5 million per week In-Reply-To: <3AA8104A-A6C0-4935-8D65-6F60AC437B78@warpspeed.com> References: <3AA8104A-A6C0-4935-8D65-6F60AC437B78@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <026301cde33b$90259490$b070bdb0$@gmail.com> This seems to be of some significance... A few questions: 1. does this mean that Google is now a (perhaps ``the``) global policeman for the copyright industry? 2. does this not make Google a hugely significant (if apparently reluctant) ``private regulator``/ intervener in Internet ``freedom`` (with very heavy ``hands on the Internet`` 3. who is in a position to regulate this regulator 4. where there is a conflict between the copyright laws of one country and those of another, which will prevail -- or do all such laws prevail 5. etc. M Google: Copyright removal requests spike to 2.5 million per week By Jennifer Martinez 12/11/12 Google announced Tuesday that the number of requests it receives each week to remove links to allegedly infringing websites in its search results has grown ten-fold over the past six months. The number of copyright removal requests sent to Google has risen to more than 2.5 million per week from 250,000 in six months, Google Legal Director Fred von Lohmann said in a company blog post. He said the number spiked after it launched its copyright removals feature in May. "As policymakers evaluate how effective copyright laws are, they need to consider the collateral impact copyright regulation has on the flow of information online," von Lohmann writes. When asked about the spike in take-down requests, a Google spokesperson said they believe some of the increase is from Google streamlining the process to submit requests, and also due in part to copyright owners using more sophisticated tools to identify piracy and send notices to Google. Von Lohmann added that the search company will start releasing more granular data about the number of Web links it removes from its search results due to copyright removal requests. The search company will now disclose how many Web links to certain websites, such as the Pirate Bay and isoHunt, it removed from its search results because of take-down notices. It will also provide data for how many Web links it removed for each copyright removal request, as well as the percentage of Web links it decided not to remove from its search results. Von Lohmann said Google has removed 97.5 percent of all Web links included in copyright removal requests. The company processes these requests within six hours, on average, he said. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 26 02:51:21 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 13:21:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Google: Copyright removal requests spike to 2.5 million per week In-Reply-To: <026301cde33b$90259490$b070bdb0$@gmail.com> References: <3AA8104A-A6C0-4935-8D65-6F60AC437B78@warpspeed.com> <026301cde33b$90259490$b070bdb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <007901cde33d$cdacb350$690619f0$@hserus.net> Below, tagged [srs] > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein > > This seems to be of some significance... > > A few questions: > 1. does this mean that Google is now a (perhaps ``the``) global > policeman for the copyright industry? [srs] No. The DMCA requires each provider to act on requests from copyright holders and take appropriate action. If content is not hosted on Google, Google does not receive any notification at all. A "global policeman" would imply a role where Google has authority to walk into any other random provider (say Yahoo)'s datacenter and pull the plug on content hosted there. > 2. does this not make Google a hugely significant (if apparently > reluctant) ``private regulator``/ intervener in Internet ``freedom`` (with > very heavy ``hands on the Internet`` [srs] It is a provider based in the USA and bound by US law - which includes the DMCA. > 3. who is in a position to regulate this regulator [srs] Where does Google get any sort of regulatory status here? > 4. where there is a conflict between the copyright laws of one country > and those of another, which will prevail -- or do all such laws prevail [srs] Copyright law of any country depends on the country the content is hosted in, and the jurisdiction asserted by the terms of use contract between the customer and the company. Additionally, any country at all can send Google takedown requests based on content deemed illegal in their country. If there is a conflict between that country's law and US law, Google has been known to simply block the content from being served in responses to IP addresses from that country. --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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 03:21:46 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 00:21:46 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Google: Copyright removal requests spike to 2.5 million per week In-Reply-To: <007901cde33d$cdacb350$690619f0$@hserus.net> References: <3AA8104A-A6C0-4935-8D65-6F60AC437B78@warpspeed.com> <026301cde33b$90259490$b070bdb0$@gmail.com> <007901cde33d$cdacb350$690619f0$@hserus.net> Message-ID: <026d01cde342$1dac4bf0$5904e3d0$@gmail.com> Would that things were that simple Suresh... M -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 11:51 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'michael gurstein' Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Google: Copyright removal requests spike to 2.5 million per week Below, tagged [srs] > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein > > This seems to be of some significance... > > A few questions: > 1. does this mean that Google is now a (perhaps ``the``) global > policeman for the copyright industry? [srs] No. The DMCA requires each provider to act on requests from copyright holders and take appropriate action. If content is not hosted on Google, Google does not receive any notification at all. A "global policeman" would imply a role where Google has authority to walk into any other random provider (say Yahoo)'s datacenter and pull the plug on content hosted there. > 2. does this not make Google a hugely significant (if apparently > reluctant) ``private regulator``/ intervener in Internet ``freedom`` > (with very heavy ``hands on the Internet`` [srs] It is a provider based in the USA and bound by US law - which includes the DMCA. > 3. who is in a position to regulate this regulator [srs] Where does Google get any sort of regulatory status here? > 4. where there is a conflict between the copyright laws of one country > and those of another, which will prevail -- or do all such laws > prevail [srs] Copyright law of any country depends on the country the content is hosted in, and the jurisdiction asserted by the terms of use contract between the customer and the company. Additionally, any country at all can send Google takedown requests based on content deemed illegal in their country. If there is a conflict between that country's law and US law, Google has been known to simply block the content from being served in responses to IP addresses from that country. --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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 26 03:36:01 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 14:06:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Google: Copyright removal requests spike to 2.5 million per week In-Reply-To: <026d01cde342$1dac4bf0$5904e3d0$@gmail.com> References: <3AA8104A-A6C0-4935-8D65-6F60AC437B78@warpspeed.com> <026301cde33b$90259490$b070bdb0$@gmail.com> <007901cde33d$cdacb350$690619f0$@hserus.net> <026d01cde342$1dac4bf0$5904e3d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <009001cde344$0b01efd0$2105cf70$@hserus.net> Just as simple as "is google a global policeman"? Legal compliance and international law surrounding such compliance is a fairly complicated field - but one with fairly well understood operating principles. Anybody with a law degree might be able to comment further. suresh > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein > Sent: 26 December 2012 13:52 > To: 'Suresh Ramasubramanian'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Google: Copyright removal > requests spike to 2.5 million per week > > Would that things were that simple Suresh... > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 11:51 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'michael gurstein' > Subject: RE: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Google: Copyright removal > requests spike to 2.5 million per week > > Below, tagged [srs] > > > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein > > > > This seems to be of some significance... > > > > A few questions: > > 1. does this mean that Google is now a (perhaps ``the``) global > > policeman for the copyright industry? > > [srs] No. The DMCA requires each provider to act on requests from copyright > holders and take appropriate action. If content is not hosted on Google, > Google does not receive any notification at all. A "global policeman" would > imply a role where Google has authority to walk into any other random > provider (say Yahoo)'s datacenter and pull the plug on content hosted there. > > > 2. does this not make Google a hugely significant (if apparently > > reluctant) ``private regulator``/ intervener in Internet ``freedom`` > > (with very heavy ``hands on the Internet`` > > [srs] It is a provider based in the USA and bound by US law - which includes > the DMCA. > > > 3. who is in a position to regulate this regulator > > [srs] Where does Google get any sort of regulatory status here? > > > 4. where there is a conflict between the copyright laws of one > country > > and those of another, which will prevail -- or do all such laws > > prevail > > [srs] Copyright law of any country depends on the country the content is > hosted in, and the jurisdiction asserted by the terms of use contract between > the customer and the company. Additionally, any country at all can send > Google takedown requests based on content deemed illegal in their country. > If there is a conflict between that country's law and US law, Google has been > known to simply block the content from being served in responses to IP > addresses from that country. > > --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 michael_leibrandt at web.de Wed Dec 26 04:12:32 2012 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:12:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Google: Copyright removal requests spike to 2.5 million per week References: <3AA8104A-A6C0-4935-8D65-6F60AC437B78@warpspeed.com> <026301cde33b$90259490$b070bdb0$@gmail.com> <007901cde33d$cdacb350$690619f0$@hserus.net> Message-ID: ...which means that we already have borders in cyberspace - a fact sometimes ignored in the IG discussion, including WCIT. The difference to the pre-Internet age is that these borders are not enforced by governments, but by private companies - something not everybody might see as an improvement. The interesting question is to what extent Google does make a content related distinction between (legally correct) requests coming from "good" or "bad" countries, because this would include political value judgements. For the user, it doesn't make that much of a difference if a non-democratic government directly controls Internet content, or if this government passes a law which results in blocking "illegal" content by Google. Michael, Berlin > [srs] Copyright law of any country depends on the country the content is > hosted in, and the jurisdiction asserted by the terms of use contract > between the customer and the company. Additionally, any country at all > can > send Google takedown requests based on content deemed illegal in their > country. If there is a conflict between that country's law and US law, > Google has been known to simply block the content from being served in > responses to IP addresses from that country. > > --srs > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Wed Dec 26 04:37:45 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:07:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Google: Copyright removal requests spike to 2.5 million per week In-Reply-To: References: <3AA8104A-A6C0-4935-8D65-6F60AC437B78@warpspeed.com> <026301cde33b$90259490$b070bdb0$@gmail.com> <007901cde33d$cdacb350$690619f0$@hserus.net> Message-ID: <009e01cde34c$ab176830$01463890$@hserus.net> > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Michael Leibrandt > ...which means that we already have borders in cyberspace - a fact sometimes > ignored in the IG discussion, including WCIT. The difference to the pre- > Internet age is that these borders are not enforced by governments, but by An overly literal belief in "code is law" type lessigism has its pitfalls, I guess. Borders are *enforced* by governments. And jurisdiction is asserted *by governments* Any company (whether or not in the Internet business) that does business across borders has a duty to comply with the laws of all the countries that it operates in. This does lead to a balancing act of sort, when there are conflicting legal requirements between two different countries, and when the content is created in one country, hosted in another country, and accessed in yet a third country [all of which are grounds for jurisdiction]. This is sometimes a good thing. And sometimes a debatable (not illegal at any rate, given the amount of legal review any cross border transaction gets) thing - to quote one pet peeve of Mr.Gurstein's, companies will leverage to the hilt any cross border tax loophole at all they have access to, and set up business in some countries solely for the tax advantage this brings them. > private companies - something not everybody might see as an improvement. > The interesting question is to what extent Google does make a content related > distinction between (legally correct) requests coming from "good" or "bad" > countries, because this would include political value judgements. For the This is not a political value judgement. Take it this way. 1. Google's base location is the USA - which has a constitutionally protected right to free speech 2. It does business, has offices, sells service, and has users in other countries that may limit free speech to some extent on specific topics (eg: Naziism in Europe, criticism of the King in Thailand), or repress it across the board, in other countries. So, when such requests come in, a simple test (with which you'd begin) would be - is the content illegal both under US as well as local law? For example, if it is malware, child pornography or similar. In such cases, it becomes much simpler to decide to take it down, and possibly retain a copy of the logs and other forensic evidence for law enforcement, to be rendered to them on receipt of a subpoena. In other cases, where it is illegal in only one jurisdiction, but mostly legal elsewhere - it gets blocked for users in that one jurisdiction If it violates the terms of service Google has for its users across the world, [which can occasionally be a different thing from "it is illegal across the world"] - for example, gambling (to pick an example out of thin air, I am not sure of Google's policy about these], then too, it gets taken down. If it is violative of US law - as Google asserts US jurisdiction for content that it hosts - it gets taken down. > user, it doesn't make that much of a difference if a non-democratic > government directly controls Internet content, or if this government passes a > law which results in blocking "illegal" content by Google. It is a way out for that government to not block Google services for all its citizens - and potentially affect Google service worldwide, as Pakistan Telecom accidentally did when it leaked fake routes for Youtube into the bgp cloud rather than restricted to its peers in Pakistan. --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 michael_leibrandt at web.de Wed Dec 26 05:42:44 2012 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 11:42:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: References: <0e2801cdded5$2b229760$8167c620$@gmail.com> <0e4e01cdded9$f474d7a0$dd5e86e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <64569BB1436D4E29883E0ABC62C9F5AA@yourh4vl8csyi6> Hi Michael, Thanks for the link. I'm not sure if the terminus technicus "public good" actually fits to the Internet. Without digging into a decade-long debate among economists, public goods are usually characterized by being non-excludible as well as non-rivalrous (the Wikipedia article you linked rightly points this out). Even if bandwith continues to grow, it will - technically speaking - never be unlimited. And as we know, bandwith demand usually grows parallel to bandwith supply. So I don't see a chance for Internet usage becoming non-rivalrous. And I also believe that it will always be possible to practically exclude somebody from using the Internet (contrary to public defense, which is often used as an example for being a public good). The important issue about applying the term public good to the Internet is, that public goods - according to mainstream economics - usually come with market failure and the need for governments to step in. To my knowledge, that was the case in the very early days of the Internet when outside of the US government and academia not many - and especially not the telecom industry - believed in the concept of a package-switched network. But today, I don't see market failure with regard to Internet supply. Of course, we are stick lacking Internet supply in developing countries, which is bad enough. But this is based on the low return on private investments, not on the two criteria mentioned above. Michael, Berlin ----- Original Message ----- From: michael gurstein To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:46 PM Subject: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/towards-the-internet-as-a-global-public-good/ With my very best for the season and looking forward to a just and inclusive new year. M ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 26 05:48:47 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:18:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: In-Reply-To: <64569BB1436D4E29883E0ABC62C9F5AA@yourh4vl8csyi6> References: <0e2801cdded5$2b229760$8167c620$@gmail.com> <0e4e01cdded9$f474d7a0$dd5e86e0$@gmail.com> <64569BB1436D4E29883E0ABC62C9F5AA@yourh4vl8csyi6> Message-ID: <00b001cde356$988a3760$c99ea620$@hserus.net> In some cases, there has been, for example, unbundling, common carrier norms for telecom, various anti monopolistic restrictions such as allowing any compatible device to be connected to a network, allowing other ISPs access to cable you have laid, etc. So there is governmental regulation, and some government encouragement / subsidy especially in underserved areas (rural, rough terrain, sparse population etc) However all these usually stop short at the physical layer – cabling, interconnection and such. There’s as far as I can see, substantial private enterprise drive and innovation on layers at and above the network layer so that there usually isn’t as much of an imperative to declare the internet as a whole a public good. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Michael Leibrandt Sent: 26 December 2012 16:13 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: Hi Michael, Thanks for the link. I'm not sure if the terminus technicus "public good" actually fits to the Internet. Without digging into a decade-long debate among economists, public goods are usually characterized by being non-excludible as well as non-rivalrous (the Wikipedia article you linked rightly points this out). Even if bandwith continues to grow, it will - technically speaking - never be unlimited. And as we know, bandwith demand usually grows parallel to bandwith supply. So I don't see a chance for Internet usage becoming non-rivalrous. And I also believe that it will always be possible to practically exclude somebody from using the Internet (contrary to public defense, which is often used as an example for being a public good). The important issue about applying the term public good to the Internet is, that public goods - according to mainstream economics - usually come with market failure and the need for governments to step in. To my knowledge, that was the case in the very early days of the Internet when outside of the US government and academia not many - and especially not the telecom industry - believed in the concept of a package-switched network. But today, I don't see market failure with regard to Internet supply. Of course, we are stick lacking Internet supply in developing countries, which is bad enough. But this is based on the low return on private investments, not on the two criteria mentioned above. Michael, Berlin ----- Original Message ----- From: michael gurstein To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:46 PM Subject: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/towards-the-internet-as-a-global-public-good/ With my very best for the season and looking forward to a just and inclusive new year. M _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Dec 26 05:56:36 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 10:56:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Google: Copyright removal requests spike to 2.5 million per week In-Reply-To: <009e01cde34c$ab176830$01463890$@hserus.net> References: <3AA8104A-A6C0-4935-8D65-6F60AC437B78@warpspeed.com> <026301cde33b$90259490$b070bdb0$@gmail.com> <007901cde33d$cdacb350$690619f0$@hserus.net> <009e01cde34c$ab176830$01463890$@hserus.net> Message-ID: In message <009e01cde34c$ab176830$01463890$@hserus.net>, at 15:07:45 on Wed, 26 Dec 2012, Suresh Ramasubramanian writes >So, when such requests come in, a simple test (with which you'd begin) would >be - is the content illegal both under US as well as local law? And by co-incidence I expect that much of the alleged copyright infringement is regarding content (intellectual property) that has a strong US flavour. We have Hollywood, and their world-leading[1] music industry, to thank for that I suppose. Rather like the good/bad spam debate, I don't think it's helpful to characterise attempts to thwart piracy of entertainment media as "censorship". But when a someone steals your educational pamphlet[2] and markets it for themselves, there ought to be some redress for the affected party. Neither do I think it's right to falsely claim copyright infringement in order to suppress a competitor or critic, but the DMCA does at least have measures in it to mitigate that. [1] Apologies to any Beatles fans. [2] Happened to me last month. -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Wed Dec 26 12:20:28 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:20:28 -0800 Subject: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: In-Reply-To: <64569BB1436D4E29883E0ABC62C9F5AA@yourh4vl8csyi6> References: <0e2801cdded5$2b229760$8167c620$@gmail.com> <0e4e01cdded9$f474d7a0$dd5e86e0$@gmail.com> <64569BB1436D4E29883E0ABC62C9F5AA@yourh4vl8csyi6> Message-ID: <035d01cde38d$4d990420$e8cb0c60$@gmail.com> Hi Michael, Thanks for raising the issues that you do. I`m not an economist but in reviewing your comments I realize that I should have mentioned in the blogpost that rather than referring to the mainstream perspective on Global Public Goods (GPG) (as evidenced by the Wikipedia reference), my own thinking in this area was formed largely by the work of a Inge Kaul when and after she was working with the UNDP and specifically on the UN Human Development Report and the International Task Force on Global Public Goods. In her discussion, rather than seeing GPG as a ``market failure`` counterpart to private (market) goods, as neo-classical economists would have it, she developed (through linking her discussion to Ostrom among others) a ``positive`` perspective on GPG`s as an element in achieving what she calls active policy driven objectives (and specifically linking these with civil society and the broad public interest including in areas of global social and economic justice and environmental management). I believe that her approach to GPG`s is directly consistent with a public interest approach to the global development and ``management`` of the Internet. http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf. (Note that I`ve updated my GPG link in the blogpost.) Best, Mike From: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 2:43 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: Hi Michael, Thanks for the link. I'm not sure if the terminus technicus "public good" actually fits to the Internet. Without digging into a decade-long debate among economists, public goods are usually characterized by being non-excludible as well as non-rivalrous (the Wikipedia article you linked rightly points this out). Even if bandwith continues to grow, it will - technically speaking - never be unlimited. And as we know, bandwith demand usually grows parallel to bandwith supply. So I don't see a chance for Internet usage becoming non-rivalrous. And I also believe that it will always be possible to practically exclude somebody from using the Internet (contrary to public defense, which is often used as an example for being a public good). The important issue about applying the term public good to the Internet is, that public goods - according to mainstream economics - usually come with market failure and the need for governments to step in. To my knowledge, that was the case in the very early days of the Internet when outside of the US government and academia not many - and especially not the telecom industry - believed in the concept of a package-switched network. But today, I don't see market failure with regard to Internet supply. Of course, we are stick lacking Internet supply in developing countries, which is bad enough. But this is based on the low return on private investments, not on the two criteria mentioned above. Michael, Berlin ----- Original Message ----- From: michael gurstein To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:46 PM Subject: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/towards-the-internet-as-a-global-public-good/ With my very best for the season and looking forward to a just and inclusive new year. M _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Wed Dec 26 18:16:06 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 23:16:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?FW=3A_=5BDewayne-Net=5D_Facebook_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?paid_=A32=2E9m_tax_on_=A3840m_profits?= In-Reply-To: <00a001cde14d$204533f0$60cf9bd0$@gmail.com> References: <6D33DFB1-E580-4A47-B25B-AD660DC87043@warpspeed.com> <00a001cde14d$204533f0$60cf9bd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <00a001cde14d$204533f0$60cf9bd0$@gmail.com>, at 12:36:02 on Sun, 23 Dec 2012, michael gurstein writes >A Facebook spokeswoman said: "Facebook complies with all relevant >corporate regulations including those related to filing company >reports and taxation." It's taken a long time for legal tax avoidance schemes to become a political hot potato [several other companies have done it in plain sight for a generation]. But the genie is out of the bottle now. (Apologies for the profuse metaphors). >The company added that it chose to base its international >headquarters in Ireland as it was the "best location to hire >staff with the right skills to run a multilingual hi-tech operation >serving the whole of Europe". Which is true. Many well-known technology companies have based themselves in Ireland and tapped the same talent (much of it immigrant, not that it's a bad thing). Dell, Intel, Apple etc. -- 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 suresh at hserus.net Wed Dec 26 21:27:02 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 07:57:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: In-Reply-To: <035d01cde38d$4d990420$e8cb0c60$@gmail.com> References: <0e2801cdded5$2b229760$8167c620$@gmail.com> <0e4e01cdded9$f474d7a0$dd5e86e0$@gmail.com> <64569BB1436D4E29883E0ABC62C9F5AA@yourh4vl8csyi6> <035d01cde38d$4d990420$e8cb0c60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001b01cde3d9$a8bf7360$fa3e5a20$@hserus.net> In that sense, the role of a regulator as an enabler / facilitator of growth and competition would be the ideal. This did start from the breakup of the ma bell monopoly back in the day, and continues across different countries, depending on the level of engagement a particular regulatory agency (and more to the point, its current leadership) is prepared to dedicate to the issue. Which would go to explain why you can get several hundred mbit fiber connections to the home in some places while others are lucky to have one single local phone company providing a basic level of service, if they aren’t in an area where a nationwide telco has almost monopoly coverage. From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein Sent: 26 December 2012 22:50 To: 'Michael Leibrandt'; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: Hi Michael, Thanks for raising the issues that you do. I`m not an economist but in reviewing your comments I realize that I should have mentioned in the blogpost that rather than referring to the mainstream perspective on Global Public Goods (GPG) (as evidenced by the Wikipedia reference), my own thinking in this area was formed largely by the work of a Inge Kaul when and after she was working with the UNDP and specifically on the UN Human Development Report and the International Task Force on Global Public Goods. In her discussion, rather than seeing GPG as a ``market failure`` counterpart to private (market) goods, as neo-classical economists would have it, she developed (through linking her discussion to Ostrom among others) a ``positive`` perspective on GPG`s as an element in achieving what she calls active policy driven objectives (and specifically linking these with civil society and the broad public interest including in areas of global social and economic justice and environmental management). I believe that her approach to GPG`s is directly consistent with a public interest approach to the global development and ``management`` of the Internet. http://www.yorku.ca/drache/talks/pdf/apd_kaulfin.pdf. (Note that I`ve updated my GPG link in the blogpost.) Best, Mike From: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 2:43 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: Hi Michael, Thanks for the link. I'm not sure if the terminus technicus "public good" actually fits to the Internet. Without digging into a decade-long debate among economists, public goods are usually characterized by being non-excludible as well as non-rivalrous (the Wikipedia article you linked rightly points this out). Even if bandwith continues to grow, it will - technically speaking - never be unlimited. And as we know, bandwith demand usually grows parallel to bandwith supply. So I don't see a chance for Internet usage becoming non-rivalrous. And I also believe that it will always be possible to practically exclude somebody from using the Internet (contrary to public defense, which is often used as an example for being a public good). The important issue about applying the term public good to the Internet is, that public goods - according to mainstream economics - usually come with market failure and the need for governments to step in. To my knowledge, that was the case in the very early days of the Internet when outside of the US government and academia not many - and especially not the telecom industry - believed in the concept of a package-switched network. But today, I don't see market failure with regard to Internet supply. Of course, we are stick lacking Internet supply in developing countries, which is bad enough. But this is based on the low return on private investments, not on the two criteria mentioned above. Michael, Berlin ----- Original Message ----- From: michael gurstein To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:46 PM Subject: [governance] FW: Towards the Internet as a Global Public Good: A Seasonal Wish to One and All: http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/towards-the-internet-as-a-global-public-good/ With my very best for the season and looking forward to a just and inclusive new year. M _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From michael_leibrandt at web.de Thu Dec 27 07:37:11 2012 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:37:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?FW=3A_=5BDewayne-Net=5D_Facebook_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?paid_=A32=2E9m_tax_on_=A3840m_profits?= References: <6D33DFB1-E580-4A47-B25B-AD660DC87043@warpspeed.com> <00a001cde14d$204533f0$60cf9bd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <90815F347C444066AE5773EAAA3ACB00@yourh4vl8csyi6> Well, having started as a tax lawyer some decades ago, I remember pretty well the discussions we already had at that time for example in the respectice OECD working groups. But it needs to be said that we are looking at tax avoidance, not tax fraud. And all those preferential rules and regulations have been introduced by democratic governments after listening to the national stakeholders, so we can't blame the companies for making use of it. Without the political will to make individual countries more attractive for international business by offering tax incentives, schemes like the well-known "Double Irish in a Dutch Sandwhich" wouldn't be possible. By the way, this is not only about big companies - next time you by music from U2 or the Stones you should be aware they are doing exactly the same... Michael, Berlin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roland Perry" To: Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Facebook paid £2.9m tax on £840m profits > In message <00a001cde14d$204533f0$60cf9bd0$@gmail.com>, at 12:36:02 on > Sun, 23 Dec 2012, michael gurstein writes > >>A Facebook spokeswoman said: "Facebook complies with all relevant >>corporate regulations including those related to filing company >>reports and taxation." > > It's taken a long time for legal tax avoidance schemes to become a > political hot potato [several other companies have done it in plain > sight for a generation]. But the genie is out of the bottle now. > > (Apologies for the profuse metaphors). > >>The company added that it chose to base its international >>headquarters in Ireland as it was the "best location to hire >>staff with the right skills to run a multilingual hi-tech operation >>serving the whole of Europe". > > Which is true. Many well-known technology companies have based > themselves in Ireland and tapped the same talent (much of it > immigrant, not that it's a bad thing). Dell, Intel, Apple etc. > -- > Roland Perry > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 27 11:06:40 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 08:06:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?FW=3A_=5BDewayne-Net=5D_Facebook_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?paid_=A32=2E9m_tax_on_=A3840m_profits?= In-Reply-To: <90815F347C444066AE5773EAAA3ACB00@yourh4vl8csyi6> References: <6D33DFB1-E580-4A47-B25B-AD660DC87043@warpspeed.com> <00a001cde14d$204533f0$60cf9bd0$@gmail.com> <90815F347C444066AE5773EAAA3ACB00@yourh4vl8csyi6> Message-ID: <020101cde44c$2900ad10$7b020730$@gmail.com> Hi Michael, No question that you are correct but a few things need to be added to the mix I think... 1. globalization including in the transfer and sale of immaterial (virtual or virtualized) goods and services is becoming transformative both in volume and in substance as a result of the Internet... National administrative and political regimes (including in taxation) are struggling to keep up and in many cases appear to be falling behind--hence the current complaints from largely OECD countries concerning the tax related behaviours of companies like Google and Facebook. 2. a further effect of the Internet is to render national boundaries much much more porous/fluid/transparent/immaterial than previously. While some corporations (and individuals) are massively able to capitalize on this; these appear to be restricted to only a very few countries who in turn appear to be sufficiently well positioned and resourced to profit while others lack sufficient resources to intervene or even have oversight over these processes let alone ensure significant local benefits. This suggests the need for some sort of global oversight mechanism since no single national regime is able to effectively respond in these areas. 3. the issue under discussion here is less whether past behaviours were legal or not (leaving aside the ethics of not paying ones' "fair share") but whether certain actions/interventions are either deliberately or by happenstance directed towards a "political" intervention so as to preclude the type of globalized "Hands On" actions that might be warranted given the changing legal, taxation and other circumstances that the Internet is precipitating. 4. Internet enabled globalized and digitized communications; commerce; production, management and distribution all indicate the need for an equally globalized set of institutions and actions in support of a globalized public interest including in the area of taxation but more broadly concerning the distribution of the benefits (and costs) of these processes. Mike, Vancouver -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Michael Leibrandt Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 4:37 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Facebook paid £2.9m tax on £840m profits Well, having started as a tax lawyer some decades ago, I remember pretty well the discussions we already had at that time for example in the respectice OECD working groups. But it needs to be said that we are looking at tax avoidance, not tax fraud. And all those preferential rules and regulations have been introduced by democratic governments after listening to the national stakeholders, so we can't blame the companies for making use of it. Without the political will to make individual countries more attractive for international business by offering tax incentives, schemes like the well-known "Double Irish in a Dutch Sandwhich" wouldn't be possible. By the way, this is not only about big companies - next time you by music from U2 or the Stones you should be aware they are doing exactly the same... Michael, Berlin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roland Perry" To: Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:16 AM Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Facebook paid £2.9m tax on £840m profits > In message <00a001cde14d$204533f0$60cf9bd0$@gmail.com>, at 12:36:02 on > Sun, 23 Dec 2012, michael gurstein writes > >>A Facebook spokeswoman said: "Facebook complies with all relevant >>corporate regulations including those related to filing company >>reports and taxation." > > It's taken a long time for legal tax avoidance schemes to become a > political hot potato [several other companies have done it in plain > sight for a generation]. But the genie is out of the bottle now. > > (Apologies for the profuse metaphors). > >>The company added that it chose to base its international headquarters >>in Ireland as it was the "best location to hire staff with the right >>skills to run a multilingual hi-tech operation serving the whole of >>Europe". > > Which is true. Many well-known technology companies have based > themselves in Ireland and tapped the same talent (much of it > immigrant, not that it's a bad thing). Dell, Intel, Apple etc. > -- > Roland Perry > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Dec 27 12:04:14 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:04:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem In-Reply-To: <50D93269.2060605@itforchange.net> References: <009b01cde14b$b51966b0$1f4c3410$@gmail.com> <009c01cde14b$f5c9c3d0$e15d4b70$@gmail.com> <50D93269.2060605@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22E5B4B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Dr, Mueller here, to administer some ideological antidotes… A good and cogent speech by Terry Kramer. One thing surprised me, and it links to what I think was the failure to posit a positive agenda at the WCIT by civil society. Kramer says, first let me deal with the telecommunication side, and there are many positives there (vis a vis WCIT)... (paraphrased) And then he speaks of the ETNO proposal, as being on the telecom side.... If ETNO proposal was within ITR mandates, even if otherwise a very disagreeable one, would not Internet traffic interconnection regimes be also in ITR's remit.... I dont think it is anyone's case that ETNO proposal was not about the Internet (its physical/ infrastructural layer). So, isnt the US agreeing here that some kind of Internet could/ should well have been in the ITRs. [Milton L Mueller] Parminder: I don’t know why Kramer said the ETNO proposal was telecom. It actually dealt with internet interconnection agreements. As such, it is not “physical layer” but network layer (layer 3, and usually includes layer 4 as well). However, in one sense internet interconnection is and always has been in the ITRs, and that is through Article 9 Special Arrangements, which says they are deregulated and to be left to commercial negotiations. Later in the speech, Kramer regrets that much could be done (at the WCIT) about spread of broadband, but that this was not something members were willing to pursue seriously.... Again, it surprised me, but this statement is consistent with the above one on ETNO..... Of course, broadband is Internet, right! [Milton L Mueller] No, not necessarily. In the current environment of course 99% of all users, both business and consumer, would use broadband capacity for internet access, but if broadband means a high speed “pipe” it is indeed physical layer and that pipe could be used for non-internet data communication protocols, television signals, burglar alarms, whatever. Anyway, I would not take seriously Kramer’s or any American’s comments about how the ITU can help with the spread of broadband. This is a well-worn tactic; “helping developing countries” through unspecified means, usually purely informational, is always held up as an alternative to or diversion from the other stuff they really don’t want it to do. Why were we not able to present and articulate a positive agenda around broadband access, net neutrality and the such, vis a vis the issues that belong to physical/ infrastructure layer. [Milton L Mueller] By a “positive agenda” you mean an agenda that would make hierarchical governmental agencies take more responsibility for supply of infrastructure and services, and more regulation, am I right? Just be aware that not everyone in civil society thinks of that agenda as “positive.” Why were we, the CS, ended up looking like also motivated by the secret desire (though not difficult to divine) - as were the extreme libertarian actors, [Milton L Mueller] As above, I am wise to the rhetorical games being played and would urge others to be aware of them as well. First, civil society is ideologically heterogeneous on those issues. So don’t pretend that the so-called “extreme libertarian actors” are not “we, the CS.” Second, unless you want to be dubbed an “extreme socialist” or “extreme authoritarian” or “extreme regulator” I would get rid of the needless adjective “extreme” and try to use accurate labels rather than scare terms. to just see the ITU die, and with it, also all regulatory regimes around the Internet at national levels. If we indeed want to see ITU simply die, lets not play games and say so it clearly. [Milton L Mueller] Many people did openly call for ITU to die. See Andrew McLaughlin’s comments at the NAF event, for one, which were well-received. I have openly stated for months that the ITRs are not needed and that it was a mistake to try to update them – although I have not specifically called for the ITU to die. However, you don’t have to be a libertarian to understand that there is something less than appealing about intergovernmental organizations governing the internet, or international communications generally. You just have to be aware of basic international relations theory and have a commitment to freedom of expression and a willingness to accept technological developments that disrupt established social orders. Anyway, once again one has to be aware of the rhetorical ploy here. To want the ITU to die does not necessarily mean one wants all regulatory regimes around the internet to die, nor does it mean that one wants all national regulatory regimes to die with it. No Internet in ITU's scope - not even the physical/ infrastructure layer - is simple a death warrant for the ITU. Which may be fine, but then who, for instance addresses the issue of ' global net neutrality'. ('Global net neutrality' was identified as a key cross-border issues by a Council of Europe's expert committee, in which incidentally, Wolfgang also participated.) Why do we think that these are questions for someone else to answer, not for us, the 'global IG civil society'. [Milton L Mueller] Are you seriously suggesting that ITU could become a force for global net neutrality? Well, at least you are being consistent. As a pro-regulatory guy, a person who seems to have never met an economic regulation he didn’t like, you should indeed view the ITU as something not to be thrown away casually. If only you and your friends could get ahold of it, surely it could become a progressive force, right? Anyway, tell me again why we should care about whether the ITU survives? That would be an interesting conversation for “we CS people” to have. Why did we allow ourselves to so blatantly take sides in the intense ideological struggle taking place around the remit and powers of the FCC in the US, where the struggle for net neutrality is now all but lost. A game which is going to soon visit our own national regulatory systems very soon. Just watch out! [Milton L Mueller] Here I have no idea what you are talking about – when did “we” (a term that generally excludes me in your lexicon but nevertheless strives to embrace the entire IGC) take sides on the FCC? And how was this struggle lost? The FCC passed its Open Internet rules and has actually applied them in a couple of cases. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 27 12:04:59 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:04:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderism, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture In-Reply-To: <2F5621BA-6247-477D-87F3-9A3FBD7E2282@hserus.net> References: <023b01cde1eb$971ce5b0$c556b110$@gmail.com> <2F5621BA-6247-477D-87F3-9A3FBD7E2282@hserus.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22E6B65@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> No, but there are people who aspire to that position. is there a centralized licensing department of cs actors or something? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 27 12:06:20 2012 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:06:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderism, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture In-Reply-To: <2F5621BA-6247-477D-87F3-9A3FBD7E2282@hserus.net> References: <023b01cde1eb$971ce5b0$c556b110$@gmail.com> <2F5621BA-6247-477D-87F3-9A3FBD7E2282@hserus.net> Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22E6B75@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> What, are you some kind of a neoliberal, wanting to deregulate civil society? Horrors! ;-) is there a centralized licensing department of cs actors or something? you can speak in your individual capacity or as part of a nonprofit you represent as for advising or consulting .. well you need a client to consult for, who has to hire you in which case you identify yourself as such --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 pouzin at well.com Thu Dec 27 12:18:44 2012 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 18:18:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?FW=3A_=5BDewayne-Net=5D_Facebook_paid?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_=A32=2E9m_tax_on_=A3840m_profits?= In-Reply-To: <020101cde44c$2900ad10$7b020730$@gmail.com> References: <6D33DFB1-E580-4A47-B25B-AD660DC87043@warpspeed.com> <00a001cde14d$204533f0$60cf9bd0$@gmail.com> <90815F347C444066AE5773EAAA3ACB00@yourh4vl8csyi6> <020101cde44c$2900ad10$7b020730$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:06 PM, michael gurstein wrote: *1. globalization including in the transfer and sale of immaterial (virtual or virtualized) goods and services is becoming transformative both in volume and in substance as a result of the Internet... National administrative and political regimes (including in taxation) are struggling to keep up and in many cases appear to be falling behind--hence the current complaints largely OECD countries concerning the tax related behaviours of companies like Google and Facebook. * True. The diversity of taxation paths, and the latency of fiscal institutions make it relatively easy for big companies to take sneaky routes through the tax labyrinth. *2. a further effect of the Internet is to render national boundaries much much more porous/fluid/transparent/immaterial than previously. While some corporations (and individuals) are massively able to capitalize on this; these appear to be restricted to only a very few countries who in turn appear to be sufficiently well positioned and resourced to profit while others lack sufficient resources to intervene or even have oversight over these processes let alone ensure significant local benefits. This suggests the need for some sort of global oversight mechanism since no single national regime is able to effectively respond in these areas. *True. This is another colonization cycle where some kingdoms or States have enough power to ignore more or less agreed boundaries and exploit or dominate their virtual neighbors. * 3. the issue under discussion here is less whether past behaviours were legal or not (leaving aside the ethics of not paying ones' "fair share") but whether certain actions/interventions are either deliberately or by happenstance directed towards a "political" intervention so as to preclude the type of globalized "Hands On" actions that might be warranted given the changing legal, taxation and other circumstances that the Internet is precipitating. *In practice, isn't a matter of opportunism ? 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Dec 27 12:34:58 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:34:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?FW=3A_=5BDewayne-Net=5D_Facebook_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?paid_=A32=2E9m_tax_on_=A3840m_profits?= In-Reply-To: <90815F347C444066AE5773EAAA3ACB00@yourh4vl8csyi6> References: <6D33DFB1-E580-4A47-B25B-AD660DC87043@warpspeed.com> <00a001cde14d$204533f0$60cf9bd0$@gmail.com> <90815F347C444066AE5773EAAA3ACB00@yourh4vl8csyi6> Message-ID: On Dec 27, 2012 7:38 AM, "Michael Leibrandt" wrote: > > And all those preferential rules and regulations have been introduced by democratic governments after listening to the national stakeholders, so we can't blame the companies for making use of it. "Listening to national stakeholders" in this international tax con text is a euphemism at best for special interest legislation. I think those who seek special interest laws, arguably corrupt the process in so doing, and then subsequently take great advantage of their special interest laws most certainly CAN be blamed. And most of the public does blame special interests for a lot. We may not agree on a complete definition of special interest, but we do agree on core areas of special interest and tax law is one of those classic core areas of special interest operation. Paul Lehto, J.D. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roland Perry" < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> > To: > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:16 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Facebook paid £2.9m tax on £840m profits > > > >> In message <00a001cde14d$204533f0$60cf9bd0$@gmail.com>, at 12:36:02 on >> Sun, 23 Dec 2012, michael gurstein writes >> >>> A Facebook spokeswoman said: "Facebook complies with all relevant >>> corporate regulations including those related to filing company >>> reports and taxation." >> >> >> It's taken a long time for legal tax avoidance schemes to become a >> political hot potato [several other companies have done it in plain >> sight for a generation]. But the genie is out of the bottle now. >> >> (Apologies for the profuse metaphors). >> >>> The company added that it chose to base its international >>> headquarters in Ireland as it was the "best location to hire >>> staff with the right skills to run a multilingual hi-tech operation >>> serving the whole of Europe". >> >> >> Which is true. Many well-known technology companies have based >> themselves in Ireland and tapped the same talent (much of it >> immigrant, not that it's a bad thing). Dell, Intel, Apple etc. >> -- >> Roland Perry >> >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 27 15:13:29 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 01:43:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Multi-stakeholderism, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22E6B75@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <023b01cde1eb$971ce5b0$c556b110$@gmail.com> <2F5621BA-6247-477D-87F3-9A3FBD7E2282@hserus.net> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22E6B75@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <77F988AF-3890-415C-9087-1A6B583B13ED@hserus.net> Me, I would argue that there isn't any single entity called civil society. Or government. Or industry. At least not the sort of entity that can ever be counted to have broad consensus on anything in particular, Groupings of countries like the G8, industry chambers of commerce, coalitions of a set of cs groups.. fine. That's different. Certainly you can assert membership in such groups and assert shared policy goals for them. --srs (iPad) On 27-Dec-2012, at 22:36, Milton L Mueller wrote: > What, are you some kind of a neoliberal, wanting to deregulate civil society? Horrors! ;-) > > is there a centralized licensing department of cs actors or something? > you can speak in your individual capacity > or as part of a nonprofit you represent > as for advising or consulting .. well you need a client to consult for, who has to hire you > in which case you identify yourself as such > > --srs (iPad) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Dec 27 15:29:09 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:29:09 +0000 Subject: [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22E5B4B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <009b01cde14b$b51966b0$1f4c3410$@gmail.com> <009c01cde14b$f5c9c3d0$e15d4b70$@gmail.com> <50D93269.2060605@itforchange.net>,<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD22E5B4B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B19EAE7@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Not to get between Milton and Parminder - ok I will add a few comments ; ) 1) ITU survived WWI, WWII, the Cold War...the Internet's not going to kill it. Someone/some org has to handle highest level agreements on use of spectrum and orbital arcs....and you don;t hear a lot of complaints about ITU in those spheres. Well you did back in the 70s/80s, but they put those behind them. Good luck volunteering ICANN or whichever non-profit to get in middle of those state to state headaches. Not happening. Other functions of ITU are admittedly more debatable, but ITU as entity is here to stay. 2) And speaking of ITU, who was it again that called WSIS into being, which led us more or less to the point we are at now which includes a globally accepted defintion of - gasp - Internet governance? Oh yeah, that was ITU. Can we think of the next most logical/able UN agency that could have played that role? Lots of pretenders, but none with depth of tech expertise needed to talk in this space. 3) Next as to dividing line and functional separation of roles, naturally as with any agency ITU will aim to grow, and also naturally the dividing lines between what is and is not ITU's business will remain blurry, given lack of consensus on definitional scope/breadth. It seems like a lot of cs folks had a weird sense of deja vu in Dubai, like they were in a smoke-filled room in Vienna in 1865 when ITU was created. When only states spoke and everyone else listened. No matter how msh-ish the ITU gets, and it did make progress in 2012, more than some of us frankly anticipated, it's always going to be first and foremost about its treaty obligations. So for example while ITU would welcome more paid attendance at WTPF, real decisions coming out of there are not very likely imho. In conclusion, for most IGC participants, associating with the ITU will be a part-time activity at best. Especially since the line in the sand in Dubai between Internet and ITU in the end was blown higher still. In my estimation, certain players misunderstanding which way the wind was blowing (cough, Toure, cough, the UAE chair) left them with not much more than - sand on their hands. Further rounds of definitional games around the ITRs will continue no doubt. But odds of ITU gaining consensus for the expanded roles it has been dreaming of since the 90s...well at least it's not likely to die in this century, which is more than you can say for the rest of us. And on that cheery note, best wishes for the new year! ; ) Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:04 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem Dr, Mueller here, to administer some ideological antidotes… A good and cogent speech by Terry Kramer. One thing surprised me, and it links to what I think was the failure to posit a positive agenda at the WCIT by civil society. Kramer says, first let me deal with the telecommunication side, and there are many positives there (vis a vis WCIT)... (paraphrased) And then he speaks of the ETNO proposal, as being on the telecom side.... If ETNO proposal was within ITR mandates, even if otherwise a very disagreeable one, would not Internet traffic interconnection regimes be also in ITR's remit.... I dont think it is anyone's case that ETNO proposal was not about the Internet (its physical/ infrastructural layer). So, isnt the US agreeing here that some kind of Internet could/ should well have been in the ITRs. [Milton L Mueller] Parminder: I don’t know why Kramer said the ETNO proposal was telecom. It actually dealt with internet interconnection agreements. As such, it is not “physical layer” but network layer (layer 3, and usually includes layer 4 as well). However, in one sense internet interconnection is and always has been in the ITRs, and that is through Article 9 Special Arrangements, which says they are deregulated and to be left to commercial negotiations. Later in the speech, Kramer regrets that much could be done (at the WCIT) about spread of broadband, but that this was not something members were willing to pursue seriously.... Again, it surprised me, but this statement is consistent with the above one on ETNO..... Of course, broadband is Internet, right! [Milton L Mueller] No, not necessarily. In the current environment of course 99% of all users, both business and consumer, would use broadband capacity for internet access, but if broadband means a high speed “pipe” it is indeed physical layer and that pipe could be used for non-internet data communication protocols, television signals, burglar alarms, whatever. Anyway, I would not take seriously Kramer’s or any American’s comments about how the ITU can help with the spread of broadband. This is a well-worn tactic; “helping developing countries” through unspecified means, usually purely informational, is always held up as an alternative to or diversion from the other stuff they really don’t want it to do. Why were we not able to present and articulate a positive agenda around broadband access, net neutrality and the such, vis a vis the issues that belong to physical/ infrastructure layer. [Milton L Mueller] By a “positive agenda” you mean an agenda that would make hierarchical governmental agencies take more responsibility for supply of infrastructure and services, and more regulation, am I right? Just be aware that not everyone in civil society thinks of that agenda as “positive.” Why were we, the CS, ended up looking like also motivated by the secret desire (though not difficult to divine) - as were the extreme libertarian actors, [Milton L Mueller] As above, I am wise to the rhetorical games being played and would urge others to be aware of them as well. First, civil society is ideologically heterogeneous on those issues. So don’t pretend that the so-called “extreme libertarian actors” are not “we, the CS.” Second, unless you want to be dubbed an “extreme socialist” or “extreme authoritarian” or “extreme regulator” I would get rid of the needless adjective “extreme” and try to use accurate labels rather than scare terms. to just see the ITU die, and with it, also all regulatory regimes around the Internet at national levels. If we indeed want to see ITU simply die, lets not play games and say so it clearly. [Milton L Mueller] Many people did openly call for ITU to die. See Andrew McLaughlin’s comments at the NAF event, for one, which were well-received. I have openly stated for months that the ITRs are not needed and that it was a mistake to try to update them – although I have not specifically called for the ITU to die. However, you don’t have to be a libertarian to understand that there is something less than appealing about intergovernmental organizations governing the internet, or international communications generally. You just have to be aware of basic international relations theory and have a commitment to freedom of expression and a willingness to accept technological developments that disrupt established social orders. Anyway, once again one has to be aware of the rhetorical ploy here. To want the ITU to die does not necessarily mean one wants all regulatory regimes around the internet to die, nor does it mean that one wants all national regulatory regimes to die with it. No Internet in ITU's scope - not even the physical/ infrastructure layer - is simple a death warrant for the ITU. Which may be fine, but then who, for instance addresses the issue of ' global net neutrality'. ('Global net neutrality' was identified as a key cross-border issues by a Council of Europe's expert committee, in which incidentally, Wolfgang also participated.) Why do we think that these are questions for someone else to answer, not for us, the 'global IG civil society'. [Milton L Mueller] Are you seriously suggesting that ITU could become a force for global net neutrality? Well, at least you are being consistent. As a pro-regulatory guy, a person who seems to have never met an economic regulation he didn’t like, you should indeed view the ITU as something not to be thrown away casually. If only you and your friends could get ahold of it, surely it could become a progressive force, right? Anyway, tell me again why we should care about whether the ITU survives? That would be an interesting conversation for “we CS people” to have. Why did we allow ourselves to so blatantly take sides in the intense ideological struggle taking place around the remit and powers of the FCC in the US, where the struggle for net neutrality is now all but lost. A game which is going to soon visit our own national regulatory systems very soon. Just watch out! [Milton L Mueller] Here I have no idea what you are talking about – when did “we” (a term that generally excludes me in your lexicon but nevertheless strives to embrace the entire IGC) take sides on the FCC? And how was this struggle lost? The FCC passed its Open Internet rules and has actually applied them in a couple of cases. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 27 16:42:22 2012 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 13:42:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] Multi-stakeholderim, Civil Society and Astroturfing/Stakeholder Capture In-Reply-To: <00da01cde15e$50e73ec0$f2b5bc40$@gmail.com> References: <00da01cde15e$50e73ec0$f2b5bc40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael Gurstein identified two potential multi-stakeholder governance failures - astroturfing and regulatory capture. I'd like to add a third potential failure to the list - the dumbing down of governmental regulatory capacity due to the use of "smart" regulation. On 2012-12-23, at 2:39 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > One of the illegitimate ways for exerting such influence, that has fairly recently found a name is what is being called "astroturfing" defined as "apparently grassroots-based citizen groups or coalitions that are primarily conceived, created and/or funded by corporations, industry trade associations, political interests or public relations firms". > ……. Another such process is called "regulatory capture" -- although in this instance it might be renamed as "stakeholder capture". This is defined: "Regulatory (stakeholder) capture occurs when a regulatory (stakeholder) agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or special concerns of interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory (stakeholder) capture is a form of government (multi-stakeholder governance) failure... " > ……… For multi-stakeholderism and particularly for CS to have an effect and role in independently representing the public interest some effective means will need to be established (and quickly) to ensure that participants in these processes purporting to "be" or to "represent" Civil Society are neither captured nor astroturfed. In the absence of this, the much praised "multi-stakeholder global Internet governance model" will die stillborn, lacking any form of credibility or legitimacy. The roots of efforts to fix problems perceived in the role of government by introducing market forces into regulatory design and monopolistic delivery of public service goes all the way back to 1992 and Osborne and Gaebler’s “Reinventing Government.” The trend was later re-inforced by the introduction of “smart regulation,” a concept emerging out of the environmental movement, where all stakeholders came together around one table. In working with governments, the mistaken “what’s in it for us?” for environmental activists was the opportunity to change perspectives in public policy debates towards “whole system” (i.e. multistakeholder) views. But, in a climate of fiscal restraint and of outsourcing the role of government, politicians did not overlooked the opportunities that smart regulation presented for diminishing the “burden” of government on business. Smart regulation had the unintended consequence of reinforcing the governmental preference for working to regulate through hands-off approaches. > “In particular, the public can potentially play a large role in controlling the actions of self-regulating bodies. The public can act as consumers, either through directly consuming (or not consuming) the service provided by the industry (such as in the case of Green Consumerism) or through punishing those who use low quality services (such as in the case of investors not investing in companies using low quality auditors). The public, if harmed by the decisions of the self-regulating body, may be able to use the courts to either alter decisions or obtain damages for harm. Finally, the public can participate in the decision-making process of the self-regulating industry – providing the industry with information about issues or monitoring the exercise of self-regulatory powers.” (Green and Hrab. Self-regulation and the protection of the public interest. 2003). The environmentalists did help governments to see that behavior change could best be influenced through pricing goods and services correctly – transferring responsibility for environmental impacts from government to consumers, and thus privatizing the policy dialogue and further reducing the need for government intervention. But, to actually work, there had to be a next step. > “... regulatory reform must take place in an environment of shrinking regulatory resources, making it necessary in some contexts to design strategies capable of achieving results even in the absence of a credible enforcement regime (as when dealing with small and medium-sized enterprises), and in almost all circumstances to extract the "biggest bang" from a much diminished "regulatory buck" ... This will involve the design of a "second phase" of regulation: one that still involves government intervention, but selectively and in combination with a range of market and non-market solutions, and of public and private regulatory orderings. ... In essence, achieving efficient and effective regulation and encouraging innovation is a far more complex activity than mainstream neo-classical economists believe(d) it to be, requiring a much broader range of strategies, tailored to a much broader range of motivations and harnessing a much wider range of social actors.” (Gunningham. Reconfiguring Environmental Regulation). But that second phase of regulation never comes. In practice, in the follow-up to de-regulation, there is rarely any significant capacity left inside governments for administration and oversight. The reduction in the scale of regulation is usually accompanied by a reduction in the volume of the regulators. In making the whole system “smart,” governments blow the brains out of the public parts of the system. So, as the markets fail to deliver on the underlying commitment to resolve issues of the public interest over all, governments fail to step back in and honor the part of their role that remains as a consequence of the bargains they made with businesses and non-government agency stakeholders. Although the piloting of smart regulation occurring first in the environmental sectors, it quickly spread elsewhere, to the energy, health, and ICT sectors. In the "global" application of the multistakeholder model to Internet Governance, I suspect that "representative" civil society agencies will find their expectations for a partnership role from national governments to be largely unmet. 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 27 17:41:29 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 14:41:29 -0800 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ Message-ID: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> Most folks will have seen this… but I think the larger issue here is how privacy is "governed" when you have a global Internet company like Facebook with enormous reach and communicative significance and which (as with Google) seems to be functioning more or less as private law makers/enforcers… The legal issues around enforcement of public rights in private spaces such as malls would seem to be highly relevant here. So, for "Hands off the Internet" advocates do we turn over our rights to privacy on the Internet (or at least the management of the modalities of those rights) to the caprices of private corporations? M http://www.buzzfeed.com/jpmoore/mark-zuckerbergs-sister-complains-of-facebook-pri From: Newser [mailto:Alerts at Newser.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:00 AM To: gurstein at gmail.com Subject: Newser Lunchbox - Federline Bro: I Fathered Britney's Kid Newser Alert Latest Victim of Facebook Privacy Flub: Zuckerberg Sis Latest Victim of Facebook Privacy Flub: Zuckerberg Sis (Newser) - It looks like Facebook's ever-changing privacy functions aren't just frustrating for you and me—even Mark Zuckerberg's sister (a former Facebook official herself) can screw up. A family photo Randi Zuckerberg posted on her Facebook page was tweeted by a friend of a family member, upsetting Zuckerberg,... More » Become a fan of Newser on Facebook Follow Newser on Twitter Stumble Newser on StumbleUpon Unsubscribe or change your alert settings. Newser, LLC 222 N. Columbus Dr. Unit D Chicago, IL 60601 Suggestions and feedback are welcome at feedback at newser.com © 2012 Newser, LLC. All rights reserved | Privacy Policy http://services.newser.com/email/2/2012-12-26%2010 at 59@51/353023597669333 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2561 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 24358 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 26083 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 21920 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.gif Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2202 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.gif Type: application/octet-stream Size: 799 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 Thu Dec 27 18:59:01 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 05:29:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem Message-ID: And ITU also hosted the internet ad hoc council that led to icann and friends back in the day. I dare say their cooperative attitude or lack thereof will be calibrated on which country their sg, heads of division etc come from, and it's ideological and political alignments. ITU under the previous sg, yoshiro utsumi right, was extremely cooperative and we'll engaged with industry and civil society during the wsis and pre wsis phases. Toure being appointed sg, and various of his protégés being appointed to igov focused roles, with their predecessors often transferred or resigning from the ITU, led to a sea change in attitudes, more aggressive posturing at the IGF.. If two years down the line we have an American, Dutchman etcl as sg, things will go one way. If we get another person with a government that has a different policy and political tilt, things will go entirely another way. --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "Lee W McKnight" To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "Milton L Mueller" Subject: [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem Date: Fri, Dec 28, 2012 1:59 AM Not to get between Milton and Parminder - ok I will add a few comments ; ) 1) ITU survived WWI, WWII, the Cold War...the Internet's not going to kill it. Someone/some org has to handle highest level agreements on use of spectrum and orbital arcs....and you don;t hear a lot of complaints about ITU in those spheres. Well you did back in the 70s/80s, but they put those behind them. Good luck volunteering ICANN or whichever non-profit to get in middle of those state to state headaches. Not happening. Other functions of ITU are admittedly more debatable, but ITU as entity is here to stay. 2) And speaking of ITU, who was it again that called WSIS into being, which led us more or less to the point we are at now which includes a globally accepted defintion of - gasp - Internet governance? Oh yeah, that was ITU. Can we think of the next most logical/able UN agency that could have played that role? Lots of pretenders, but none with depth of tech expertise needed to talk in this space. 3) Next as to dividing line and functional separation of roles, naturally as with any agency ITU will aim to grow, and also naturally the dividing lines between what is and is not ITU's business will remain blurry, given lack of consensus on definitional scope/breadth. It seems like a lot of cs folks had a weird sense of deja vu in Dubai, like they were in a smoke-filled room in Vienna in 1865 when ITU was created. When only states spoke and everyone else listened. No matter how msh-ish the ITU gets, and it did make progress in 2012, more than some of us frankly anticipated, it's always going to be first and foremost about its treaty obligations. So for example while ITU would welcome more paid attendance at WTPF, real decisions coming out of there are not very likely imho. In conclusion, for most IGC participants, associating with the ITU will be a part-time activity at best. Especially since the line in the sand in Dubai between Internet and ITU in the end was blown higher still. In my estimation, certain players misunderstanding which way the wind was blowing (cough, Toure, cough, the UAE chair) left them with not much more than - sand on their hands. Further rounds of definitional games around the ITRs will continue no doubt. But odds of ITU gaining consensus for the expanded roles it has been dreaming of since the 90s...well at least it's not likely to die in this century, which is more than you can say for the rest of us. And on that cheery note, best wishes for the new year! ; ) Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 12:04 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] ISOC/USG WCIT Post Mortem Dr, Mueller here, to administer some ideological antidotes… A good and cogent speech by Terry Kramer. One thing surprised me, and it links to what I think was the failure to posit a positive agenda at the WCIT by civil society. Kramer says, first let me deal with the telecommunication side, and there are many positives there (vis a vis WCIT)... (paraphrased) And then he speaks of the ETNO proposal, as being on the telecom side.... If ETNO proposal was within ITR mandates, even if otherwise a very disagreeable one, would not Internet traffic interconnection regimes be also in ITR's remit.... I dont think it is anyone's case that ETNO proposal was not about the Internet (its physical/ infrastructural layer). So, isnt the US agreeing here that some kind of Internet could/ should well have been in the ITRs. [Milton L Mueller] Parminder: I don’t know why Kramer said the ETNO proposal was telecom. It actually dealt with internet interconnection agreements. As such, it is not “physical layer” but network layer (layer 3, and usually includes layer 4 as well). However, in one sense internet interconnection is and always has been in the ITRs, and that is through Article 9 Special Arrangements, which says they are deregulated and to be left to commercial negotiations. Later in the speech, Kramer regrets that much could be done (at the WCIT) about spread of broadband, but that this was not something members were willing to pursue seriously.... Again, it surprised me, but this statement is consistent with the above one on ETNO..... Of course, broadband is Internet, right! [Milton L Mueller] No, not necessarily. In the current environment of course 99% of all users, both business and consumer, would use broadband capacity for internet access, but if broadband means a high speed “pipe” it is indeed physical layer and that pipe could be used for non-internet data communication protocols, television signals, burglar alarms, whatever. Anyway, I would not take seriously Kramer’s or any American’s comments about how the ITU can help with the spread of broadband. This is a well-worn tactic; “helping developing countries” through unspecified means, usually purely informational, is always held up as an alternative to or diversion from the other stuff they really don’t want it to do. Why were we not able to present and articulate a positive agenda around broadband access, net neutrality and the such, vis a vis the issues that belong to physical/ infrastructure layer. [Milton L Mueller] By a “positive agenda” you mean an agenda that would make hierarchical governmental agencies take more responsibility for supply of infrastructure and services, and more regulation, am I right? Just be aware that not everyone in civil society thinks of that agenda as “positive.” Why were we, the CS, ended up looking like also motivated by the secret desire (though not difficult to divine) - as were the extreme libertarian actors, [Milton L Mueller] As above, I am wise to the rhetorical games being played and would urge others to be aware of them as well. First, civil society is ideologically heterogeneous on those issues. So don’t pretend that the so-called “extreme libertarian actors” are not “we, the CS.” Second, unless you want to be dubbed an “extreme socialist” or “extreme authoritarian” or “extreme regulator” I would get rid of the needless adjective “extreme” and try to use accurate labels rather than scare terms. to just see the ITU die, and with it, also all regulatory regimes around the Internet at national levels. If we indeed want to see ITU simply die, lets not play games and say so it clearly. [Milton L Mueller] Many people did openly call for ITU to die. See Andrew McLaughlin’s comments at the NAF event, for one, which were well-received. I have openly stated for months that the ITRs are not needed and that it was a mistake to try to update them – although I have not specifically called for the ITU to die. However, you don’t have to be a libertarian to understand that there is something less than appealing about intergovernmental organizations governing the internet, or international communications generally. You just have to be aware of basic international relations theory and have a commitment to freedom of expression and a willingness to accept technological developments that disrupt established social orders. Anyway, once again one has to be aware of the rhetorical ploy here. To want the ITU to die does not necessarily mean one wants all regulatory regimes around the internet to die, nor does it mean that one wants all national regulatory regimes to die with it. No Internet in ITU's scope - not even the physical/ infrastructure layer - is simple a death warrant for the ITU. Which may be fine, but then who, for instance addresses the issue of ' global net neutrality'. ('Global net neutrality' was identified as a key cross-border issues by a Council of Europe's expert committee, in which incidentally, Wolfgang also participated.) Why do we think that these are questions for someone else to answer, not for us, the 'global IG civil society'. [Milton L Mueller] Are you seriously suggesting that ITU could become a force for global net neutrality? Well, at least you are being consistent. As a pro-regulatory guy, a person who seems to have never met an economic regulation he didn’t like, you should indeed view the ITU as something not to be thrown away casually. If only you and your friends could get ahold of it, surely it could become a progressive force, right? Anyway, tell me again why we should care about whether the ITU survives? That would be an interesting conversation for “we CS people” to have. Why did we allow ourselves to so blatantly take sides in the intense ideological struggle taking place around the remit and powers of the FCC in the US, where the struggle for net neutrality is now all but lost. A game which is going to soon visit our own national regulatory systems very soon. Just watch out! [Milton L Mueller] Here I have no idea what you are talking about – when did “we” (a term that generally excludes me in your lexicon but nevertheless strives to embrace the entire IGC) take sides on the FCC? And how was this struggle lost? The FCC passed its Open Internet rules and has actually applied them in a couple of cases. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Dec 27 20:34:47 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 17:34:47 -0800 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael, On Dec 27, 2012, at 2:41 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > a global Internet company like Facebook I thought Facebook was a US company. What is a "global Internet company"? > So, for "Hands off the Internet" advocates do we turn over our rights to privacy on the Internet (or at least the management of the modalities of those rights) to the caprices of private corporations? Not sure I'm a "Hands off the Internet" advocate but I find this question confusing. As far as I'm aware, I'm not forced to turn over anything to Facebook, certainly not my right to privacy. If I voluntarily choose to use Facebook's service(s), I abide by their (presumably legal, at least according to the laws in which the contract for use of service was specified) rules and it is ultimately my responsibility to keep informed of those rules and how they change, capriciously or not. Facebook's rules may result in intrusions into my privacy (not my right to privacy), but if so, the answer would appear to be simple: if I don't like their rules or how those rules are changed, I will exercise my right to privacy and choose to not use their service. I gather you would like to see increased regulation (whose laws?) on the explicit terms of service contract between myself and Facebook? 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 gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 27 22:30:38 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:30:38 -0800 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> David, Life is too short to play silly word games. Facebook with roughly a billion users on the Internet is NOT a global internet company? Facebook choosing to play endless incomprehensible games with its privacy settings sufficient to confuse (and outrage) even its most inside of insiders doesn't raise "privacy" issues.? Okay. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Conrad Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 5:35 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ Michael, On Dec 27, 2012, at 2:41 PM, michael gurstein wrote: a global Internet company like Facebook I thought Facebook was a US company. What is a "global Internet company"? So, for "Hands off the Internet" advocates do we turn over our rights to privacy on the Internet (or at least the management of the modalities of those rights) to the caprices of private corporations? Not sure I'm a "Hands off the Internet" advocate but I find this question confusing. As far as I'm aware, I'm not forced to turn over anything to Facebook, certainly not my right to privacy. If I voluntarily choose to use Facebook's service(s), I abide by their (presumably legal, at least according to the laws in which the contract for use of service was specified) rules and it is ultimately my responsibility to keep informed of those rules and how they change, capriciously or not. Facebook's rules may result in intrusions into my privacy (not my right to privacy), but if so, the answer would appear to be simple: if I don't like their rules or how those rules are changed, I will exercise my right to privacy and choose to not use their service. I gather you would like to see increased regulation (whose laws?) on the explicit terms of service contract between myself and Facebook? 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 27 22:49:45 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:19:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B424EC3-09D7-4945-A435-95E18F41EDDA@hserus.net> It does. And the FTC, and various national data protection authorities, are quite capable of raising this with facebook. So, you might want to lay a specific complaint before one or the other, calling out practices which you believe are breaches of a national privacy law. --srs (iPad) On 28-Dec-2012, at 9:00, "michael gurstein" wrote: > David, > > Life is too short to play silly word games… > > Facebook with roughly a billion users on the Internet is NOT a global internet company? > > Facebook choosing to play endless incomprehensible games with its privacy settings sufficient to confuse (and outrage) even its most inside of insiders doesn't raise "privacy" issues…? > > Okay… > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Conrad > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 5:35 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ > > Michael, > > On Dec 27, 2012, at 2:41 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > a global Internet company like Facebook > > I thought Facebook was a US company. What is a "global Internet company"? > > > So, for "Hands off the Internet" advocates do we turn over our rights to privacy on the Internet (or at least the management of the modalities of those rights) to the caprices of private corporations? > > Not sure I'm a "Hands off the Internet" advocate but I find this question confusing. As far as I'm aware, I'm not forced to turn over anything to Facebook, certainly not my right to privacy. If I voluntarily choose to use Facebook's service(s), I abide by their (presumably legal, at least according to the laws in which the contract for use of service was specified) rules and it is ultimately my responsibility to keep informed of those rules and how they change, capriciously or not. Facebook's rules may result in intrusions into my privacy (not my right to privacy), but if so, the answer would appear to be simple: if I don't like their rules or how those rules are changed, I will exercise my right to privacy and choose to not use their service. > > I gather you would like to see increased regulation (whose laws?) on the explicit terms of service contract between myself and Facebook? > > Regards, > -drc > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Thu Dec 27 22:51:45 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:51:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael, On Dec 27, 2012, at 7:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Life is too short to play silly word games… Agreed but those sorts of activities seem to consume a huge amount of time/money (e.g., see WCIT and/or what does "enhanced cooperation" really mean? :)). However, in this context, the point I was hinting at is that there is no such thing (as far as I know) of a "global Internet" company -- every company is constrained by the laws of the country (or countries) in which it operates. I'm not a a lawyer but I don't think the Internet creates a new trans-national legal regime for companies, hence the distinction you appear to be trying to draw seems specious. > Facebook with roughly a billion users on the Internet is NOT a global internet company? Facebook is, as far as I know, a US company that services an international customer base and as such is subject to US laws regarding how they do business (I'll admit I haven't read their terms and conditions in detail to see if their legal venue varies depending on country of use). > Facebook choosing to play endless incomprehensible games with its privacy settings sufficient to confuse (and outrage) even its most inside of insiders doesn't raise "privacy" issues…? It might raise privacy issues but it does not raise _right to privacy_ issues. Your rights to privacy are not removed by Facebook changing their terms and conditions. You have the ultimate right to privacy by not subjecting yourself to their endless incomprehensible games. Would you prefer the government (whose? see my "silly word games" above) impose restrictions on how Facebook can change their terms and conditions? 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 suresh at hserus.net Thu Dec 27 23:07:40 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:37:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Facebook is based in the USA and its terms of use is under US jurisdiction Any country at all can assert longarm jurisdiction based on facebook's * Having an office of some sort in their country * Having users in their country [doing business] * Someone's actions using facebook harming citizens of their country In such a case, they can either subpoena facebook's local office in their country if one exists, or they can use MLATs / go through Interpol to reach out, through US law enforcement, to Facebook in the USA. As for the rest of it - I think I covered all this when we were talking about google just the other day, and I don't propose to repeat myself any more than I already have. --srs (iPad) On 28-Dec-2012, at 9:21, David Conrad wrote: > Michael, > > On Dec 27, 2012, at 7:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Life is too short to play silly word games… > > Agreed but those sorts of activities seem to consume a huge amount of time/money (e.g., see WCIT and/or what does "enhanced cooperation" really mean? :)). > > However, in this context, the point I was hinting at is that there is no such thing (as far as I know) of a "global Internet" company -- every company is constrained by the laws of the country (or countries) in which it operates. I'm not a a lawyer but I don't think the Internet creates a new trans-national legal regime for companies, hence the distinction you appear to be trying to draw seems specious. > >> Facebook with roughly a billion users on the Internet is NOT a global internet company? > > Facebook is, as far as I know, a US company that services an international customer base and as such is subject to US laws regarding how they do business (I'll admit I haven't read their terms and conditions in detail to see if their legal venue varies depending on country of use). > >> Facebook choosing to play endless incomprehensible games with its privacy settings sufficient to confuse (and outrage) even its most inside of insiders doesn't raise "privacy" issues…? > > It might raise privacy issues but it does not raise _right to privacy_ issues. Your rights to privacy are not removed by Facebook changing their terms and conditions. You have the ultimate right to privacy by not subjecting yourself to their endless incomprehensible games. > > Would you prefer the government (whose? see my "silly word games" above) impose restrictions on how Facebook can change their terms and conditions? > > Regards, > -drc > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Dec 27 23:16:14 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:16:14 -0800 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <001d01cde4b2$13f3d170$3bdb7450$@gmail.com> Hi David From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 7:52 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ Michael, On Dec 27, 2012, at 7:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: Life is too short to play silly word games. Agreed but those sorts of activities seem to consume a huge amount of time/money (e.g., see WCIT and/or what does "enhanced cooperation" really mean? :)). [MG>] Agreed. However, in this context, the point I was hinting at is that there is no such thing (as far as I know) of a "global Internet" company -- every company is constrained by the laws of the country (or countries) in which it operates. I'm not a a lawyer but I don't think the Internet creates a new trans-national legal regime for companies, hence the distinction you appear to be trying to draw seems specious. [MG>] I'm not a lawyer either nor a privacy expert but I'll refer back to the earlier four points I made in responding to Michael Leibrandt concerning the need to adjust current institutions to respond to the transformational changes that the Internet is bringing about. I made those points in the context of taxation but I think they apply equally to issues of privacy. 1. globalization including in the transfer and sale of immaterial (virtual or virtualized) goods and services (or privacy and the capacity for massive accumulation, and processing of information across multiple jurisdictions and seemingly unconnected data basis and information sources) is becoming transformative both in volume and in substance as a result of the Internet... National administrative and political regimes (including in taxation and privacy) are struggling to keep up and in many cases appear to be falling behind--hence the current complaints from largely OECD countries concerning the tax related behaviours of companies like Google and Facebook. 2. a further effect of the Internet is to render national boundaries much much more porous/fluid/transparent/immaterial than previously. While some corporations (and individuals) are massively able to capitalize on this; these appear to be restricted to only a very few countries who in turn appear to be sufficiently well positioned and resourced to profit while others lack sufficient resources to intervene or even have oversight over these processes let alone ensure significant local benefits (or the means to intervene on behalf of the interests of its citizens including in areas such privacy). This suggests the need for some sort of global oversight mechanism since no single national regime is able to effectively respond in these areas. 3. the issue under discussion here is less whether past behaviours were legal or not (leaving aside the ethics of not paying ones' "fair share" or having terms and conditons of service to which customers sign on) but whether certain actions/interventions are either deliberately or by happenstance directed towards a "political" intervention so as to preclude the type of globalized "Hands On" actions that might be warranted given the changing legal, taxation and other circumstances that the Internet is precipitating. 4. Internet enabled globalized and digitized communications; commerce; production, management and distribution all indicate the need for an equally globalized set of institutions and actions in support of a globalized public interest including in the area of taxation (and privacy) but more broadly concerning the distribution of the benefits (and costs and risks) of these processes. Facebook with roughly a billion users on the Internet is NOT a global internet company? Facebook is, as far as I know, a US company that services an international customer base and as such is subject to US laws regarding how they do business (I'll admit I haven't read their terms and conditions in detail to see if their legal venue varies depending on country of use). Facebook choosing to play endless incomprehensible games with its privacy settings sufficient to confuse (and outrage) even its most inside of insiders doesn't raise "privacy" issues.? It might raise privacy issues but it does not raise _right to privacy_ issues. Your rights to privacy are not removed by Facebook changing their terms and conditions. You have the ultimate right to privacy by not subjecting yourself to their endless incomprehensible games. Would you prefer the government (whose? see my "silly word games" above) impose restrictions on how Facebook can change their terms and conditions? [MG>] Best M 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 28 01:02:48 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:02:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <004e01cde4c1$01dfaef0$059f0cd0$@gmail.com> Thanks Suresh, you made my case… M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 8:08 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Conrad Cc: michael gurstein; Subject: Re: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ Facebook is based in the USA and its terms of use is under US jurisdiction Any country at all can assert longarm jurisdiction based on facebook's * Having an office of some sort in their country * Having users in their country [doing business] * Someone's actions using facebook harming citizens of their country In such a case, they can either subpoena facebook's local office in their country if one exists, or they can use MLATs / go through Interpol to reach out, through US law enforcement, to Facebook in the USA. As for the rest of it - I think I covered all this when we were talking about google just the other day, and I don't propose to repeat myself any more than I already have. --srs (iPad) On 28-Dec-2012, at 9:21, David Conrad wrote: Michael, On Dec 27, 2012, at 7:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: Life is too short to play silly word games… Agreed but those sorts of activities seem to consume a huge amount of time/money (e.g., see WCIT and/or what does "enhanced cooperation" really mean? :)). However, in this context, the point I was hinting at is that there is no such thing (as far as I know) of a "global Internet" company -- every company is constrained by the laws of the country (or countries) in which it operates. I'm not a a lawyer but I don't think the Internet creates a new trans-national legal regime for companies, hence the distinction you appear to be trying to draw seems specious. Facebook with roughly a billion users on the Internet is NOT a global internet company? Facebook is, as far as I know, a US company that services an international customer base and as such is subject to US laws regarding how they do business (I'll admit I haven't read their terms and conditions in detail to see if their legal venue varies depending on country of use). Facebook choosing to play endless incomprehensible games with its privacy settings sufficient to confuse (and outrage) even its most inside of insiders doesn't raise "privacy" issues…? It might raise privacy issues but it does not raise _right to privacy_ issues. Your rights to privacy are not removed by Facebook changing their terms and conditions. You have the ultimate right to privacy by not subjecting yourself to their endless incomprehensible games. Would you prefer the government (whose? see my "silly word games" above) impose restrictions on how Facebook can change their terms and conditions? Regards, -drc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Dec 28 01:09:55 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:39:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: <004e01cde4c1$01dfaef0$059f0cd0$@gmail.com> References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> <004e01cde4c1$01dfaef0$059f0cd0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Maybe not. I believe your implication was that companies with an international footprint were somehow operating above and beyond the law. I find myself agreeing rather more with David Conrad, to be honest, and was trying to expand on what he wrote. --srs (iPad) On 28-Dec-2012, at 11:32, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Thanks Suresh, you made my case… > > M > > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 8:08 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; David Conrad > Cc: michael gurstein; > Subject: Re: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ > > Facebook is based in the USA and its terms of use is under US jurisdiction > > Any country at all can assert longarm jurisdiction based on facebook's > * Having an office of some sort in their country > * Having users in their country [doing business] > * Someone's actions using facebook harming citizens of their country > > In such a case, they can either subpoena facebook's local office in their country if one exists, or they can use MLATs / go through Interpol to reach out, through US law enforcement, to Facebook in the USA. > > As for the rest of it - I think I covered all this when we were talking about google just the other day, and I don't propose to repeat myself any more than I already have. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 28-Dec-2012, at 9:21, David Conrad wrote: > > Michael, > > On Dec 27, 2012, at 7:30 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Life is too short to play silly word games… > > Agreed but those sorts of activities seem to consume a huge amount of time/money (e.g., see WCIT and/or what does "enhanced cooperation" really mean? :)). > > However, in this context, the point I was hinting at is that there is no such thing (as far as I know) of a "global Internet" company -- every company is constrained by the laws of the country (or countries) in which it operates. I'm not a a lawyer but I don't think the Internet creates a new trans-national legal regime for companies, hence the distinction you appear to be trying to draw seems specious. > > Facebook with roughly a billion users on the Internet is NOT a global internet company? > > Facebook is, as far as I know, a US company that services an international customer base and as such is subject to US laws regarding how they do business (I'll admit I haven't read their terms and conditions in detail to see if their legal venue varies depending on country of use). > > Facebook choosing to play endless incomprehensible games with its privacy settings sufficient to confuse (and outrage) even its most inside of insiders doesn't raise "privacy" issues…? > > It might raise privacy issues but it does not raise _right to privacy_ issues. Your rights to privacy are not removed by Facebook changing their terms and conditions. You have the ultimate right to privacy by not subjecting yourself to their endless incomprehensible games. > > Would you prefer the government (whose? see my "silly word games" above) impose restrictions on how Facebook can change their terms and conditions? > > Regards, > -drc > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Dec 28 04:07:43 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:07:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?FW=3A_=5BDewayne-Net=5D_Facebook_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?paid_=A32=2E9m_tax_on_=A3840m_profits?= In-Reply-To: <020101cde44c$2900ad10$7b020730$@gmail.com> References: <6D33DFB1-E580-4A47-B25B-AD660DC87043@warpspeed.com> <00a001cde14d$204533f0$60cf9bd0$@gmail.com> <90815F347C444066AE5773EAAA3ACB00@yourh4vl8csyi6> <020101cde44c$2900ad10$7b020730$@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <020101cde44c$2900ad10$7b020730$@gmail.com>, at 08:06:40 on Thu, 27 Dec 2012, michael gurstein writes >3. the issue under discussion here is less whether past behaviours were >legal or not (leaving aside the ethics of not paying ones' "fair share") but >whether certain actions/interventions are either deliberately or by >happenstance directed towards a "political" intervention so as to preclude >the type of globalized "Hands On" actions that might be warranted given the >changing legal, taxation and other circumstances that the Internet is >precipitating. Suppose someone had a business selling an online newsletter about Internet Governance issues. Written in the UK at a cost of $50k a year. 1,000 subscriptions sold at $250 each, but invoiced from Luxembourg where the sales tax is perhaps 3% on such items rather than the 20% that would be payable in the UK. In this fictional story, it seems that they pay a $180k fee to a shell-company[1] in a Caribbean tax haven to proof-read and spell-check the newsletter before it's published, which means the net profit for UK corporation tax is just $20k. As far as I can tell, failing to disclose the $20k would be tax *evasion*, but the rest of the scenario is simply tax avoidance. [1] This shell-company, by co-incidence, is building a retirement home for publishers of Internet newsletters. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Dec 28 08:32:42 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:32:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <07iEsdv69Z3QFAGv@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 17:34:47 on Thu, 27 Dec 2012, David Conrad writes >Facebook's rules may result in intrusions into my privacy (not my right >to privacy), but if so, the answer would appear to be simple: if I >don't like their rules or how those rules are changed, I will exercise >my right to privacy and choose to not use their service. The problem with that approach is the suspicion that when they make changes they are retrospective; for example I think they just made it no longer possible to exclude your name from public search, when formerly you could at least retain some privacy by not allowing 'everyone' to find your profile simply from your name. Security by obscurity, perhaps, but a great deal of what Facebook offers is "privacy by obscurity". -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Dec 28 08:38:23 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:38:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6vPH5ewPDa3QFA3P@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 19:51:45 on Thu, 27 Dec 2012, David Conrad writes >  Your rights to privacy are not removed by Facebook changing their >terms and conditions.  You have the ultimate right to privacy by not >subjecting yourself to their endless incomprehensible games How would that work if your connectivity ISP decided it would publish the urls of all the websites you visit? With the get-out that you could always find another ISP if you didn't like it. While Facebook is not "The Internet", and not even "The Web", it has sufficient penetration that some people are almost unable to resign. What if you are a student and your tutor *only* published information about your course via Facebook. Or is it a matter for the regulator of Universities (who is that). Ultimately, choose to go to another University. -- 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 avri at ella.com Fri Dec 28 08:53:26 2012 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 08:53:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: <6vPH5ewPDa3QFA3P@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> <6vPH5ewPDa3QFA3P@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <1F902ECE-FD21-48CA-8452-94F497AB2CE8@ella.com> Hi, That is probably an issue of contract law. As I remember from when I read the License (or whatever it was called), which I checked as read It contained, as they all seem to, some version of the words " We can change this agreement anytime we want. OK? and that includes the privacy stuff we put in the other document. OK? " My partner and I both read these things: - I end up still signing up for the service as I beleive that I have done nothing but sell bits of myself and my privacy for a paycheck most of my life, so why not some more info. - my partner says "no way" and doesn't sign up. note: We both use the Internet about the same amount and find what we want, but that is beside the point. avri is privacy a good enough reason to get a new name and ID number in most jurisdictions? in any jurisdictions? On 28 Dec 2012, at 08:38, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 19:51:45 on Thu, 27 Dec 2012, David Conrad writes >> Your rights to privacy are not removed by Facebook changing their terms and conditions. You have the ultimate right to privacy by not subjecting yourself to their endless incomprehensible games > > How would that work if your connectivity ISP decided it would publish the urls of all the websites you visit? With the get-out that you could always find another ISP if you didn't like it. > > While Facebook is not "The Internet", and not even "The Web", it has sufficient penetration that some people are almost unable to resign. What if you are a student and your tutor *only* published information about your course via Facebook. > > Or is it a matter for the regulator of Universities (who is that). Ultimately, choose to go to another University. > -- > Roland Perry > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 28 10:49:00 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:49:00 -0800 Subject: [governance] Privacy Audits of Facebook by the Irish Data Protection Commission and Responses Message-ID: <012101cde512$dbb69340$9323b9c0$@gmail.com> For those with an interest, a colleague who evidently wishes to remain anonymous has just pointed me to a series of documents which are an audit of Facebook's privacy approach by the Irish Data Protection Commission, Facebook's response and the re-audit by the Irish Data Protection Commission as below http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/Facebook_Ireland_Audit_Report_Final.pdf http://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-public-policy-europe/facebook-and-the -irish-data-protection-commission/288934714486394 http://dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=1233 &m=f http://dataprotection.ie/documents/press/Facebook_Ireland_Audit_Review_Repor t_21_Sept_2012.pdf The Canadian Privacy Commissioner has also done a review: http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2009/nr-c_090827_e.asp The Irish undertook the review (acting it appears on behalf of the EU) because FB is an Irish registered company (presumably for tax purposes). The Canadian Commissioner undertook the review to ensure that "These changes mean that the privacy of 200 million (2009) Facebook users in Canada and around the world will be far better protected," says Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart. Does this mean that every country in the world needs to do it's own audit of FB? Does this meant that every country in the world needs to do a re-audit everytime FB changes its approach to privacy/tweaks its business model!?! How/where/with what resources does the individual who feels somehow aggrieved by the activities undertaken by FB gain legal redress? Is Facebook too big to be allowed to fail in its (data privacy and other) obligations (Is Facebook a Human Right? ) Isn't this a matter of global Internet governance? (Do we really expect the Data Protection Commissioner of Ireland to ensure the privacy rights of 1 billion global users of Facebook? M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Dec 28 12:58:21 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 17:58:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: <1F902ECE-FD21-48CA-8452-94F497AB2CE8@ella.com> References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> <6vPH5ewPDa3QFA3P@internetpolicyagency.com> <1F902ECE-FD21-48CA-8452-94F497AB2CE8@ella.com> Message-ID: In message <1F902ECE-FD21-48CA-8452-94F497AB2CE8 at ella.com>, at 08:53:26 on Fri, 28 Dec 2012, Avri Doria writes > >is privacy a good enough reason to get a new name and ID number in most jurisdictions? in any jurisdictions? Depends on the contract you have with the service provider. Despite a very large number of counter-examples[1] which seem to have crept into their userbase, Facebook say you can only use your real name. And have a process for allowing minor variations or nicknames. I'm not sure they allow members of the public who have a privacy issue to become anonymous, but suspect they have some law enforcement and social workers who do. [1] One very familiar to I* insiders, perhaps: https://www.facebook.com/people/Bert-Trend-Watcher/643703320 -- 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 marie.georges at noos.fr Fri Dec 28 14:21:50 2012 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 20:21:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Privacy Audits of Facebook by the Irish Data Protection Commission and Responses In-Reply-To: <012101cde512$dbb69340$9323b9c0$@gmail.com> References: <012101cde512$dbb69340$9323b9c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <45135368-DD50-49B9-8735-146168209439@noos.fr> Many thanks Michael, as a European data protection independent expert I would suggest those interested in the matter to look also at the US Civil society's and FTC's actions on the matter , see http://epic.org/privacy/facebook/ All the best to you ..2013 have to be heavy too...get ready Marie /Le 28 déc. 2012 à 16:49, michael gurstein a écrit : > For those with an interest, a colleague who evidently wishes to remain anonymous has just pointed me to a series of documents which are an audit of Facebook's privacy approach by the Irish Data Protection Commission, Facebook's response and the re-audit by the Irish Data Protection Commission as below > > http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/Facebook_Ireland_Audit_Report_Final.pdf > http://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-public-policy-europe/facebook-and-the-irish-data-protection-commission/288934714486394 > http://dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=1233&m=f > http://dataprotection.ie/documents/press/Facebook_Ireland_Audit_Review_Report_21_Sept_2012.pdf > > The Canadian Privacy Commissioner has also done a review: > http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2009/nr-c_090827_e.asp > > The Irish undertook the review (acting it appears on behalf of the EU) because FB is an Irish registered company (presumably for tax purposes). > > The Canadian Commissioner undertook the review to ensure that > “These changes mean that the privacy of 200 million (2009) Facebook users in Canada and around the world will be far better protected,” says Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart. > > Does this mean that every country in the world needs to do it's own audit of FB? > Does this meant that every country in the world needs to do a re-audit everytime FB changes its approach to privacy/tweaks its business model!?! > How/where/with what resources does the individual who feels somehow aggrieved by the activities undertaken by FB gain legal redress? > Is Facebook too big to be allowed to fail in its (data privacy and other) obligations (Is Facebook a Human Right?) > Isn't this a matter of global Internet governance? > (Do we really expect the Data Protection Commissioner of Ireland to ensure the privacy rights of 1 billion global users of Facebook? > > M > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Dec 28 14:29:17 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:29:17 -0800 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: <001d01cde4b2$13f3d170$3bdb7450$@gmail.com> References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> <001d01cde4b2$13f3d170$3bdb7450$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6EEC778F-8FAC-44C4-B6EA-56A3E3B02646@virtualized.org> Michael, On Dec 27, 2012, at 8:16 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I made those points in the context of taxation but I think they apply equally to issues of privacy… I'm not sure there is a generally recognized "right to be taxed" so equating policies related to taxation to policies related to privacy probably isn't the best base from which to build. However, ignoring that, my impression of the points you posted was that they were making the observation that there is increasing difficulty in trying to force a global infrastructure square peg into the round hole of parochial nation-state regulatory regimes. I don't disagree since this has been pretty obvious since the collapse of the telecom settlements regime in the mid-90s. However, nation-states refuse to go away, thus I'm left with the question that I asked you previously: which government's regulations do you believe should apply? An alternative could be evidenced by the fact that even without government intervention, Instagram lost 25% of its active user base as a result of their attempted change of their terms of service (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/rage_against_Dh05rPifiXBIJRE1rCOyML). 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 gurstein at gmail.com Fri Dec 28 14:49:32 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:49:32 -0800 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: <6EEC778F-8FAC-44C4-B6EA-56A3E3B02646@virtualized.org> References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> <001d01cde4b2$13f3d170$3bdb7450$@gmail.com> <6EEC778F-8FAC-44C4-B6EA-56A3E3B02646@virtualized.org> Message-ID: <01e701cde534$8024d510$806e7f30$@gmail.com> Sorry David, my basic training was in Philosophy (and not engineering :)) so I tend to think with homologies and topological similarities -- similar implicit structures in widely varied circustances. Anyway, to answer your specific question, "which government's regulations do you believe should apply?". Isn't that why we invented multi-lateral institutions. since in a variety of circumstances we can't--or won't--(for reasons I think we both agee on) rely on a single government's regulations? M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of David Conrad Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:29 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ Michael, On Dec 27, 2012, at 8:16 PM, michael gurstein wrote: I made those points in the context of taxation but I think they apply equally to issues of privacy. I'm not sure there is a generally recognized "right to be taxed" so equating policies related to taxation to policies related to privacy probably isn't the best base from which to build. However, ignoring that, my impression of the points you posted was that they were making the observation that there is increasing difficulty in trying to force a global infrastructure square peg into the round hole of parochial nation-state regulatory regimes. I don't disagree since this has been pretty obvious since the collapse of the telecom settlements regime in the mid-90s. However, nation-states refuse to go away, thus I'm left with the question that I asked you previously: which government's regulations do you believe should apply? An alternative could be evidenced by the fact that even without government intervention, Instagram lost 25% of its active user base as a result of their attempted change of their terms of service (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/rage_against_Dh05rPifiXBIJRE1rCOyML). Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Fri Dec 28 17:17:33 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 14:17:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: <6vPH5ewPDa3QFA3P@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> <6vPH5ewPDa3QFA3P@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: [Merging two messages] Roland, On Dec 28, 2012, at 5:38 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 19:51:45 on Thu, 27 Dec 2012, David Conrad writes >> Your rights to privacy are not removed by Facebook changing their terms and conditions. You have the ultimate right to privacy by not subjecting yourself to their endless incomprehensible games > How would that work if your connectivity ISP decided it would publish the urls of all the websites you visit? With the get-out that you could always find another ISP if you didn't like it. As Avri points out, this is probably a contract law issue. If your contract with your ISP allows them to sniff your data to extract URLs that the ISP can then publish and you don't like this, then yes, the get-out is to terminate your contract for your ISP's services and find another (something I would highly recommend). However, I believe there is a fundamental difference between the relationship you have with Facebook and one you have with your ISP: with your ISP, you are the customer and you are paying for data transit services under terms and conditions that (presumably) dictate that the ISP doesn't do what you suggest. With Facebook, you, as a Facebook user and the data you voluntarily provide to Facebook, are the product. On Dec 28, 2012, at 5:32 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at 17:34:47 on Thu, 27 Dec 2012, David Conrad writes >> Facebook's rules may result in intrusions into my privacy (not my right to privacy), but if so, the answer would appear to be simple: if I don't like their rules or how those rules are changed, I will exercise my right to privacy and choose to not use their service. > > The problem with that approach is the suspicion that when they make changes they are retrospective; If a term of the Facebook terms and conditions is that they can change their terms unilaterally and I accept their terms and conditions in order to make use of their services, then to be safe I should assume that they will, at some point in the future, do the worst possible thing they are legally allowed to do in the legal venue in which the contract between Facebook and I apply. > Security by obscurity, perhaps, but a great deal of what Facebook offers is "privacy by obscurity". There's a reason "security by obscurity" is considered pejorative :). As security by obscurity can't be relied upon, I believe "privacy by obscurity" is functionally equivalent to "no privacy", particularly as data warehouses continue to grow and data mining techniques continue to improve over time. To me, it's simple: if you want to keep something private, don't put it on the Internet, regardless of whether the vehicle for posting is Facebook or anything else. Where my rights to privacy are impacted is when I do not have control over what gets put onto the Internet. The interesting Internet governance question to me is given the increased governmental mandates for putting stuff like health records, utility billing information, etc., onto the Internet whether I have any control anymore. 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 Fri Dec 28 18:17:17 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:17:17 -0800 Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! Message-ID: <023601cde551$8654aba0$92fe02e0$@gmail.com> (from today's various Internet news feeds.... Yes, for sure, these hands off the Internet. http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/china-tightens-internet-control-b ans-anonymity-allows-government-to-delete-posts/censorship-online-twitter-we ibo-xinhua-/c3s10510/#.UN2qcI7896I http://tinyurl.com/cryyx5l And these http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/07170621508/fisa-is-renewed-with-a ll-its-problems-still-intact.shtml http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j And these http://torrentfreak.com/google-removed-50-million-pirate-search-results-this -year-121228/ http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j And these http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/washingtons-blog-facebook-censors-pro minent-political-critics.html http://tinyurl.com/cn72l3v Maybe a New Year's Resolution: Enough with the hypocrisy! M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 28 18:59:39 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (=?utf-8?B?U3VyZXNoIFJhbWFzdWJyYW1hbmlhbg==?=) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 05:29:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] Privacy Audits of Facebook by the Irish Data Protection Commission and Responses Message-ID: This means that every country's privacy laws are different and so yes they will need to do this independently --srs (htc one x) ----- Reply message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: Subject: [governance] Privacy Audits of Facebook by the Irish Data Protection Commission and Responses Date: Fri, Dec 28, 2012 9:19 PM For those with an interest, a colleague who evidently wishes to remain anonymous has just pointed me to a series of documents which are an audit of Facebook's privacy approach by the Irish Data Protection Commission, Facebook's response and the re-audit by the Irish Data Protection Commission as below http://www.europe-v-facebook.org/Facebook_Ireland_Audit_Report_Final.pdf http://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-public-policy-europe/facebook-and-the -irish-data-protection-commission/288934714486394 http://dataprotection.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=1233 &m=f http://dataprotection.ie/documents/press/Facebook_Ireland_Audit_Review_Repor t_21_Sept_2012.pdf The Canadian Privacy Commissioner has also done a review: http://www.priv.gc.ca/media/nr-c/2009/nr-c_090827_e.asp The Irish undertook the review (acting it appears on behalf of the EU) because FB is an Irish registered company (presumably for tax purposes). The Canadian Commissioner undertook the review to ensure that "These changes mean that the privacy of 200 million (2009) Facebook users in Canada and around the world will be far better protected," says Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart. Does this mean that every country in the world needs to do it's own audit of FB? Does this meant that every country in the world needs to do a re-audit everytime FB changes its approach to privacy/tweaks its business model!?! How/where/with what resources does the individual who feels somehow aggrieved by the activities undertaken by FB gain legal redress? Is Facebook too big to be allowed to fail in its (data privacy and other) obligations (Is Facebook a Human Right? ) Isn't this a matter of global Internet governance? (Do we really expect the Data Protection Commissioner of Ireland to ensure the privacy rights of 1 billion global users of Facebook? 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 michael_leibrandt at web.de Sat Dec 29 02:45:33 2012 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 08:45:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! References: <023601cde551$8654aba0$92fe02e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> Hi Michael, If your local car dealer rejects to sell you a car, or if the local night club doesn't let you in, there isn't much you can do about it. Private providers of goods and services are generally free to decide whom to serve. At least until it becomes an act of discrimination, e. g. against blacks, gays or jews. Or if the provider has a monopoly (clearly not the case for Google or Facebook), or has such a strong market position that it can actually control the market. So to compare government action and company behaviour is quite difficult. But there is already enough hypocrisy to think about with regard to stakeholders of the same category ;-) Michael, Berlin ----- Original Message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:17 AM Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! > (from today's various Internet news feeds.... > > Yes, for sure, these hands off the Internet. > > http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/china-tightens-internet-control-b > ans-anonymity-allows-government-to-delete-posts/censorship-online-twitter-we > ibo-xinhua-/c3s10510/#.UN2qcI7896I > http://tinyurl.com/cryyx5l > > And these > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/07170621508/fisa-is-renewed-with-a > ll-its-problems-still-intact.shtml > http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j > > And these > http://torrentfreak.com/google-removed-50-million-pirate-search-results-this > -year-121228/ > http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j > > And these > http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/washingtons-blog-facebook-censors-pro > minent-political-critics.html > http://tinyurl.com/cn72l3v > > Maybe a New Year's Resolution: Enough with the hypocrisy! > > M > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 03:27:32 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:27:32 -0800 Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! In-Reply-To: <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> References: <023601cde551$8654aba0$92fe02e0$@gmail.com> <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> Message-ID: <02c701cde59e$5ab3f8f0$101bead0$@gmail.com> Hi Michael, My point in including Google in the "rogues gallery" is simply to highlight the central role that Google was playing in the recent Internet Freedom/Hands off the Internet campaign... My point conerning Facebook is linked to the fact that FB because of its very size and scope (market dominance?) is taking on (for some at least) a quasi official status (the official election results in Ghana were first announced on FB for example). But overall my intention was to point to the hypocrisy of the overwhelming campaigns from certain governments and certain elements of the private sector, civil society, and the technical community concerning "hands off the Internet" when it comes from certain directions (such as the governments of China or Russia) while the same folks choose to ignore (or at least draw no connection with) quite blatant and parallel intrusions rather closer to home. The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the well-being of the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but rather to develop means for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" in the global public interest by all parties. M -----Original Message----- From: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:46 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! Hi Michael, If your local car dealer rejects to sell you a car, or if the local night club doesn't let you in, there isn't much you can do about it. Private providers of goods and services are generally free to decide whom to serve. At least until it becomes an act of discrimination, e. g. against blacks, gays or jews. Or if the provider has a monopoly (clearly not the case for Google or Facebook), or has such a strong market position that it can actually control the market. So to compare government action and company behaviour is quite difficult. But there is already enough hypocrisy to think about with regard to stakeholders of the same category ;-) Michael, Berlin ----- Original Message ----- From: "michael gurstein" To: Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:17 AM Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! > (from today's various Internet news feeds.... > > Yes, for sure, these hands off the Internet. > > http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/china-tightens-internet-control-b > ans-anonymity-allows-government-to-delete-posts/censorship-online-twitter-we > ibo-xinhua-/c3s10510/#.UN2qcI7896I > http://tinyurl.com/cryyx5l > > And these > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/07170621508/fisa-is-renewed-with-a > ll-its-problems-still-intact.shtml > http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j > > And these > http://torrentfreak.com/google-removed-50-million-pirate-search-results-this > -year-121228/ > http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j > > And these > http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/washingtons-blog-facebook-censors-pro > minent-political-critics.html > http://tinyurl.com/cn72l3v > > Maybe a New Year's Resolution: Enough with the hypocrisy! > > M > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 29 03:35:15 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 14:05:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! In-Reply-To: <02c701cde59e$5ab3f8f0$101bead0$@gmail.com> References: <023601cde551$8654aba0$92fe02e0$@gmail.com> <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> <02c701cde59e$5ab3f8f0$101bead0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Do you expect china, Russia or the Arab states to govern in the global public interest? --srs (iPad) On 29-Dec-2012, at 13:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Hi Michael, > > My point in including Google in the "rogues gallery" is simply to highlight > the central role that Google was playing in the recent Internet > Freedom/Hands off the Internet campaign... My point conerning Facebook is > linked to the fact that FB because of its very size and scope (market > dominance?) is taking on (for some at least) a quasi official status (the > official election results in Ghana were first announced on FB for example). > > But overall my intention was to point to the hypocrisy of the overwhelming > campaigns from certain governments and certain elements of the private > sector, civil society, and the technical community concerning "hands off the > Internet" when it comes from certain directions (such as the governments of > China or Russia) while the same folks choose to ignore (or at least draw no > connection with) quite blatant and parallel intrusions rather closer to > home. > > The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the well-being of > the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but rather to develop means > for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" in the global public interest by > all parties. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:46 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! > > Hi Michael, > > If your local car dealer rejects to sell you a car, or if the local night > club doesn't let you in, there isn't much you can do about it. Private > providers of goods and services are generally free to decide whom to serve. > At least until it becomes an act of discrimination, e. g. against blacks, > gays or jews. Or if the provider has a monopoly (clearly not the case for > Google or Facebook), or has such a strong market position that it can > actually control the market. > > So to compare government action and company behaviour is quite difficult. > But there is already enough hypocrisy to think about with regard to > stakeholders of the same category ;-) > > Michael, Berlin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "michael gurstein" > To: > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:17 AM > Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! > > >> (from today's various Internet news feeds.... >> >> Yes, for sure, these hands off the Internet. >> >> > http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/china-tightens-internet-control-b >> > ans-anonymity-allows-government-to-delete-posts/censorship-online-twitter-we >> ibo-xinhua-/c3s10510/#.UN2qcI7896I >> http://tinyurl.com/cryyx5l >> >> And these >> > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/07170621508/fisa-is-renewed-with-a >> ll-its-problems-still-intact.shtml >> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >> >> And these >> > http://torrentfreak.com/google-removed-50-million-pirate-search-results-this >> -year-121228/ >> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >> >> And these >> > http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/washingtons-blog-facebook-censors-pro >> minent-political-critics.html >> http://tinyurl.com/cn72l3v >> >> Maybe a New Year's Resolution: Enough with the hypocrisy! >> >> M >> >> >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sat Dec 29 04:01:21 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 01:01:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! In-Reply-To: References: <023601cde551$8654aba0$92fe02e0$@gmail.com> <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> <02c701cde59e$5ab3f8f0$101bead0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <02cb01cde5a3$138b7930$3aa26b90$@gmail.com> No, I don't "expect china, Russia or the Arab states to govern in the global public interest" but nor do I expect that the US government, Google or Facebook will operate so as to promote the global public interest either. As I was just saying, > The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the > well-being of the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but rather > to develop means for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" in the > global public interest by all parties. This I think is an area where civil society and the technical community should be demonstrating leadership (and hopefully joined by sympathetic governments and potentially elements of the private sector) in defining, articulating and pursuing. M -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:35 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Michael Leibrandt; Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! Do you expect china, Russia or the Arab states to govern in the global public interest? --srs (iPad) On 29-Dec-2012, at 13:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Hi Michael, > > My point in including Google in the "rogues gallery" is simply to > highlight the central role that Google was playing in the recent > Internet Freedom/Hands off the Internet campaign... My point conerning > Facebook is linked to the fact that FB because of its very size and > scope (market > dominance?) is taking on (for some at least) a quasi official status > (the official election results in Ghana were first announced on FB for example). > > But overall my intention was to point to the hypocrisy of the > overwhelming campaigns from certain governments and certain elements > of the private sector, civil society, and the technical community > concerning "hands off the Internet" when it comes from certain > directions (such as the governments of China or Russia) while the same > folks choose to ignore (or at least draw no connection with) quite > blatant and parallel intrusions rather closer to home. > > The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the > well-being of the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but rather > to develop means for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" in the > global public interest by all parties. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:46 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! > > Hi Michael, > > If your local car dealer rejects to sell you a car, or if the local > night club doesn't let you in, there isn't much you can do about it. > Private providers of goods and services are generally free to decide whom to serve. > At least until it becomes an act of discrimination, e. g. against > blacks, gays or jews. Or if the provider has a monopoly (clearly not > the case for Google or Facebook), or has such a strong market position > that it can actually control the market. > > So to compare government action and company behaviour is quite difficult. > But there is already enough hypocrisy to think about with regard to > stakeholders of the same category ;-) > > Michael, Berlin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "michael gurstein" > To: > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:17 AM > Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! > > >> (from today's various Internet news feeds.... >> >> Yes, for sure, these hands off the Internet. >> >> > http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/china-tightens-internet-con > trol-b >> > ans-anonymity-allows-government-to-delete-posts/censorship-online-twit > ter-we >> ibo-xinhua-/c3s10510/#.UN2qcI7896I >> http://tinyurl.com/cryyx5l >> >> And these >> > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/07170621508/fisa-is-renewed- > with-a >> ll-its-problems-still-intact.shtml >> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >> >> And these >> > http://torrentfreak.com/google-removed-50-million-pirate-search-result > s-this >> -year-121228/ >> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >> >> And these >> > http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/washingtons-blog-facebook-censo > rs-pro >> minent-political-critics.html >> http://tinyurl.com/cn72l3v >> >> Maybe a New Year's Resolution: Enough with the hypocrisy! >> >> M >> >> >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > ---- > > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 Sat Dec 29 04:15:15 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 14:45:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! In-Reply-To: <02cb01cde5a3$138b7930$3aa26b90$@gmail.com> References: <023601cde551$8654aba0$92fe02e0$@gmail.com> <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> <02c701cde59e$5ab3f8f0$101bead0$@gmail.com> <02cb01cde5a3$138b7930$3aa26b90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: So you have a lot of industry and civil society showing a surprising amount of consensus so far Which consensus does not seem to be one that you agree with, but them's the breaks. --srs (iPad) On 29-Dec-2012, at 14:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: > No, I don't "expect china, Russia or the Arab states to govern in the global > public interest" but nor do I expect that the US government, Google or > Facebook will operate so as to promote the global public interest either. > > As I was just saying, >> The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the >> well-being of the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but rather >> to develop means for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" in the >> global public interest by all parties. > > This I think is an area where civil society and the technical community > should be demonstrating leadership (and hopefully joined by sympathetic > governments and potentially elements of the private sector) in defining, > articulating and pursuing. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:35 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: Michael Leibrandt; > Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! > > Do you expect china, Russia or the Arab states to govern in the global > public interest? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 29-Dec-2012, at 13:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Hi Michael, >> >> My point in including Google in the "rogues gallery" is simply to >> highlight the central role that Google was playing in the recent >> Internet Freedom/Hands off the Internet campaign... My point conerning >> Facebook is linked to the fact that FB because of its very size and >> scope (market >> dominance?) is taking on (for some at least) a quasi official status >> (the official election results in Ghana were first announced on FB for > example). >> >> But overall my intention was to point to the hypocrisy of the >> overwhelming campaigns from certain governments and certain elements >> of the private sector, civil society, and the technical community >> concerning "hands off the Internet" when it comes from certain >> directions (such as the governments of China or Russia) while the same >> folks choose to ignore (or at least draw no connection with) quite >> blatant and parallel intrusions rather closer to home. >> >> The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the >> well-being of the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but rather >> to develop means for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" in the >> global public interest by all parties. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] >> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:46 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >> Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> If your local car dealer rejects to sell you a car, or if the local >> night club doesn't let you in, there isn't much you can do about it. >> Private providers of goods and services are generally free to decide whom > to serve. >> At least until it becomes an act of discrimination, e. g. against >> blacks, gays or jews. Or if the provider has a monopoly (clearly not >> the case for Google or Facebook), or has such a strong market position >> that it can actually control the market. >> >> So to compare government action and company behaviour is quite difficult. >> But there is already enough hypocrisy to think about with regard to >> stakeholders of the same category ;-) >> >> Michael, Berlin >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "michael gurstein" >> To: >> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:17 AM >> Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! >> >> >>> (from today's various Internet news feeds.... >>> >>> Yes, for sure, these hands off the Internet. >> http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/china-tightens-internet-con >> trol-b >> ans-anonymity-allows-government-to-delete-posts/censorship-online-twit >> ter-we >>> ibo-xinhua-/c3s10510/#.UN2qcI7896I >>> http://tinyurl.com/cryyx5l >>> >>> And these >> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/07170621508/fisa-is-renewed- >> with-a >>> ll-its-problems-still-intact.shtml >>> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >>> >>> And these >> http://torrentfreak.com/google-removed-50-million-pirate-search-result >> s-this >>> -year-121228/ >>> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >>> >>> And these >> http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/washingtons-blog-facebook-censo >> rs-pro >>> minent-political-critics.html >>> http://tinyurl.com/cn72l3v >>> >>> Maybe a New Year's Resolution: Enough with the hypocrisy! >>> >>> M >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------ >> ---- >> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 06:53:07 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:53:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Facebook bans Gandhi quote as part of revisionist history purge Message-ID: <50DED9A3.3090105@gmail.com> [Nothing happening here, move along now...] Facebook bans Gandhi quote as part of revisionist history purge Thursday, December 27, 2012 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com (NaturalNews) The reports are absolutely true. Facebook suspended the Natural News account earlier today after we posted an historical quote from Mohandas Gandhi. The quote reads: "Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446. This historical quote was apparently too much for Facebook's censors to bear. They suspended our account and gave us a "final warning" that one more violation of their so-called "community guidelines" would result in our account being permanently deactivated. They then demanded we send them a color copy of a "government issued identification" in order to reactivate our account. Our account was removed from suspension just minutes before InfoWars posted its article on this Facebook censorship, and the Facebook page is now functioning at: www.Facebook.com/NaturalNews This is a separate account from our primary Facebook account, which has nearly 250,000 followers at: www.Facebook.com/HealthRanger Logic is an enemy and history is a menace That Facebook would choose to disable our account after we posted a Gandhi quote is incredibly shocking. The historical rise of oppressed Indian people against tyrannical British rule is apparently no longer allowed to be discussed on Facebook. The very IDEA of a free people overcoming tyrannical government rule now "violates community guidelines." The removal of this content is akin to online book burning and the destruction of history. This post was not in any way malicious, nor encouraging violence, nor even describing guns or the Second Amendment. It merely reflected the words of one of our world's most celebrated rebel leaders who helped an entire nation throw off the shackles of oppression and British occupation. That Facebook would find this to "violate community guidelines" is nothing short of absolutely bewildering. Here is the full image as originally posted on Facebook. Keep in mind that THIS is now considered unacceptable speech across the "Facebook community," where any number of people can openly call for the murder of the NRA president and have absolutely no action taken against them: InfoWars.com is also now reporting that Facebook is running an across-the-board PURGE of pro-gun accounts. A huge number of accounts are all being systematically disabled or suspended, with all content being wiped clean. We have entered the era of the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell's 1984 novel. And while Facebook assaults the First Amendment in America, Senator Feinstein is busy assaulting the Second. Facebook declares war on human history What's especially alarming about all this is that Gandhi himself was of course a champion of resistance against tyranny. To banish quotes from Gandhi is much like banning quotes of freedom from Martin Luther King (who also openly supported concealed firearms, by the way, and who personally owned an entire "arsenal" of firearms). What's next? Will Facebook ban quotes by Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? Any and all patriots, founding fathers and liberty lovers throughout history might soon be stricken from the Facebook servers, and any who dare to post historical quotes supporting liberty, the Bill of Rights, or the Second Amendment risk having their accounts terminated and all content deleted. Collectivist propaganda has now reached a point where you can't even discuss liberty or anything out of history that supported the right to keep and bear arms. You are required to stay focused solely on celebrity gossip, sports stars, fashion distractions and tabloid garbage. Anyone who wishes to discuss actual American history must now go underground and speak softly in dimly-lit rooms, behind secret walls and drawn curtains. The era of total oppression and collectivist mind control has fully arrived in America. This is not hyperbole... IT IS HERE NOW. Memorize this quote, because it too shall soon be purged from the internet: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson. Dare to post that on Facebook and you risk your account being disabled or deleted. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038484_Gandhi_quote_Facebook_censorship.html#ixzz2GROxL9Mh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 07:50:51 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 14:50:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Facebook Even Censors ART & Facebook Yields to Pressure Message-ID: <50DEE72B.10001@gmail.com> Facebook Even Censors ART Posted on December 28, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog 8316464299 f197dba5e3 b Facebook Even Censors ART /Image by William Banzai / Social Media Censorship is Rampant Not only does Facebook -- like all of the other large social media outfits -- censor political speech, it also censors /art/. Acclaimed artist Anthony Freda told us: They suspended my account for a period saying my posts 'violated community standards' I say *they* violate *My* community standards by spying on us, mining and sharing our info and keeping our biometric data in facial recognition systems. When a user of the popular Infowars Facebook page uploaded an uncopyrighted image of Bin Laden, that Facebook account was temporarily suspended : Facebook is now apparently censoring political posts which violate its "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities" as hate speech, after the social networking giant threatened to close radio host Alex Jones' account over an image of Osama Bin Laden with the words "Al-CIA-da" written underneath. 291012facebook Facebook Even Censors ART Attempting to login to Alex Jones' Facebook account, which has over 321,000 subscribers, Infowars staff were met with a message from Facebook denying access to the account until it was acknowledged that Facebook's terms had been violated. "We removed content you posted," stated the message, underneath which was a black and white image of Osama Bin Laden with the words "Al-CIA-da" emblazoned across it. Facebook removed the image because it "violates Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities ." A secondary screen then warned that other infringing images should be removed if the account was to remain in good standing. Since the image is not copyrighted, according to Facebook's terms of agreement one can only assume that it was removed because it represented an example of "hate speech," yet the picture was merely a commentary on the admitted fact that Osama Bin Laden was aided by the CIA during the cold war and that Al-Qaeda terrorists are now being supported by the Central Intelligence Agency in Syria and Libya. This is, indeed, an admitted fact . Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski admitted on CNN that the U.S. organized and supported Bin Laden and the other originators of "Al Qaeda" in the 1970s to fight the Soviets. And -- in the name of fighting our enemies -- the U.S. has directly been supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups for the last decade. See this , this , this , this and this . Many Americans will be offended by the allegation of the former FBI translator - who has been deemed credible by the Department of Justice's Inspector General, several senators (free subscription required), and a coalition of prominent conservative and liberal groups , who the ACLU calls "the most gagged person in the history of the United States of America", and who Daniel Ellsberg says possesses information "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers" -- that Bin Laden worked for the CIA /right up until 9/11 /. But that doesn't mean that she doesn't have the right to say it (or that it isn't true). Maybe Facebook censors would have been happier if a /younger/ Bin Laden was shown wearing an Al-CIA-da shirt? (It is a funny coincidence that -- as the Guardian noted in 2008 -- Facebook was largely launched with CIA and neoconservative money .) William Banzai -- who knows a thing or two about artwork, privacy and censorship -- writes : Several items of interest surfaced over the Christmas Holiday with regard to Social Media Strip Mining and data cloud euphoria: 1. Facebook's privacy settings are evidently too complicated for Zuckerberg's sister to navigate. Not surporising, they are not designed for anyone to successfully navigate. If you succeed in mastering Facebook's privacy settings, you are in line for Krugman's Nobel. 2. Our Congress, which always has our best interests at heart do they not, managed to expunge the provision of the NDAA which would have required a warrant for government access to our email accounts. Surprised? 3. Instagram, shifted into hyper-back-pedaling mode. Of course they want to convert user images to advertisements. Isn't that what Facebook wants to do? Stripmining user privacy. 4. "Facebook's New Motto: If it's free, it's not the First Amendment." I don't mind that so many others use these services for seemingly inane purposes. Photo sharing is actually more engaging than sitting around watching TV when you get right down to it. It is two way communication. What concerns me is the way these giant social media players are displacing other traditional channels of content sharing and distribution, yet they obviously consider themselves exempt from well worn principles of free speech, privacy, open access and fair use. They cannot just say if you don't like it go somewhere else. That's not good enough. You can't deny access to so called "fringe groups" and allow mainstream political groups to remain ensconced. That is not the level playing field of ideas envisioned by the First Amendment. At some point, Facebook becomes a quasi-public space like Zucotti Park and they cannot just arbitrarily deny access to users without some form of due process. Their perfect commercial world is a world bereft of unpopular ideas or political controversy. A happy sheepful place. 5. It was revealed that plain old fashioned email marketing provides a higher retail ROI than social media advertising, which also came behind display ads and web search... In the ultimate revenge, Freda created a picture parodying Facebook as the monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Freda explains: It's a play on the mysterious 2001 monolith that appears to influence human behavior, including the triggering of the use new technology and weapons, etc. Face Facebook Even Censors ART /Anthony Freda/ And here are more illustrations from Banzai : 8316552589 07956d6df3 b Facebook Even Censors ART . 8316055881 2b83396520 b Facebook Even Censors ART . 8315986527 dd86501e2b b Facebook Even Censors ART . 8313742754 a82eca6d53 b Facebook Even Censors ART . 8310553472 13bca18938 b Facebook Even Censors ART . 8309406585 0744339f18 b Facebook Even Censors ART . 8309400933 188bc82dea b Facebook Even Censors ART * Post to Facebook 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 * Post to Twitter 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 * Add to Reddit * Post to Delicious * Post to StumbleUpon * Add to Google Bookmarks * Add to LinkedIn * Send via Gmail * Send via E-mail program * Print with PrintFriendly * Post to Blogger * Send via Buzzster! * Add to MySpace * Add to NewsVine * Post to Slashdot * Add to Squidoo * Add to Technorati Favorites * Post to Digg * Add to Bebo * Add to Evernote * Add to FriendFeed * Post to Google+ * Add to Plaxo Pulse Facebook Yields to Pressure: Reactivates Political Critics' Accounts Posted on December 28, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog Outcry Leads Facebook to Back Away from Overt Censorship Prominent political critics confirmed to us that their accounts had been suspended or inactivated yesterday in a coordinated purge. But after we -- and others -- slammed the censorship, the activists' accounts have been reinstated. Peter Dale Scott told us: The issue seems indeed to have been activism, but of many varieties, including gun advocacy. Above all it seems to have affected many more accounts in England than here. See the Guardian story on my webpage, now restored, also this: http://www.secretsofthefed.com/facebook-now-suspending-accounts-which-question-mainstream-media-reportingaccount-of-events/ It is possible we [9/11 activists] were marginal victims of a procedure designed to prevent flash mobs (which alas we will never be). Ejournalism seems to have taken care of the problem. Let's take heart from this. Michel Rivero writes : Last night while I was sleeping the Magic Elves turned my Facebook account back on. I understand that most if not all of the other accounts were also switched back on. Frankly, I am honored to have been included in the list of leading political critics thus attacked. I feel like I made the varsity team! Not a word of explanation has been forthcoming from Facebook. This, I think, rules out an external hacker attack. The lesson to be learned here is that the alternative media has more power to affect change than we ourselves fully comprehend, and it is time to use that power. Mike Adams of Natural News reports : Facebook ... suspended our account and gave us a "final warning" that one more violation of their so-called "community guidelines" would result in our account being permanently deactivated. They then demanded we send them a color copy of a "government issued identification" in order to reactivate our account. Our account was removed from suspension just minutes before InfoWars posted its article on this Facebook censorship, and the Facebook page is now functioning at: www.Facebook.com/NaturalNews Perhaps Facebook wrongly assumed that we aren't smart enough to notice ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8316464299_f197dba5e3_b.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 287337 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 291012facebook.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 39156 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Face.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 48328 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8316552589_07956d6df3_b.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 354780 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8316055881_2b83396520_b.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 336541 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8315986527_dd86501e2b_b.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 128389 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8313742754_a82eca6d53_b.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 273259 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8310553472_13bca18938_b.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 77124 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8309406585_0744339f18_b.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 83197 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8309400933_188bc82dea_b.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 125511 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 Sat Dec 29 08:07:29 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 15:07:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! In-Reply-To: <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> References: <023601cde551$8654aba0$92fe02e0$@gmail.com> <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> Message-ID: <50DEEB11.8030008@gmail.com> See Nader on this issue... here . Will try to dig out something on why oligopoly is a better approach to understand these kinds of markets than the simple competition vs monopoly argument... riaz On 2012/12/29 09:45 AM, Michael Leibrandt wrote: > > If your local car dealer rejects to sell you a car, or if the local > night club doesn't let you in, there isn't much you can do about it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Dec 29 08:51:46 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 08:51:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] Does CSISAC live? Message-ID: hi Heard about the CSISAC elections recently and thought that I would try to join CSISAC so that next time I too could vote for the civil society leadership to the OECD advisory. I found no information on how one joins, individual or organizational, on the web site http://csisac.org/ In fact it looks like the website stopped being tended in 2011. The wiki link was also broken. Is CSISAC dead? Or is it just a small club of founders who no longer have need to a web site or wiki? 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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 09:11:24 2012 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 19:11:24 +0500 Subject: [governance] Showdown in Little China - Pakistan to lift Internet Block on Youtube but sustain Internet Filter and fight against pornography Message-ID: Christmas cheer?: YouTube to be unblocked in '24 hours', tweets Rehman Malik Just as the clock ticked towards the 101st day that video sharing site YouTube was blocked in Pakistan, Interior Minister Rehman Malik tweeted on Friday evening that a decision has been taken to unblock the site in “24 hours”. “I chaired a high level meeting with all stakeholders on the Youtube. Good job by PTA to block anti iIslamic material! Pl expect Youtube unblocked in 24hrs” The move comes almost a month after the minister, whose ministry is not linked to either the Ministry of Information Technology, nor the blocking agency Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA), formed a committee to look into ways how the video sharing site could be unblocked while not in conflict with court orders on blasphemous material. Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/485918/christmas-cheer-youtube-to-be-unblocked-in-24-hours-tweets-rehman-malik/ -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 17:48:40 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 14:48:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] (Blogpost) Yes, Hands Off the Internet! (Towards "Internet Freedom"!. (Enough with the hypocrisy Message-ID: <044e01cde616$a65cc8e0$f3165aa0$@gmail.com> (You've seen most of this but now it's available for online comment :) http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/yes-hands-off-the-internet-towards- internet-freedom/ Tiny URL: http://wp.me/pJQl5-a2 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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_leibrandt at web.de Sat Dec 29 18:17:56 2012 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 00:17:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! References: <023601cde551$8654aba0$92fe02e0$@gmail.com> <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> <02c701cde59e$5ab3f8f0$101bead0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <49F1F41D8BE74F4DAF9EDB79B20F9F4B@yourh4vl8csyi6> I do not think that the right to vote given to uneducated people, to people without any knowledge about politics and therefore looking for the candidate with the best haircut, to people who do not support the concept of democracy, or even to those people who want to have Hitler back, is in the public interest of Germany. Nevertheless I will always defend their right to vote in local, regional, federal or european elections. Because the concept of particpation, if taken serious, is based on openness, inclusion, and not asking for motives. Besides that, I tend to use the term "global public interest" more carefully. If you have a global communiction media on the one hand side, and a non-harmonized global set of norm and values on the other, it's quite obvious that there is a need to reflect regional public interest in the Internet, and this includes content issues. Michael, Berlin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" To: ; "michael gurstein" Cc: "Michael Leibrandt" ; Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 9:35 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! Do you expect china, Russia or the Arab states to govern in the global public interest? --srs (iPad) On 29-Dec-2012, at 13:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Hi Michael, > > My point in including Google in the "rogues gallery" is simply to > highlight > the central role that Google was playing in the recent Internet > Freedom/Hands off the Internet campaign... My point conerning Facebook is > linked to the fact that FB because of its very size and scope (market > dominance?) is taking on (for some at least) a quasi official status (the > official election results in Ghana were first announced on FB for > example). > > But overall my intention was to point to the hypocrisy of the overwhelming > campaigns from certain governments and certain elements of the private > sector, civil society, and the technical community concerning "hands off > the > Internet" when it comes from certain directions (such as the governments > of > China or Russia) while the same folks choose to ignore (or at least draw > no > connection with) quite blatant and parallel intrusions rather closer to > home. > > The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the well-being > of > the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but rather to develop means > for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" in the global public interest > by > all parties. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:46 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! > > Hi Michael, > > If your local car dealer rejects to sell you a car, or if the local night > club doesn't let you in, there isn't much you can do about it. Private > providers of goods and services are generally free to decide whom to > serve. > At least until it becomes an act of discrimination, e. g. against blacks, > gays or jews. Or if the provider has a monopoly (clearly not the case for > Google or Facebook), or has such a strong market position that it can > actually control the market. > > So to compare government action and company behaviour is quite difficult. > But there is already enough hypocrisy to think about with regard to > stakeholders of the same category ;-) > > Michael, Berlin > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "michael gurstein" > To: > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:17 AM > Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! > > >> (from today's various Internet news feeds.... >> >> Yes, for sure, these hands off the Internet. >> >> > http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/china-tightens-internet-control-b >> > ans-anonymity-allows-government-to-delete-posts/censorship-online-twitter-we >> ibo-xinhua-/c3s10510/#.UN2qcI7896I >> http://tinyurl.com/cryyx5l >> >> And these >> > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/07170621508/fisa-is-renewed-with-a >> ll-its-problems-still-intact.shtml >> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >> >> And these >> > http://torrentfreak.com/google-removed-50-million-pirate-search-results-this >> -year-121228/ >> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >> >> And these >> > http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/washingtons-blog-facebook-censors-pro >> minent-political-critics.html >> http://tinyurl.com/cn72l3v >> >> Maybe a New Year's Resolution: Enough with the hypocrisy! >> >> M >> >> >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your 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 michael_leibrandt at web.de Sat Dec 29 18:31:20 2012 From: michael_leibrandt at web.de (Michael Leibrandt) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 00:31:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! References: <023601cde551$8654aba0$92fe02e0$@gmail.com> <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> <02c701cde59e$5ab3f8f0$101bead0$@gmail.com> <02cb01cde5a3$138b7930$3aa26b90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <555E24F6B7DB4CB59BA7A9746DDC4C3E@yourh4vl8csyi6> > So you have a lot of industry and civil society showing a surprising > amount of consensus so far Yes, and from time to time this somewhat unique setting deserves some reflection. On other global issues like climate change, where the so-called "hands-off" people are basically using the same argumets ("through innovation, free unregulated markets do the best job"), a significant part of cs has, well, at least some doubts if this is actually the right way to move forward. And the same govenments who are raving about cs support in the IG arena, show significant more distance when it comes to issues where cs statements are not in line with business interests... Michael, Berlin On 29-Dec-2012, at 14:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: > No, I don't "expect china, Russia or the Arab states to govern in the > global > public interest" but nor do I expect that the US government, Google or > Facebook will operate so as to promote the global public interest either. > > As I was just saying, >> The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the >> well-being of the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but rather >> to develop means for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" in the >> global public interest by all parties. > > This I think is an area where civil society and the technical community > should be demonstrating leadership (and hopefully joined by sympathetic > governments and potentially elements of the private sector) in defining, > articulating and pursuing. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:35 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: Michael Leibrandt; > Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! > > Do you expect china, Russia or the Arab states to govern in the global > public interest? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 29-Dec-2012, at 13:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Hi Michael, >> >> My point in including Google in the "rogues gallery" is simply to >> highlight the central role that Google was playing in the recent >> Internet Freedom/Hands off the Internet campaign... My point conerning >> Facebook is linked to the fact that FB because of its very size and >> scope (market >> dominance?) is taking on (for some at least) a quasi official status >> (the official election results in Ghana were first announced on FB for > example). >> >> But overall my intention was to point to the hypocrisy of the >> overwhelming campaigns from certain governments and certain elements >> of the private sector, civil society, and the technical community >> concerning "hands off the Internet" when it comes from certain >> directions (such as the governments of China or Russia) while the same >> folks choose to ignore (or at least draw no connection with) quite >> blatant and parallel intrusions rather closer to home. >> >> The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the >> well-being of the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but rather >> to develop means for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" in the >> global public interest by all parties. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] >> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:46 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >> Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> If your local car dealer rejects to sell you a car, or if the local >> night club doesn't let you in, there isn't much you can do about it. >> Private providers of goods and services are generally free to decide whom > to serve. >> At least until it becomes an act of discrimination, e. g. against >> blacks, gays or jews. Or if the provider has a monopoly (clearly not >> the case for Google or Facebook), or has such a strong market position >> that it can actually control the market. >> >> So to compare government action and company behaviour is quite difficult. >> But there is already enough hypocrisy to think about with regard to >> stakeholders of the same category ;-) >> >> Michael, Berlin >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "michael gurstein" >> To: >> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:17 AM >> Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! >> >> >>> (from today's various Internet news feeds.... >>> >>> Yes, for sure, these hands off the Internet. >> http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/china-tightens-internet-con >> trol-b >> ans-anonymity-allows-government-to-delete-posts/censorship-online-twit >> ter-we >>> ibo-xinhua-/c3s10510/#.UN2qcI7896I >>> http://tinyurl.com/cryyx5l >>> >>> And these >> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/07170621508/fisa-is-renewed- >> with-a >>> ll-its-problems-still-intact.shtml >>> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >>> >>> And these >> http://torrentfreak.com/google-removed-50-million-pirate-search-result >> s-this >>> -year-121228/ >>> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >>> >>> And these >> http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/washingtons-blog-facebook-censo >> rs-pro >>> minent-political-critics.html >>> http://tinyurl.com/cn72l3v >>> >>> Maybe a New Year's Resolution: Enough with the hypocrisy! >>> >>> M >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ------ >> ---- >> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.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 suresh at hserus.net Sat Dec 29 19:13:24 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:43:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! In-Reply-To: <49F1F41D8BE74F4DAF9EDB79B20F9F4B@yourh4vl8csyi6> References: <023601cde551$8654aba0$92fe02e0$@gmail.com> <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> <02c701cde59e$5ab3f8f0$101bead0$@gmail.com> <49F1F41D8BE74F4DAF9EDB79B20F9F4B@yourh4vl8csyi6> Message-ID: I fully agree there. However, if you take the Russian proposal to its logical end, every one of us is disenfranchised, with only governments having a say. --srs (iPad) On 30-Dec-2012, at 4:47, "Michael Leibrandt" wrote: > I do not think that the right to vote given to uneducated people, to people without any knowledge about politics and therefore looking for the candidate with the best haircut, to people who do not support the concept of democracy, or even to those people who want to have Hitler back, is in the public interest of Germany. Nevertheless I will always defend their right to vote in local, regional, federal or european elections. Because the concept of particpation, if taken serious, is based on openness, inclusion, and not asking for motives. Besides that, I tend to use the term "global public interest" more carefully. If you have a global communiction media on the one hand side, and a non-harmonized global set of norm and values on the other, it's quite obvious that there is a need to reflect regional public interest in the Internet, and this includes content issues. > > Michael, Berlin > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Suresh Ramasubramanian" > To: ; "michael gurstein" > Cc: "Michael Leibrandt" ; > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 9:35 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! > > > Do you expect china, Russia or the Arab states to govern in the global public interest? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 29-Dec-2012, at 13:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Hi Michael, >> >> My point in including Google in the "rogues gallery" is simply to highlight >> the central role that Google was playing in the recent Internet >> Freedom/Hands off the Internet campaign... My point conerning Facebook is >> linked to the fact that FB because of its very size and scope (market >> dominance?) is taking on (for some at least) a quasi official status (the >> official election results in Ghana were first announced on FB for example). >> >> But overall my intention was to point to the hypocrisy of the overwhelming >> campaigns from certain governments and certain elements of the private >> sector, civil society, and the technical community concerning "hands off the >> Internet" when it comes from certain directions (such as the governments of >> China or Russia) while the same folks choose to ignore (or at least draw no >> connection with) quite blatant and parallel intrusions rather closer to >> home. >> >> The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the well-being of >> the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but rather to develop means >> for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" in the global public interest by >> all parties. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] >> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:46 PM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >> Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> If your local car dealer rejects to sell you a car, or if the local night >> club doesn't let you in, there isn't much you can do about it. Private >> providers of goods and services are generally free to decide whom to serve. >> At least until it becomes an act of discrimination, e. g. against blacks, >> gays or jews. Or if the provider has a monopoly (clearly not the case for >> Google or Facebook), or has such a strong market position that it can >> actually control the market. >> >> So to compare government action and company behaviour is quite difficult. >> But there is already enough hypocrisy to think about with regard to >> stakeholders of the same category ;-) >> >> Michael, Berlin >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "michael gurstein" >> To: >> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:17 AM >> Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! >> >> >>> (from today's various Internet news feeds.... >>> >>> Yes, for sure, these hands off the Internet. >> http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/china-tightens-internet-control-b >> ans-anonymity-allows-government-to-delete-posts/censorship-online-twitter-we >>> ibo-xinhua-/c3s10510/#.UN2qcI7896I >>> http://tinyurl.com/cryyx5l >>> >>> And these >> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/07170621508/fisa-is-renewed-with-a >>> ll-its-problems-still-intact.shtml >>> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >>> >>> And these >> http://torrentfreak.com/google-removed-50-million-pirate-search-results-this >>> -year-121228/ >>> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >>> >>> And these >> http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/washingtons-blog-facebook-censors-pro >>> minent-political-critics.html >>> http://tinyurl.com/cn72l3v >>> >>> Maybe a New Year's Resolution: Enough with the hypocrisy! >>> >>> M >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---- >> >> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your 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 Sat Dec 29 19:16:44 2012 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 05:46:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! In-Reply-To: <555E24F6B7DB4CB59BA7A9746DDC4C3E@yourh4vl8csyi6> References: <023601cde551$8654aba0$92fe02e0$@gmail.com> <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> <02c701cde59e$5ab3f8f0$101bead0$@gmail.com> <02cb01cde5a3$138b7930$3aa26b90$@gmail.com> <555E24F6B7DB4CB59BA7A9746DDC4C3E@yourh4vl8csyi6> Message-ID: Industry and civil society (specific sections of civil society at any rate) cooperation in various aspects of igov and cybersecurity is not a new phenomenon. So, the deep consensus is hardly surprising. On the other hand, the people who have, so far, expressed opposition to this consensus, haven't been those that I see engaged with industry stakeholders so far. --srs (iPad) On 30-Dec-2012, at 5:01, "Michael Leibrandt" wrote: >> So you have a lot of industry and civil society showing a surprising amount of consensus so far > > Yes, and from time to time this somewhat unique setting deserves some reflection. On other global issues like climate change, where the so-called "hands-off" people are basically using the same argumets ("through innovation, free unregulated markets do the best job"), a significant part of cs has, well, at least some doubts if this is actually the right way to move forward. And the same govenments who are raving about cs support in the IG arena, show significant more distance when it comes to issues where cs statements are not in line with business interests... > > Michael, Berlin > > On 29-Dec-2012, at 14:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> No, I don't "expect china, Russia or the Arab states to govern in the global >> public interest" but nor do I expect that the US government, Google or >> Facebook will operate so as to promote the global public interest either. >> >> As I was just saying, >>> The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the >>> well-being of the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but rather >>> to develop means for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" in the >>> global public interest by all parties. >> >> This I think is an area where civil society and the technical community >> should be demonstrating leadership (and hopefully joined by sympathetic >> governments and potentially elements of the private sector) in defining, >> articulating and pursuing. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:35 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >> Cc: Michael Leibrandt; >> Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! >> >> Do you expect china, Russia or the Arab states to govern in the global >> public interest? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 29-Dec-2012, at 13:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> My point in including Google in the "rogues gallery" is simply to >>> highlight the central role that Google was playing in the recent >>> Internet Freedom/Hands off the Internet campaign... My point conerning >>> Facebook is linked to the fact that FB because of its very size and >>> scope (market >>> dominance?) is taking on (for some at least) a quasi official status >>> (the official election results in Ghana were first announced on FB for >> example). >>> >>> But overall my intention was to point to the hypocrisy of the >>> overwhelming campaigns from certain governments and certain elements >>> of the private sector, civil society, and the technical community >>> concerning "hands off the Internet" when it comes from certain >>> directions (such as the governments of China or Russia) while the same >>> folks choose to ignore (or at least draw no connection with) quite >>> blatant and parallel intrusions rather closer to home. >>> >>> The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the >>> well-being of the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but rather >>> to develop means for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" in the >>> global public interest by all parties. >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] >>> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:46 PM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> If your local car dealer rejects to sell you a car, or if the local >>> night club doesn't let you in, there isn't much you can do about it. >>> Private providers of goods and services are generally free to decide whom >> to serve. >>> At least until it becomes an act of discrimination, e. g. against >>> blacks, gays or jews. Or if the provider has a monopoly (clearly not >>> the case for Google or Facebook), or has such a strong market position >>> that it can actually control the market. >>> >>> So to compare government action and company behaviour is quite difficult. >>> But there is already enough hypocrisy to think about with regard to >>> stakeholders of the same category ;-) >>> >>> Michael, Berlin >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "michael gurstein" >>> To: >>> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:17 AM >>> Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! >>> >>> >>>> (from today's various Internet news feeds.... >>>> >>>> Yes, for sure, these hands off the Internet. >>> http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/china-tightens-internet-con >>> trol-b >>> ans-anonymity-allows-government-to-delete-posts/censorship-online-twit >>> ter-we >>>> ibo-xinhua-/c3s10510/#.UN2qcI7896I >>>> http://tinyurl.com/cryyx5l >>>> >>>> And these >>> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/07170621508/fisa-is-renewed- >>> with-a >>>> ll-its-problems-still-intact.shtml >>>> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >>>> >>>> And these >>> http://torrentfreak.com/google-removed-50-million-pirate-search-result >>> s-this >>>> -year-121228/ >>>> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >>>> >>>> And these >>> http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/washingtons-blog-facebook-censo >>> rs-pro >>>> minent-political-critics.html >>>> http://tinyurl.com/cn72l3v >>>> >>>> Maybe a New Year's Resolution: Enough with the hypocrisy! >>>> >>>> M >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ------ >>> ---- >>> >>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Dec 30 07:04:50 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:04:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> <6vPH5ewPDa3QFA3P@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <$ubW5bXi3C4QFAP1@internetpolicyagency.com> In message , at 14:17:33 on Fri, 28 Dec 2012, David Conrad writes >[Merging two messages] > >Roland, > >On Dec 28, 2012, at 5:38 AM, Roland Perry > wrote: >> In message , at >>19:51:45 on Thu, 27 Dec 2012, David Conrad >>writes >>> Your rights to privacy are not removed by Facebook changing their >>>terms and conditions. You have the ultimate right to privacy by not >>>subjecting yourself to their endless incomprehensible games >> How would that work if your connectivity ISP decided it would publish >>the urls of all the websites you visit? With the get-out that you >>could always find another ISP if you didn't like it. > >As Avri points out, this is probably a contract law issue. In the "Old World" (as opposed to the "New World") we have a fairly comprehensive set of rules that say contracts between businesses and consumers have to give a certain minimum amount of protection form the consumer - who cannot be expected to understand complicated contracts. Privacy (or as we call it Data Protection) is one area that is covered. >If your contract with your ISP allows them to sniff your data to >extract URLs that the ISP can then publish and you don't like this, >then yes, the get-out is to terminate your contract for your ISP's >services and find another (something I would highly recommend). Not just sniffing, they could put your browsing traffic through a proxy/cache and simply publish extracts of the logs. >However, I believe there is a fundamental difference between the >relationship you have with Facebook and one you have with your ISP: >with your ISP, you are the customer and you are paying for data transit >services under terms and conditions that (presumably) dictate that the >ISP doesn't do what you suggest. This goes straight to the heart of my original point, which is that ordinary consumers don't see a difference between the connectivity provided by their ISP (to the wider Internet) and the connectivity provided by Facebook (to their friends and their photo albums etc). >With Facebook, you, as a Facebook user and the data you voluntarily >provide to Facebook, are the product. I prefer to think of the connectivity with my friends and the photo album server as the product, and selling data about me to advertisers (etc) as the fee. >On Dec 28, 2012, at 5:32 AM, Roland Perry > wrote: >> In message , at >>17:34:47 on Thu, 27 Dec 2012, David Conrad >>writes >>> Facebook's rules may result in intrusions into my privacy (not my >>>right to privacy), but if so, the answer would appear to be simple: >>>if I don't like their rules or how those rules are changed, I will >>>exercise my right to privacy and choose to not use their service. >> >> The problem with that approach is the suspicion that when they make >>changes they are retrospective; > >If a term of the Facebook terms and conditions is that they can change >their terms unilaterally and I accept their terms and conditions in >order to make use of their services, then to be safe I should assume >that they will, at some point in the future, do the worst possible >thing they are legally allowed to do in the legal venue in which the >contract between Facebook and I apply. However, most consumers outside the USA (and perhaps many inside) are not familiar with what Californian Law will, in the extremes, allow. Take a simple example: I cancel my subscription, but the photo album remains visible (rather than being taken down). We must presume this is legal in California, otherwise it would not happen. However, European Privacy Regulators have had a number of issues with Facebook. >> Security by obscurity, perhaps, but a great deal of what Facebook >>offers is "privacy by obscurity". > >There's a reason "security by obscurity" is considered pejorative :). >As security by obscurity can't be relied upon, I believe "privacy by >obscurity" is functionally equivalent to "no privacy", particularly as >data warehouses continue to grow and data mining techniques continue to >improve over time. That's almost exactly the argument that Facebook is using to justify withdrawing the ability for people to hide their user names from Search. (Go to Facebook's new "Privacy Shortcuts", then "More Settings" then "Who can look me up". If you have an older account there will be three entries, one of which is "Who can look up your Timeline by Name", which can be edited to 'Everyone/Friends of friends/Friends' but is missing from newer accounts where it is in effect set to 'Everyone') If you want "not to be bothered" [troubled] by people other than Friends, which includes the public's ability to email you at your Facebook email address, then stopping 'Everyone' looking you up by name is reasonably effective at the moment. If you can do a search-by-name, then your Facebook email address can be deduced trivially from the url of your status page (eg "david.conrad .nnnn" in your case) even if you choose not to reveal that email address in your Contact Info. >To me, it's simple: if you want to keep something private, don't put it >on the Internet, regardless of whether the vehicle for posting is >Facebook or anything else. So maybe you wouldn't mind me publishing your Facebook email address? My 'Old World' netiquette forbids it though. >Where my rights to privacy are impacted is when I do not have control >over what gets put onto the Internet. Or as you put it on Facebook: "Everything is wonderful until you know something about it". Based on my example above I'm sure some people are reaching for their keyboards to say "but but but, you can prevent anyone at all from emailing you at your Facebook address", but actually they recently changed that as well. >The interesting Internet governance question to me is given the >increased governmental mandates for putting stuff like health records, >utility billing information, etc., onto the Internet whether I have any >control anymore. I make a distinction between information that's published to at least a subset of the public, and that which is intended to be restricted to a supplier/customer relationship, like utility billing information. But to extend an earlier analogy, I suppose you could always move to a different country! -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 07:55:54 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 07:55:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! In-Reply-To: <02cb01cde5a3$138b7930$3aa26b90$@gmail.com> References: <023601cde551$8654aba0$92fe02e0$@gmail.com> <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> <02c701cde59e$5ab3f8f0$101bead0$@gmail.com> <02cb01cde5a3$138b7930$3aa26b90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael, On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 4:01 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > No, I don't "expect china, Russia or the Arab states to govern in the global > public interest" but nor do I expect that the US government, Google or > Facebook will operate so as to promote the global public interest either. > > As I was just saying, >> The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the >> well-being of the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but rather >> to develop means for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" in the >> global public interest by all parties. > > This I think is an area where civil society and the technical community > should be demonstrating leadership (and hopefully joined by sympathetic > governments and potentially elements of the private sector) in defining, > articulating and pursuing. But that is EXACTLY what happened at WCIT, and you kvetched about it! -- 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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sun Dec 30 08:05:49 2012 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 13:05:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] Does CSISAC live? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 08:51:46 on Sat, 29 Dec 2012, Avri Doria writes >Heard about the CSISAC elections recently and thought that I would try to join CSISAC so that next time I too could vote for the civil society >leadership to the OECD advisory. > >I found no information on how one joins, individual or organizational, on the web site http://csisac.org/ >In fact it looks like the website stopped being tended in 2011. The penulatimate posting being a job advert for a new manager/co-ordinator. A bit of a short deadline especially considering the holiday season (31st Dec, advert posted 18th Dec). The job advert suggests edri.org might be able to help, but they don't seem to have posted anything on their site about the OECD since July 2011. >The wiki link was also broken. > >Is CSISAC dead? >Or is it just a small club of founders who no longer have need to a web site or wiki? Amie Stepanovich's link goes to epic.org, maybe they could help? The most recent mention I can find on the OECD site is their Technology Foresight Forum in October 2012, where Anna Fielder of Privacy International (formerly of the UK's National Consumer Council where I met her a few times) was a CSISAC moderator, and Suso Baleato (a CSISAC Policy Advisor) is mentioned as being their "permanent delegate". -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Dec 30 08:42:50 2012 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:42:50 -0200 Subject: [governance] Does CSISAC live? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50E044DA.3000200@cafonso.ca> Avri, CSISAC is using a community space in https://csisac.basecamphq.com which is alive and kicking :) but you need a subscription to get in. frt rgds --c.a. On 12/29/2012 11:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > hi > > Heard about the CSISAC elections recently and thought that I would try to join CSISAC so that next time I too could vote for the civil society leadership to the OECD advisory. > > I found no information on how one joins, individual or organizational, on the web site http://csisac.org/ > In fact it looks like the website stopped being tended in 2011. The wiki link was also broken. > > Is CSISAC dead? > Or is it just a small club of founders who no longer have need to a web site or wiki? > > 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 avri at acm.org Sun Dec 30 08:51:09 2012 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:51:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Does CSISAC live? In-Reply-To: <50E044DA.3000200@cafonso.ca> References: <50E044DA.3000200@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <84D8C5D3-BDC5-403D-AB08-D29A50CFF6EF@acm.org> On 30 Dec 2012, at 08:42, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Avri, CSISAC is using a community space in https://csisac.basecamphq.com which is alive and kicking :) but you need a subscription to get in. Ah, so it is a small group of founders who no longer need either to inform the rest of civil society or to outreach for new members Glad to hear it is 'alive' thanks 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 gurstein at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 10:57:34 2012 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 07:57:34 -0800 Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! In-Reply-To: References: <023601cde551$8654aba0$92fe02e0$@gmail.com> <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> <02c701cde59e$5ab3f8f0$101bead0$@gmail.com> <02cb01cde5a3$138b7930$3aa26b90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <011601cde6a6$7221a6a0$5664f3e0$@gmail.com> I guess, as Milton would say... you don't read my blog... M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 4:56 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; Michael Leibrandt Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! Michael, On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 4:01 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > No, I don't "expect china, Russia or the Arab states to govern in the > global public interest" but nor do I expect that the US government, > Google or Facebook will operate so as to promote the global public interest either. > > As I was just saying, >> The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the >> well-being of the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but >> rather to develop means for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" >> in the global public interest by all parties. > > This I think is an area where civil society and the technical > community should be demonstrating leadership (and hopefully joined by > sympathetic governments and potentially elements of the private > sector) in defining, articulating and pursuing. But that is EXACTLY what happened at WCIT, and you kvetched about it! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 12:53:45 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:53:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] FTC and data... Message-ID: http://blog.varonis.com/data-brokers-too-much-information/ ...,... Data Brokers: Too Much Information Posted on December 28, 2012 by Andy Green I keep coming back to the FTC’s report on new consumer privacy guidelines issued early in the year. Not only do the guidelines give a sense of the agency’s view on online data protection, but it also suggests what new legislation may eventually look like. I bring up the FTC report yet again, because earlier this month, as an end-of-year surprise, it issued an order to several major US information brokers to learn more about their business practices. In the FTC words, information or data brokers, are “companies that collect personal information about consumers from a variety of public and non-public sources and resell the information to other companies.” Sent to nine data brokers, the FTC order requested specific information on the source of their data, how the data is maintained, and consumer’s ability to access and correct inaccurate information. It’s no secret that the FTC has its own ideas about how these brokers should be doing their job. In their guidelines, the FTC calls for a voluntary privacy framework that would support several “substantive” principles, which include data security, reasonable collection limits, sound retention practices, and data accuracy. While these principles apply to all companies that handle consumer data, the FTC sees something special about data brokers. The key point is that consumers don’t have a direct relationship with these companies, and the broker is in the business of selling this data to others. So what’s at issue here? Data brokers are good at connecting online public records to quasi-private information trawled from multiple online sources, including website interactions, cookies, and mobile activity, with the goal of creating detailed profiles. >From voter rolls, campaign contribution lists, “anonymous” hospital data, housing sales, mortgage files, and now, apparently registered gun ownership records, publicly available data alone provides a good starting point in creating a rough sketch. By the way many of these public records started life as paper documents held in a town hall and then were subsequently digitized. More on this implicit loss of privacy later. With not too much difficulty, though, depending on the data and the computing resources, it’s then possible to combine it with other de-identified information and link it, with high likelihood, back to an individual or group, thereby filling in finer details of the consumer portrait. For example, at least one of the data brokers to which the FTC sent its request had done just that: tying personal data it had collected in Facebook to identifiable data stored in its databases. The broker has since changed its Facebook data gathering policy. Ideally, the FTC would like to give consumers the right to access the data mined by the brokers, correct it when it’s invalid, and opt-out if necessary. For those following my posts, this approach should appear familiar—it’s very much in the spirit of the EU’s Data Protection Directive. If we accept the fact that we’ll all have an online profile that is continually extended as more information is made public, then the FTC’s privacy policies are reasonable. On the other hand, if we want to put the genie partially back in the bottle, we may have to rethink the easy availability of public and governmental records, or at least give more choice to consumers about opting in. Public records created before the Internet-era required a visit to a physical location to view, and it would seem that the intention was not to make the data widely and instantly accessible. From what I’ve read about the gun-ownership map controversy in particular, the public data privacy question has actually united people on both sides of the debate on gun laws: with many agreeing that perhaps we shouldn’t too hastily webify public records. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From drc at virtualized.org Sun Dec 30 17:17:33 2012 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:17:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] So Who (or What) is Managing Privacy for/by the 1 Billion+ In-Reply-To: <$ubW5bXi3C4QFAP1@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <039901cde483$50550410$f0ff0c30$@gmail.com> <000f01cde4ab$c08821e0$419865a0$@gmail.com> <6vPH5ewPDa3QFA3P@internetpolicyagency.com> <$ubW5bXi3C4QFAP1@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: <1B30B3DA-C3E5-4517-83EE-223D6B151F5C@virtualized.org> Roland, On Dec 30, 2012, at 4:04 AM, Roland Perry wrote: >> As Avri points out, this is probably a contract law issue. > Privacy (or as we call it Data Protection) is one area that is covered. My understanding (IANAL) is that a contract does not excuse either party from obeying the law. In the scenario you were proposing, I was assuming that the ISP was acting legally in the venue in which it was operating. > This goes straight to the heart of my original point, which is that ordinary consumers don't see a difference between the connectivity provided by their ISP (to the wider Internet) and the connectivity provided by Facebook (to their friends and their photo albums etc). Even assuming this is true (I have not seen studies that either corroborate or refute your assertion), I do not believe the solution to this problem is to try to impose a global regulatory regime that defines my rights to privacy just as I do not believe the solution to (e.g.,) spam is a global regulatory regime that tries to define what is appropriate content for email (or pretty much any of the other WCIT hot topics). As opposed to a global regulatory regime, I think something like EPEAT (epeat.net) for privacy would be a better model. The fact that some people have confused an application that is operated by a single company with the infrastructure operated by myriad independent entities globally suggests to me that ISOC (et al.) have many educational opportunities, not that we should cater to those people's misunderstandings. >> There's a reason "security by obscurity" is considered pejorative :). As security by obscurity can't be relied upon, I believe "privacy by obscurity" is functionally equivalent to "no privacy", particularly as data warehouses continue to grow and data mining techniques continue to improve over time. > > That's almost exactly the argument that Facebook is using to justify withdrawing the ability for people to hide their user names from Search. The fact that Facebook uses the same argument does not detract from the argument. >> To me, it's simple: if you want to keep something private, don't put it on the Internet, regardless of whether the vehicle for posting is Facebook or anything else. > So maybe you wouldn't mind me publishing your Facebook email address? My Facebook email address (along with all other information I've ever put on Facebook) is, as you point out, already published so no, I actually don't mind. Do you somehow think that my (and your) Facebook email address and other information hasn't already been harvested and sold? Once again: if I care about keeping an email address of mine private, I would not post it to public mailing lists/social networks/etc. The fact that I agreed to Facebook's terms and conditions means I have accepted the fact that the information I post on Facebook is no longer private. > I make a distinction between information that's published to at least a subset of the public, and that which is intended to be restricted to a supplier/customer relationship, like utility billing information. Ignoring the question of what "subset of the public" means, how does the distinction you make matter when someone discovers one of the myriad security flaws in the web portal for your utility service, downloads all of your utility billing and usage information, and posts it on Wikileaks? 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 30 18:37:11 2012 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 18:37:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! In-Reply-To: <011601cde6a6$7221a6a0$5664f3e0$@gmail.com> References: <023601cde551$8654aba0$92fe02e0$@gmail.com> <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> <02c701cde59e$5ab3f8f0$101bead0$@gmail.com> <02cb01cde5a3$138b7930$3aa26b90$@gmail.com> <011601cde6a6$7221a6a0$5664f3e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:57 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > I guess, as Milton would say... you don't read my blog... I do, I just don't agree with your analysis very often. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Dec 29 14:26:13 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 21:26:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Privacy Online - Secure banking ad Belgium - This will put psychics out of business,by Avaaz Team Message-ID: <50DF43D5.2070908@gmail.com> This will put psychics out of business *by Avaaz Team VIDEO *The clip is an ad for a secure banking campaign , but it speaks to a wider, scary truth. Here are some steps you can take to protect your personal information online , courtesy of Time Magazine's Techland. Now share this with everyone who needs to see it. http://en.avaaz.org/833/this-will-put-psychics-out-of-business?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social_media&utm_content=_bottom&utm_campaign=hot-videos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 31 07:24:50 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 14:24:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Congress Extends Surveillance Power In-Reply-To: <223FE57F-18FB-4BC9-8D19-E77A66A85321@gmail.com> References: <223FE57F-18FB-4BC9-8D19-E77A66A85321@gmail.com> Message-ID: <50E18412.6050602@gmail.com> http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/311-15/15289-congress-extends-surveillance-power ...,... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit 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 31 09:20:34 2012 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 16:20:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Mass use of encryption? Banks deeply involved in FBI-coordinated suppression of Occupy Wall Steet In-Reply-To: <50E00106.9080403@bluewin.ch> References: <50E00106.9080403@bluewin.ch> Message-ID: <50E19F32.5050406@gmail.com> Is mass use of encryption a good idea? Riaz Banks Deeply Involved in FBI-Coordinated Suppression of "Terrorist" Occupy Wall Street If you had any doubts of the veracity of former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson's depiction of the financial crisis as a "quiet coup," a pre-Christmas release of FBI documents should put them to rest. While I linked to a discussion of the results of the Partnership for Civil Justice's FOIA of FBI materials on Occupy Wall Street, I was remiss in not writing them up earlier. Both the Partnership for Civil Justice and Naomi Wolf at the Guardian (hat tip Scott A) provide good overviews. The PCJ also published the FBI documents it obtained . If you've been following the story of the official response to Occupy Wall Street, it was apparent that the 17 city paramilitary crackdown was coordinated; it came out later that the Department of Homeland Security was the nexus of that operation. The deep FBI involvement is a new and ugly addition to this picture. Several impressions emerge from reading the summaries and dipping into the FBI documents: *The FBI deemed OWS to be a terrorist organization and went into "guilty until proven innocent" mode*. Many of the FBI descriptions of possible OWS actions or those of affiliated organizations like Adbusters consistently look to have taken the most inflammatory snippets and presented them out of context. The FBI also seems to believe that there is no such thing as peaceful protest, that any non-violent activity has the potential to turn violent and therefore should be treated as violent. One document to corporate "clients" warned: Even seemingly peaceful rallies can spur violent activity or be met with resistance by security forces. Bystanders may be arrested or harmed by security forces using water cannons, tear gas or other measures to control crowds. *The banks were deeply involved in the effort to put down OWS*. The executive director of the PCJ stated, "These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America." Naomi Wolf adds: The documents, released after long delay in the week between Christmas and New Year, show a nationwide meta-plot unfolding in city after city in an Orwellian world: six American universities are sites where campus police funneled information about students involved with OWS to the FBI, with the administrations' knowledge (p51); banks sat down with FBI officials to pool information about OWS protesters harvested by private security; plans to crush Occupy events, planned for a month down the road, were made by the FBI -- and offered to the representatives of the same organizations that the protests would target; and even threats of the assassination of OWS leaders by sniper fire -- by whom? Where? -- now remain redacted and undisclosed to those American citizens in danger, contrary to standard FBI practice to inform the person concerned when there is a threat against a political leader (p61). More details from the PCJ summary: As early as August 19, 2011, the FBI in New York was meeting with the New York Stock Exchange to discuss the Occupy Wall Street protests that wouldn't start for another month. By September, prior to the start of the OWS, the FBI was notifying businesses that they might be the focus of an OWS protest... Documents released show coordination between the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and corporate America. They include a report by the Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC), described by the federal government as "a strategic partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the private sector." The DSAC report shows the nature of secret collaboration between American intelligence agencies and their corporate clients -- the document contains a "handling notice" that the information is "meant for use primarily within the corporate security community. Such messages shall not be released in either written or oral form to the media, the general public or other personnel..."....DSAC issued several tips to its corporate clients on "civil unrest" which it defines as ranging from "small, organized rallies to large-scale demonstrations and rioting."... The Federal Reserve in Richmond appears to have had personnel surveilling OWS planning. They were in contact with the FBI in Richmond to "pass on information regarding the movement known as occupy Wall Street." There were repeated communications "to pass on updates of the events and decisions made during the small rallies and the following information received from the Capital Police Intelligence Unit through JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force)."... The Jackson, Mississippi division of the FBI attended a meeting of the Bank Security Group in Biloxi, MS with multiple private banks and the Biloxi Police Department, in which they discussed an announced protest for "National Bad Bank Sit-In-Day" on December 7, 2011. *As a result, many of the perceptions of threats were paranoid*. The FBI's search for Communists in woodpiles Occupiers in midsized and small cities is obvious ovekill. And mind you, this is the same FBI that is nowhere to be found in investigating crisis-related big bank fraud. An individual "leading" Occupy Tampa was tracked when he went to Gainesville. Anchorage, Alaska, Denver, Colorado, Birmingham, Alabama, Jackson, Mississippi, Memphis, Tennessee, and Green Bay, Wisconsin all had Occupy-related briefings and FBI activity. The rationale for this overkill was that OWS was a terrorist threat. That's a striking contrast with the media depiction of the movement when it was in its encampment phase as a bunch of directionless hippies with no message. But the FBI response highlights how anything other than corporate or otherwise officially sanctioned assembly is no longer permitted in America. The main objection to OWS really isn't violence, even though that serves as the excuse for the official crackdown. It was that it would be inconvenient and embarrassing to Important Organizations and People. Now I have to tell you as a resident of New York City, we are subject to inconvenient things on a regular basis. I'd have a lot less reason to take exception to the eviction of OWS if the officialdom was evenhanded about making the city efficient and keeping the streets clear by getting rid of (for starters) all parades, all street fairs, the marathon, and all Presidential visits (well maybe he can make a minimally invasive stop, say by going down the FDR to the UN and staying in those environs). Wolf draws the ugly conclusion: Jason Leopold, at Truthout.org, who has sought similar documents for more than a year, reported that the FBI falsely asserted in response to his own FOIA requests that no documents related to its infiltration of Occupy Wall Street existed at all. But the release may be strategic: if you are an Occupy activist and see how your information is being sent to terrorism task forces and fusion centers, not to mention the "longterm plans" of some redacted group to shoot you, this document is quite the deterrent. There is a new twist: the merger of the private sector, DHS and the FBI means that any of us can become WikiLeaks, a point that Julian Assange was trying to make in explaining the argument behind his recent book. The fusion of the tracking of money and the suppression of dissent means that a huge area of vulnerability in civil society -- people's income streams and financial records -- is now firmly in the hands of the banks, which are, in turn, now in the business of tracking your dissent. Assange has suggested a partial solution: the widespread use of encryption . The problem with using encryption now is that it's like waving a red flag in front of the NSA and asking them to take interest in you. But if a meaningful percentage of the population, say as many as 3%, were to start using it for most of their communications as part of a large-scale plan, it would throw a wrench into the system. The officialdom would be presented with an unduly large list of parties of interest, most of whom by design would be uninteresting from a threat/intelligence perspective. And if this sort of thing were to take place, anyone who thought they might be objects of interest for the wrong reasons, as in they were members of Occupy, could also take up encrypting their messages for fun and sport. The peculiar part of this overreaction is it says that banks and government officials see peaceful protests as a threat to their hold on power. It's odd that they see their position as precarious, unless they have convinced themselves of their vulnerability as an excuse for clamping down even harder on the rest of us. Topics: Banana republic , Banking industry , Income disparity , Legal , Politics , Social policy , Social values , The destruction of the middle class Email This Post Email This Post Posted by Yves Smith at 3:24 am No Comments » Links to this post Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/banks-deeply-involved-in-fbi-coordinated-suppression-of-terrorist-occupy-wall-street.html#ku6KguAzFZt6cUGw.99 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1065 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Dec 31 12:42:11 2012 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 12:42:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! In-Reply-To: <555E24F6B7DB4CB59BA7A9746DDC4C3E@yourh4vl8csyi6> References: <023601cde551$8654aba0$92fe02e0$@gmail.com> <7E3C2C354F234F6ABA07A09298A909E2@yourh4vl8csyi6> <02c701cde59e$5ab3f8f0$101bead0$@gmail.com> <02cb01cde5a3$138b7930$3aa26b90$@gmail.com> <555E24F6B7DB4CB59BA7A9746DDC4C3E@yourh4vl8csyi6> Message-ID: On Dec 29, 2012 6:31 PM, "Michael Leibrandt" wrote: On other global issues like climate change, where the so-called "hands-off" people are basically using the same argumets ("through innovation, free unregulated markets do the best job"), a significant part of cs has, well, at least some doubts if this is actually the right way to move forward. And the same govenments who are raving about cs support in the IG arena, show significant more distance when it comes to issues where cs statements are not in line with business interests... Paul Lehto: this is also some good evidence that global cs positions are unprincipled in one or both of these areas, with the attitude towards the status quo controlling the basic position taken. However, when global cs takes positions at variance with business it is much more likely to be a thoughtful view. > Michael, Berlin > > > On 29-Dec-2012, at 14:31, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> No, I don't "expect china, Russia or the Arab states to govern in the global >> public interest" but nor do I expect that the US government, Google or >> Facebook will operate so as to promote the global public interest either. >> >> As I was just saying, >>> >>> The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the >>> well-being of the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but rather >>> to develop means for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" in the >>> global public interest by all parties. >> >> >> This I think is an area where civil society and the technical community >> should be demonstrating leadership (and hopefully joined by sympathetic >> governments and potentially elements of the private sector) in defining, >> articulating and pursuing. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] >> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:35 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >> Cc: Michael Leibrandt; >> Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! >> >> Do you expect china, Russia or the Arab states to govern in the global >> public interest? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 29-Dec-2012, at 13:57, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> My point in including Google in the "rogues gallery" is simply to >>> highlight the central role that Google was playing in the recent >>> Internet Freedom/Hands off the Internet campaign... My point conerning >>> Facebook is linked to the fact that FB because of its very size and >>> scope (market >>> dominance?) is taking on (for some at least) a quasi official status >>> (the official election results in Ghana were first announced on FB for >> >> example). >>> >>> >>> But overall my intention was to point to the hypocrisy of the >>> overwhelming campaigns from certain governments and certain elements >>> of the private sector, civil society, and the technical community >>> concerning "hands off the Internet" when it comes from certain >>> directions (such as the governments of China or Russia) while the same >>> folks choose to ignore (or at least draw no connection with) quite >>> blatant and parallel intrusions rather closer to home. >>> >>> The issue of course, for those with a sincere interest in the >>> well-being of the Internet, is not "hands off the Internet" but rather >>> to develop means for ensuring that the Internet is "managed" in the >>> global public interest by all parties. >>> >>> M >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Michael Leibrandt [mailto:michael_leibrandt at web.de] >>> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 11:46 PM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> If your local car dealer rejects to sell you a car, or if the local >>> night club doesn't let you in, there isn't much you can do about it. >>> Private providers of goods and services are generally free to decide whom >> >> to serve. >>> >>> At least until it becomes an act of discrimination, e. g. against >>> blacks, gays or jews. Or if the provider has a monopoly (clearly not >>> the case for Google or Facebook), or has such a strong market position >>> that it can actually control the market. >>> >>> So to compare government action and company behaviour is quite difficult. >>> But there is already enough hypocrisy to think about with regard to >>> stakeholders of the same category ;-) >>> >>> Michael, Berlin >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "michael gurstein" >>> To: >>> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 12:17 AM >>> Subject: [governance] Yes! Hands off the Internet! >>> >>> >>>> (from today's various Internet news feeds.... >>>> >>>> Yes, for sure, these hands off the Internet. >>> >>> http://www.worldcrunch.com/culture-society/china-tightens-internet-con >>> trol-b >>> ans-anonymity-allows-government-to-delete-posts/censorship-online-twit >>> ter-we >>>> >>>> ibo-xinhua-/c3s10510/#.UN2qcI7896I >>>> http://tinyurl.com/cryyx5l >>>> >>>> And these >>> >>> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121228/07170621508/fisa-is-renewed- >>> with-a >>>> >>>> ll-its-problems-still-intact.shtml >>>> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >>>> >>>> And these >>> >>> http://torrentfreak.com/google-removed-50-million-pirate-search-result >>> s-this >>>> >>>> -year-121228/ >>>> http://tinyurl.com/d7trx4j >>>> >>>> And these >>> >>> http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/12/washingtons-blog-facebook-censo >>> rs-pro >>>> >>>> minent-political-critics.html >>>> http://tinyurl.com/cn72l3v >>>> >>>> Maybe a New Year's Resolution: Enough with the hypocrisy! >>>> >>>> M >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> ------ >>> ---- >>> >>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>> >>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Dec 31 18:34:36 2012 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 23:34:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] Curiouser and Curiouser Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B1A01C4@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Happy New Year! http://dslprime.com/dslprime/42-d/4881-france-telecom-free-to-google-youtube-youre-blocked-unless-you-pay If it is all French carriers - agreeing, let's not use that word colluding - then isn't that neutral? ; ) Lee -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t